Anyway, what if we were the last priests and oracles of dead pagan gods in the Early Middle Ages and we met in the temple of some forgotten Bronze age serpent deity and also we were both girls?
Doug Jones
noise dept.

roma★
Jules of Nature
official daine visual archive

No title available

@theartofmadeline
Sade Olutola
NASA
Sweet Seals For You, Always
h
sheepfilms
cherry valley forever
Interview Vampire Daily

pixel skylines
occasionally subtle
Not today Justin

No title available
No title available
One Nice Bug Per Day
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Canada
seen from United States

seen from Brunei
seen from Brazil

seen from Malaysia

seen from Türkiye

seen from Georgia
seen from United States
seen from Dominican Republic

seen from Barbados

seen from Australia
seen from India
seen from Australia
seen from Australia
seen from United States
@schizochroal
Anyway, what if we were the last priests and oracles of dead pagan gods in the Early Middle Ages and we met in the temple of some forgotten Bronze age serpent deity and also we were both girls?
I had a dream last night where I was the last priest and oracle of Hermes, sometime around 500-900 CE. The hidden village temple I had once studied at, somewhere in the mountains of the Balkans, had been destroyed in my youth, and now I wandered the Mediterranean, hoping to find yet a living god who had not yet been forsaken to the abyss.
I traveled to a small islet southeast of Rhodes. Once a temple center, it was almost entirely leveled, only a few scattered pillars remained. Between these pillars lay a flat stone slightly ajar of an opening, that had been covering a stairway to a crypt. I pulled aside the stone and descended into the crypt, an L shaped room, with a low vaulted ceiling constructed of dark stone blocks. It was already illuminated by a single oil lamp, which cast shadows that obscured all but the remains of a wooden altar, now decomposed past the point of recognizability, and the figure of another woman, dressed in a faded red cloak with a finely patterned golden trim.
She was turned to face something I could not see, blocked by the shadows cast by her lamp. She spoke, addressing me without moving her gaze, recognizing me by providence and our shared stations in life.
Her Coptic inflected voice was low and tired sounding, bearing with it a pain that I could not hope to temper, and she related to me the story of the now nameless god that was enshrined here.
Once this goddess had been generated by generations, the faith in her surviving countless conquesta and cultural change and countless and even the loss of her original name. She bequeathed fertile fields and rains to the lands that would become Caria and Lycia, and kind succor to those in their last moments. Even when she had been treated as a strange foreign serpent by the people that would later come to inhabit these lands, she persisted on in granting them grace, even when they forgot her rituals she accepted new ones, when they castigated her traditions she sought merely to reconcile them with ones these new inhabitants would find acceptable. She asked for little in sacrifice, satisfied to breathe even the leftover smoke of those other gods so long as she was still remembered in passing.
Both me and the woman in red had been drawn here, as we were ourselves oracles of different gods with a serpent nature. For myself, Hermes with his caduceus, while she was the last priestess of the Egyptian goddess once known as Wadjet, although she no longer knew even the name of her patron, referring to her only by the Greek Uto.
The forgotten god whose temple we stood in now was more obscure to us both, but we had heard her call, even so, and been brought here together. After she had told the story granted to her by vision, I related what I knew of this place , derived from history.
"This island once served as a place of worship for several gods, most recently that of Apollo. Perhaps those who built that temple believed this nameless god to be Python? It has been mostly abandoned for many years, but some years ago it seems that this island was bequeathed by an emperor to the bishop in Rhodes as a personal gift. The bishop leveled what remained of the temples and built a manor, only for that manor to be razed and the bishop killed during the Persian invasion. It seems her temple was spared this destruction only by being hidden underneath that which was once Apollo's."
The woman in red responded "Even the gods that once forsook others are forsaken themselves, what remains anywhere but ash?"
But while her words seemed despondent, her tone belied this with a tinge of hope, as she gestures to a small creature, in one small alcove of the crypt. Scarcely larger than a mouse, she resembled a small squat adder, but with a tale ending in the shape of a diamond and eyes that were the color of the sky. The goddess of this forgotten temple, somehow still holding on. It was at this moment I knew why we were both drawn here.
I mused that this might be the last serpent god with any devotees in the whole of creation, as even Jormungander to the far north had been made into naught but a demon.
The woman in red responded "Such a wicked betrayal has it been done to all serpents, to be cast as betrayers themselves by so many. But I suppose you would know betrayal better than anyone?"
At this point I had a flash of recollection, from one of my past oracular visions: the story of how once the Romans had tried to make their gods and those of my ancestors as one, how Hermes was forced to share a divine body with Mercury, and how he was trapped within himself by the Roman god, who would betray even his fellow Dei Consentes, when he came to earth and became the man named Jesus.
Returning to the present I prepared an offering to the nameless serpent that sat quivering before us. A burnt offering seemed too uncouth, given the circumstances, so with a silent prayer I cut open my hand with my knife, and offered her a dish of my own blood, while chanting a prayer without words.
i really wanted to draw this so i did
im so mad that we defined mammals to include monotremes. fuck you those are Late Surviving Non Mammalian Cynodonts.
i forgot how much this post makes people who know less about animal taxonomy than me want to explain animal taxonomy to me
i think its kinda funny how like every time someone does another phylogeny of basal non-therian mammals /mammaliaforms one group seen before as a mammal seemingly randomly gets decided to be a cynodont instead and in the next phylogeny they are mammals again but then a different group is kicked out of the "true mammal" category. Would be a lot less confusing if we just limited Mammalia to Theria, but I think a lot of this gets wrapped up in the whole "oh we have been calling such and such group mammals for 150 years so it would be confusing to not call them that anymore, even if the label doesn't really make a lot of phylogenetic sense".
Therian mammals and monotremes have very few plesiomorphic features in common that they don't also share with a variety of non-mammal mammaliaforms cynodonts. But putting monotremes in a new group would be "confusing" and therefore bad.
Honestly this seems to be this really common assumption that taxonomists make, that splitting (wrt to higher level clades) is inherently more "confusing" than lumping, even though I think in many cases unnecessary lumping is what is causing this "confusion" in the first place.
still caring about internet friends you lost touch with years ago is so embarrassing. yeah i had a deam we met up irl recently. the last time we spoke was maybe 7-8 years ago. i still wear the laces we randomly decided was a sign of our friendship. i dont know what any of your socials are or if youre even active on any. sometimes i see someones art resemble yours and i wonder for hours. do you still go by that name you chose? whenever i see it i wonder if its you. we couldve passed each other in this vastness a thousand times and not have a clue.
we were lonely kids having fun together. do you remember?
its kind of a funny pattern at this point. I see a trailer or the first episode coming out for a show or another type of media, and think to myself "oh this is going to be the kind of thing that a lot of messy transfems really like" and within a week or two, before I even see people talking about it positively I see like multiple instances of people trying to write it off as problematic with the vaguest of rationales.
There's an interaction I had online a little while ago that I think about a lot. I shared (in a fairly "woke" space) that recent-ish meta study that showed that while we don't have a lot of actual usable data on the subject, everything we currently have on transfem athletes gives us no real reason to think they have an athletic advantage. and people were not happy with this. One person immediately went in talking about a time a professional men's soccer team beat a professional women's soccer team by a large margin. And this was generally accepted and supported; no one but me seemed able to notice how irrelevant that was. No one cared that in a conversation about transfems on estrogen they pulled out an isolated instance of cisgender men competing against cisgender women. No one cared that they ignored everything about the study I shared and instead just said "no amount of estrogen can account for that athletic difference" and backing that claim up with absolutely nothing. No one cared they said, and I quote, "[in high level athletics] trans women are a threat to cis women." They admitted to cherrypicking, saying that they could find as many examples of men beating women as they wanted. And this was considered (through the democracy of up/downvotes) to be better evidence and citation than the specific metanalysis I shared that covered 50+ studies.
After poking and prodding they acknowledged that hrt will remove the benefits of testosterone on muscle mass, but insisted that trans women have "larger more rugged skeletons" that give them an insurmountable athletic advantage in all sports. It's a pretty bog standard transmisogynistic claim, yes, but the amount of critical thought required to kill here was incredible. saying with your whole chest that all sports come down to how tall you are and how dense your bones are. choosing to ignore that cis women also can be tall and have dense bones, and will still be allowed to compete. When a cis women is big and strong, its Always because she is a good athlete. When a trans woman is big and strong, no matter how much medical transition she does it's Always because she was "born male."
just. yeah it's to be expected. no I was not really surprised by any of this. But it is an example of how much thinking people are willing to turn off in their minds to see trans women and our bodies as a) ultimately and immutably Male and b) inherently dangerous, even in allegedly progressive spaces. and you can't argue with it. you tell people "hrt meaningfully changes trans people's bodies and regardless there's way less difference between 'male' and 'female' bodies than you think" and they look at you like you've grown a second head and sister, they're on their second mission from king eurystheus
It's tangential to your point, but I will say there is actually very strong evidence that the bone density of medically transitioned trans women is more similar to cis women (although generally lower!). Curiously there has been at least one study that has shown that trans women, before transitioning, have lower bone density than cis men or cis women!
(https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6709704/)
Important to note though, despite common misconceptions about this, cis men and pre-menopausal cis women on average actually have very similar overall bone densities, and some bones are actually denser in cis women on average.
Trans women actually tend to have weirdly low bone densities prior to transition (this is not the case for trans men, generally), and HRT actually brings the bone density up to a more normal female average.
I'm not sure it's ever been studied as to why trans women have low BMD prior to transition though, but suffice to say someone talking about trans women having denser bones is not just wrong, they have it completely backwards.
I have this vague idea for a book based at least in part on my fictional world, but its been so long since I've actually written anything of substantial length. The idea for the book would be a sort of epistolary in format, with various seemingly unrelated texts, documents and short stories slowly piecing together to a couple different narratives (taking place during different time periods) that would be interwoven through thematic elements.
Idk I've had this idea for a long time, and I've thought about doing other kind of artistic projects with it but the only thing I actually know how to do is write. But I'm not sure I'm actually very good at writing, at least not enough to pull off other vision I have.
With regards to that last reblog;
The language that Gill-Peterson and Amin use is obviously a pretty terrible way to talk about nonbinary identity among people who were CAMAB, after all wtf even is a "femme"?? its used so ambiguously and multifariously in academic queer theory that its basically useless, and tbh even in casual conversation with regards to feminine gay men or lesbians it honestly lacks much if any coherency. But acknowledging their linguistic faults isn't to pretend as if their is no problem with my own language, derived as it is from the collective discourse of tumblr/ social media transfeminists.
"Transfeminine" (and its derivative, transfem) as a term is inherently fraught, while its general definition lacks the overwhelming ambiguity of terms like "femme", and is useful in that regard, it nonetheless homogenizes nonbinary people, contextualizing their identity in terms of trans womanhood alone, and i think is ultimately kind of alienating for a lot of people (some people don't want to called "feminine" after all). Even a construction like "nonbinary transfeminine person" is when looking merely at the way that internal identity interacts with society is actually conflating at least four different kinds of gender identity together; people who are a comfortable being socially considered men, people who are comfortable being socially considered women, people who are comfortable being socially considered both/either, and people who are not comfortable being socially considered as either. And within each of these kinds of gender identity, exist spectra, one might be comfortable being considered a woman in some social contexts, but not others, for instance.
And this is itself still a simplification, because while social considerations are the easiest part of transness to theorize about from a sociological perspective, this shouldn't be taken as proof that they are the sole scriptura from which all other aspects of transness arise, for many people physical/medical transition is equally or more important than social considerations, and while treating transness as a medical condition is obviously a bad idea, treating the physiological aspects of transness as merely consequence of its social definition risks not only veering into "gender abolitionist" TERFy worldviews, but also making invisible those for whom the physical aspects of transition are their primary source of trans identity.
And to be fair to the people who first started using the word transfeminine to refer to all trans and nb people who were CAMAB, I think they were very aware of the vast differences among the people they were grouping under this term, and it was chosen not as a perfect solution but in light of the absence of one, a word that was "good enough", to refer to a broad collection of people who still share certain societal experiences and tend to be shoved into the same social categories regardless of personal identity, that could be specific enough to have a relatively formal definition but still naturally constructed enough such that it could be readily understood via inference. But its still frustrating that what is "good enough" or maybe even "good as can be reasonably expected, given the constraints" is still so obviously flawed as a term.
But what are the alternatives? The aforementioned Jules Gill-peterson, I believed coined the word transfeminized, and there are advantages to using this inflected form of the word. Being in the passive voice, it suggests to the reader/listener that this grouping was something done to people (by society) rather than the product of their own identity. And this is true, to a large extent, but like.... I dunnoo.... ...doesn't that kinda just seem like a copout to the problem? Sure you are conjugating the word differently, but inflections are easily undone, the actual word hasn't really changed, and i think its very easy to switch from transfeminized to transfeminine without really even meaning to. I can't help but think, from the perspective of one who has an issue with the word "transfeminine" isn't this just a bit of sophistry? Like adding a rhetorical epicycle to a model that still revolves around the trans woman as the center of its universe.
Honestly I'm not sure, I am, after all , a person quite comfortable being described as feminine, and while I recognize the problems with the term "transfeminine" I don't personally "experience those problems", so to speak. Maybe that inflectional derivation adds enough of a cushion that the term no longer stings the same way. But I have to wonder, if one concedes the definition of transfemininity to the passive voice, something that is done to people by society, doesn't this add a layer of ambiguity that the original adjective lacked? Some people that are "transfeminine" might not really perceive being transfeminized by society, nor be perceived by others as such. And while im generally of the belief that descriptive categories are necessary in this sort of discussion, of course some people that can reasonably be described as being transfeminized would see themselves as being cis men.
TMA falls into the same pitfalls, and for some reason using the terms TMA and TME seem to attract the most obnoxious kind of people to have these conversations with, in a way that is even more magnetic for bad faith arguers than almost every other term. It doesn't escape me that the reason these conversations become so difficult to have is in large part because of this history, wherein transfeminine (alas i still don't have a better word to use) transfeminists will coin terminology to refer to themselves or their experiences with all knowledge of the necessary imperfection of those terms (usually as a replacement for an earlier term they were critiqued over using), and are nonetheless interminably criticized for using those terms by bad faith arguers who are more interested in just erasing the possibility of us actually talking about our experiences than actually trying to arrive at a better solution for doing so.
This turns what is already a difficult discussion into a quagmire, and i think puts basically everyone who even tries to have these discussions in good faith on edge to the point where they retreat into reactionary defensiveness, wherein they forget the very real people that this terminology poorly serves actually exist and matter, and like idk i think transfeminine nonbinary people who aren't women get erased and ignored enough already it sucks that this dynamic ultimately contributes to that as well.
I guess the best solution would probably be if transfeminism had the cultural power to just invent a term largely a priori, like idk ""Leirurine" that has no obvious connection with current language used to describe gender, and then just get everyone to start using that term, or lacking that find some archaic reference to re-contextualize and re-use like maybe somethin from greek or like old english maybe... ...as if that would ever cause any problems right?
To be honest I won't pretend to have a solution, if everyone started using "leirurine" or whatever tomorrow i guess it would solve some of those problems but that's not a realistic scenario and it would inevitably lead to problems of its own. More than anything I just wish there was more of a dialogue with transfeminine nonbinary people who aren't women with those who are, cause thats probably the only way to make something better than what is currently "good enough".
Kadji Amin joins Jules to talk the category nonbinary, the asymmetry of trans masculinity and trans femininity, and a shared love of f*gottr
okay yeah no the more i think about this article the more it pisses me off. despite regularly recognizing that yes, transmisogyny is a real force that makes transfemininity more scrutinized than transmasculinity, the underlying disregard for the experience of transfems and entitlement to us as, like, cultural movers permeates the whole article.
this man states that he was perfectly comfortable within lesbian spaces moving from lesbian to butch to trans manhood, and then is shocked and confused when he's unwelcome in gay male spaces. all the while, there is absolutely no regard for the idea that trans women might want to be in lesbian spaces. he then thinks, well, there should be spaced carved out by transfems for Feminine Men, and that space should manifest as essentially a gradient between gay men and trans women.
So, I thought, okay, gay male culture has done its best to kill the possibility of faggotry, but here are nonbinary femmes bravely trying to resuscitate it as a living possibility rather than a site of abjection. But as time has gone by, I’ve started to wonder if maybe that’s not what they’re doing, and it’s still unclear to me because of the lack of a space for that kind of discourse, or a refusal to explain themselves in that kind of way.
The idea that nonbinary femmes might want to be lesbians, or to exist in transfem spaces for transfems, does not occur to him.
It paints a picture of a man to whole the staus quo of lesbianism as defined by AFABness is unquestioned and natural, but when it comes to gay manhood, he assumes that transfems should be tied to it by AMABness, yet also assumes that he should be welcome. The idea that his unwelcomeness as a gay man had anything to do with being a trans man is not once brought up! It's because there are no feminine gay men, which is something transfems should be doing! Essentially he expects the transfem community to work to give him a dual citizenship as a gay man and a lesbian, all while seeing transfemininity as little more than an extension of the gay male community, all while expressing not even a whiff of the concept that we can be lesbians and should be welcome in the lesbian community.
The contrast between the parts written by Gill-Peterson and the parts written by Amin is so dramatic that its actually kind of comical.
While i don't agree with everything she says in this piece, for the most part her analysis of nonbinary identity and the way it interacts with trans misogyny, while maybe a bit surface level, Gill-Peterson is for the most part decently insightful and clearly understands transfem nonbinarism (and the difficulties vis a vis identity negotiation and legibility in society that occupying that identity entails) to a degree, and appears to be aware of the difference between the way it is culturally and historically perceived and the actual way that identity is understood by those that have it. I still think her analysis is a bit too reliant on the assumption of transfems as being primarily attracted to men, but it at least allows for the possibility of bi or lesbian nonbinary transfems, even if they are clearly de-centered from what she is talking about.
Then its like a jump cut to Amin just whining about how nonbinary transfems aren't just treated like faggier gay men by other gay men, because that's clearly how he (Amin) sees them, and Amin also wants to be that. And its like pretty obvious that he basically sees transfeminity as just a gradient within "gay maledom" and has no real way of understanding it outside of that, and it just feels like someone who has basically no idea of what he is talking about outside of his own constructed narratives around the mythologized "faggot-transfem-nonbinary-queen" that he clearly fetishizes. And after he confidently states all this in such a way where he clearly thinks he is actually sooo much smarter and more insightful than Gill-Peterson she'll just respond like "wow you are so smart and you know so much more than me" and then she'll try to take what he said in a way that isn't just completely idiotic and then he'll respond to her, seemingly ignoring most of the actually interesting or insightful points she made, and continuing on the same weird focus he had before and be like "trans femmes are the best kind of gay men!" . And she'll again be like "God that is so true, and really gets to heart of the issue".
Yeah you really hit the nail on the head. These two are confidently clueless about nonbinary identity in the most frustrating way. And their complete inability to understand that the spectrum of womanhood is not isolated to trans men makes my blood boil. Like, oh, if you're attracted to women, you can be a tomboy or butch or whatever. But only if you're transmasculine obviously. They understand a fundamental difference between women and trans women because they believe that gender is both essential and ontological which renders them absolutely incapable of a more substantial analysis of gender.
The thing is, I don't really know if I can say that Jules Gill-peterson is fully clueless, because a decent chunk of what she says is in this piece is pretty well thought out, and I understand the perspective where its coming from. Its points to real issues with definition and identity-boundary-drawing with regards to nonbinary identity; i.e. the whole idea of a binary trans woman is itself kinda fraught, and a lot of people that hold the seemingly legible identity of "binary trans woman" actually see themselves as nonbinary (myself included) but faced a sort of societal funnel that pushed us into a more binary position.
This creates a contrast with nonbinary transfeminine people who don't subsume their identity under the binary categories, and this is a real issue for a lot of theories of trans feminism, because it can make certain models not really work as well, especially if you view being "nonbinary" as a binary, static thing. But she presents it as this sort ambiguous, unstudied mystery, and maybe it is from the perspective of "academic trans feminism", which tends to view transfeminine people thru a homogenizing, broadly-historicist viewpoint.
But.... Its not actually that hard to get, especially if you get your head out of your own theoretical ass. Some people aren't men but don't want to be women either. The way these identities are perceived by society at large and by the queer community certainly is massively different between people who were CAFAB vs those who were CAMAB, but ultimately if you can't accept that someone's personal identity is more important in defining their gender than society's perception of them, you have basically conceded the first and most basic tenet of transfeminism anyway. She talks about this stuff as is if these concepts are like some abstract thing that needs to be deeply researched, when the answer to a lot of the things she is questioning are pretty simple. That she talks about these things so intelligently, yet imagines away the simple solution as if it is a distant undiscovered academic theory, suggests a couple things.
One of these, is that she is obviously creating space for Amin to clueless pontificate, because if she actually answered the questions she posed it wouldn't give him nearly as any chances to change the subject to how he thinks transfems are basically just gay men or whatever else he says. The other, and i think ultimately more telling, is that I think the answer to this question makes her kind of uncomfortable, because the solution at is most vulgar articulation is basically the fact that, even if it isn't something reflected in societal treatment of transfemine people, material circumstances, or even the ways we try to make our identities legible to others, when it comes to our actual internal identities, some people are "more" nonbinary than others.
Put in a less inflammatory way, its the understanding that I, ( and jules Gill Peterson for that matter) as a person that is at least relatively comfortable being treated and considered as a woman by society in most contexts have a fundamental difference in the way that I am trans compared to a transfeminine person who does not feel comfortable being treated or considered as a woman by society in any context. This difference while not huge, and while it might be rendered illegible in the context of societal treatment and cultural perception, is nonetheless irreducible as a part of our respective trans identities. It doesn't need further theoretical justification, someone who says "I'm not a man, but I'm also not a woman" is just as justified by that fundamental axiom of trans identity as someone who says "I'm not a man, I'm a woman".
Now at a certain level, I just don't think Kadji Amin actually does hold trans identity as axiomatic, he might consider it for his own identity and maybe other trans men, but he certainly doesn't consider it to be the case for transfeminine people, who he pretty clearly sees as fundamentally some kind of man, whose identities are purely a product of their material conditions. But like, this is the guy who has famously called introspection a bourgeois practice, so like, I'm honestly inclined to think he basically doesn't think trans identity is real at all. Or maybe he only thinks it bourgeois when transfems introspect lmao.
But while Gill-peterson may share her partners beliefs on the matter, thats not really the vibe I got. rather I think the reason nonbinary identity, as something irreducible, makes her uncomfortable is partially because it challenges her own homogenizing worldview of other transfem people, but also something far more personal. She is a woman, attracted to men, dating a man. She is in what to me seems pretty clearly to be, a straight relationship. And she is also embarrassed or maybe even in denial about this fact, because she and her partner both seem to consider themselves authorities on and embodiments of queerness as an ideal. To admit they are in a straight relationship (even one as obviously queer as one between two trans people) would allow for the fact that they aren't actually the end-all be all of queerness.
In light of this embarrassment, a lot of the holes of her analysis become a lot more explicable, as too is the fact that she keeps saying she agrees with Amin even when the weird shit he says borderline contradicts her own points. Lesbian trans women are talked around because acknowledging that a trans woman dating a woman is in a gay relationship, means that she as a trans woman dating a man is in a straight relationship. Nonbinary transfeminine people who don't consider themselves women become an ambiguous mystery because accepting that their identity as not women or men as fundamental means that she has to accept her identity as a woman is fundamental in the same way, and if she is fundamentally a woman who is dating someone who is fundamentally a man, then she is in a fundamentally straight relationship.
Her embarrassment (and denial) of being straight, sabotages not only her own analysis but also leads her to agreeing with her partner's blanchardian and honestly entitled views of transfemininity, even when they contradict her own points.
Kadji Amin joins Jules to talk the category nonbinary, the asymmetry of trans masculinity and trans femininity, and a shared love of f*gottr
okay yeah no the more i think about this article the more it pisses me off. despite regularly recognizing that yes, transmisogyny is a real force that makes transfemininity more scrutinized than transmasculinity, the underlying disregard for the experience of transfems and entitlement to us as, like, cultural movers permeates the whole article.
this man states that he was perfectly comfortable within lesbian spaces moving from lesbian to butch to trans manhood, and then is shocked and confused when he's unwelcome in gay male spaces. all the while, there is absolutely no regard for the idea that trans women might want to be in lesbian spaces. he then thinks, well, there should be spaced carved out by transfems for Feminine Men, and that space should manifest as essentially a gradient between gay men and trans women.
So, I thought, okay, gay male culture has done its best to kill the possibility of faggotry, but here are nonbinary femmes bravely trying to resuscitate it as a living possibility rather than a site of abjection. But as time has gone by, I’ve started to wonder if maybe that’s not what they’re doing, and it’s still unclear to me because of the lack of a space for that kind of discourse, or a refusal to explain themselves in that kind of way.
The idea that nonbinary femmes might want to be lesbians, or to exist in transfem spaces for transfems, does not occur to him.
It paints a picture of a man to whole the staus quo of lesbianism as defined by AFABness is unquestioned and natural, but when it comes to gay manhood, he assumes that transfems should be tied to it by AMABness, yet also assumes that he should be welcome. The idea that his unwelcomeness as a gay man had anything to do with being a trans man is not once brought up! It's because there are no feminine gay men, which is something transfems should be doing! Essentially he expects the transfem community to work to give him a dual citizenship as a gay man and a lesbian, all while seeing transfemininity as little more than an extension of the gay male community, all while expressing not even a whiff of the concept that we can be lesbians and should be welcome in the lesbian community.
The contrast between the parts written by Gill-Peterson and the parts written by Amin is so dramatic that its actually kind of comical.
While i don't agree with everything she says in this piece, for the most part her analysis of nonbinary identity and the way it interacts with trans misogyny, while maybe a bit surface level, Gill-Peterson is for the most part decently insightful and clearly understands transfem nonbinarism (and the difficulties vis a vis identity negotiation and legibility in society that occupying that identity entails) to a degree, and appears to be aware of the difference between the way it is culturally and historically perceived and the actual way that identity is understood by those that have it. I still think her analysis is a bit too reliant on the assumption of transfems as being primarily attracted to men, but it at least allows for the possibility of bi or lesbian nonbinary transfems, even if they are clearly de-centered from what she is talking about.
Then its like a jump cut to Amin just whining about how nonbinary transfems aren't just treated like faggier gay men by other gay men, because that's clearly how he (Amin) sees them, and Amin also wants to be that. And its like pretty obvious that he basically sees transfeminity as just a gradient within "gay maledom" and has no real way of understanding it outside of that, and it just feels like someone who has basically no idea of what he is talking about outside of his own constructed narratives around the mythologized "faggot-transfem-nonbinary-queen" that he clearly fetishizes. And after he confidently states all this in such a way where he clearly thinks he is actually sooo much smarter and more insightful than Gill-Peterson she'll just respond like "wow you are so smart and you know so much more than me" and then she'll try to take what he said in a way that isn't just completely idiotic and then he'll respond to her, seemingly ignoring most of the actually interesting or insightful points she made, and continuing on the same weird focus he had before and be like "trans femmes are the best kind of gay men!" . And she'll again be like "God that is so true, and really gets to heart of the issue".
I already didn't really like the last 2 seasons of The Boys, but watching the entirety of Black Sails before watching the last two episodes of it made my opinion drop even further.
Biggest issue with black flag is that I thought it could have used a few extra episodes in between season 3 and 4. By contrast I think The Boys probably would've been better getting canceled midway thru season 3.
There is a "Natural Grocers" in the strip mall across the street from my apartment, and for some reason the outer wall of it always has like 4-5 huge harvestmen on it. I don't know why they like that spot in particular ,but I've never seen them on any of the other walls of the strip mall or nearby buildings. Today I saw one that was larger than any harvestmen I've ever seen prior.
This one had a leg span that was easily 8 cm/ 3 inches, probably more. And it's body was about the size of a honeybee.
Something about summer makes it so the only food I want to eat is fruit and juice.
Maybe this is too hot of a take, but I think "crustacean" as the term is currently scientifically defined is misleading and reductive, and I think actively undermines attempts to understand the true diversity of arthropods and their revolutionary relationship.
Obviously this is true for a lot of paraphyletic groupings, but I think this is especially a problem for crustaceans because for the most part, unless you are a researcher or a nerd your idea of a crustacean is probably limited to a very specific group of "crustaceans" namely the multicrustacea, or for a lot of people even just malacostraca. The general idea of "crustacean" is mostly crabs and their allies, lobsters, shrimps, krill, mantis shrimps, isopods, and maybe if they are a bit more knowledgeable barnacles and maybe even copepods.
So when most people hear that insects should actually be considered derived crustaceans they are imagining them evolving from a crab, shrimp or otherwise fundamentally multicrustacean or even malacostracan ancestor, when the reality is that the common ancestor of malacostracan and insects would have likely far more resembled various other stem mandibulates and other Cambrian weirdos. Cause that's kinda what the closest "crustacean" relatives to insects are, a bunch of evolutionary weirdos that look more like something out the Cambrian than a modern crustacean.
I don't think anything would fundamentally be lost if people started to refer to branchiopods and remipedes as their own independent groups of arthropods, alongside their hexapod relatives, as something closely related to but not the same as crustaceans.
The obvious question then becomes "what becomes of the oligostraca, aka the ostracods and their gaggle of weirdos" and honestly I don't really understand why these are even considered crustaceans in the first place. Some of the members of this group resemble stem arthropods more than other crustaceans (I'm looking at you tongue worms!) and the group as a whole is basically just anchored by ostracoda, which have an unclear placement in mandibulata might not even be monophyletic!
Like it really just feels like scientists called every (non-insect) living aquatic arthropod a crustacean, until they realized some of them were obviously more closely related to arachnids, went "oh shit", created the group chelicerata to include those, then went on calling all the rest crustaceans, even though they are still just a grab bag of loosely related lineages whose main point of commonality is just surviving to the present day and not being chelicerates.
The relationships of the Archaic Kaitian Languages
The Archaic Kaitian languages are those that are known from surviving writings from the archaic Kaitian period, which largely shared a system of writing sometimes called Archaic Kaitian hieroglyphs, which predates and shared no direct connection with the Kaitian writing system that would develop in the pre-classical period. The Archaic Kaitian corpus is far smaller than that of the contemporaneous Archaic Nicrean, but even in this limited collection there is considerable linguistic diversity, which has long made deciphering the languages and the texts challenging.
At least 8 different languages or dialects appear to be encoded in the surviving collection of texts, and while the writing system used for each is broadly similar, and clearly shares a common origin, there are a wide array of differences in how each language appears to be encoded, owing both to their linguistic differences and the vast span of time over which the archaic Kaitian writing system was used and evolved.
The initial attempts to decipher this script relied on similarities between proto-writing with known logographic values, and careful linguistic analysis to determine phonetic values (or at least approximations thereof). These approaches, combined with grammatical analysis and archeological interpretation of the findings eventually allowed for the languages to be placed into three groups, which presumed some sort of relationship between the languages contained within, known as Archaic Kaitian 1, 2 and 3, respectively .
These groupings were arbitrary, numbered based solely on the volume of inscriptions that were known in each group at the time these appellations were determined.
Various dating methods demonstrated that the oldest of all the inscriptions belonged to the Archaic Kaitian 2 group, appearing 150-200 years before the earliest inscription in Archaic Kaitian 1, and some 600-750 years before the first inscription in Archaic Kaitian 3. Some inscriptions of this have been controversially dated to as early as 6400 BCE, although these are extremely fragmentary, and are instead typically grouped with other pre-hieroglyphic proto-writing inscriptions which spanned 6600 BCE to 6000 BCE. The earliest confidently dated inscriptions that are clearly Archaic Kaitian 2 (and recognizably true written language) date from between 6250 BCE and 6100 BCE. Compared to the other groups, Archaic Kaitian 2 was highly conservative, and is believed to represent a single language. The last inscriptions in this language date to around 5000 BCE. The distinctiveness of this language both by its uniqueness and it's antiquity meant it was the easiest archaic Kaitian language group to distinguish.
Archaic Kaitian 1 , meanwhile posed the greatest challenge. With writings spanning almost the entire Archaic period,from 6000 BCE to 3800 BCE, comprising at least 4 clearly distinct different languages, it was only through careful analysis that these writings were grouped together into one group. The earliest language, Archaic Kaitian 1-A, appears to have given rise to archaic Kaitian 1-B and 1-C, and 1-C would later in turn give rise to 1-D, which would include the last Archaic Kaitian inscriptions.
Archaic Kaitian 3 was poorly known at the time of its designation, but later more material would be discovered that allowed a clearer picture to emerge. Similar to AK-1, Archaic Kaitian 3 appears to show a language and it's subsequent descendents. The first inscriptions in Archaic Kaitian 3 are from around 5600 BCE, and show clear evidence of having adopted the writing system from the Archaic Kaitian 2 culture. These inscriptions are in a language that was named Archaic Kaitian 3-A, which would be recorded for only about 300-400 years, before being replaced by two descendent languages Archaic Kaitian 3-B and 3-C. 3-B would be recorded until 4600 BCE while 3-C would last slightly longer, with it's last inscription dating to around 4300 BCE.
Comparisons to existing or known ancient languages of Kaitian at first eluded experts, but gradually a connection was drawn between Archaic Kaitian 3 and the East Kaitian languages. It appears that this archaic branch diverged before any of the attested classical East Kaitian languages branched from each other, but nonetheless showed tell tale signs of that language family. This neatly paralleled the traditional belief that the East Kaitian languages were some of the oldest and most conservative of the Kaitian languages, although the location of the inscriptions suggest that this language family once occupied a very different region of Kait than the speakers did from the classical period through to the present.
No such easy connection emerged for the other archaic Kaitian languages. While Archaic Kaitian 2 clearly influenced the other later Archaic Kaitian languages (and, it would later be determined many of the classical Kaitian languages as well) it had obvious and major linguistic differences from all of them, as well as all of the known modern and classical Kaitian languages. Even today it is generally considered to be a linguistic isolate, although some bizarre similarities have been pointed out with certain words in few historical Epipelani languages. These words are believed to be probable loans in both these Epipelani languages and Archaic Kaitian 2, perhaps suggesting shared introduction from an otherwise unknown language theorized to be spoken by a culture of ancient seafarers, although this remains merely a tentative hypothesis.
Only recently did a connection emerge for Archaic Kaitian 1, and a surprising one at that. While the later languages in this group are still difficult to decipher, and show no clear relationships other than to eachother and the ancestral language, Archaic Kaitian 1-A, (along with obvious influence from the unrelated Archaic Kaitian 2) that ancestral language itself proved to be accommodating to comparison. Certain features have gradually been demonstrated to clearly tie, specifically Archaic Kaitian 1-A, to Luomusu-ni, one of the three Classical languages belonging to the Central Kaitian family. Curiously, unlike with Archaic Kaitian 3 and it's relationship to the broader east Kaitian languages, Archaic Kaitian 1-A is clearly more related to Luomusu-ni than it is to either of the other two Classical Central Kaitian languages. The lack of resemblance between the other archaic Kaitian 1 languages suggest that Luomusu-ni and these languages share a common ancestors, rather than the Classical language being a descendent of the Archaic one. This result is in spite of the traditional belief that the Central Kaitian languages were among the "youngest" of the Kaitian languages.
Based on this evidence it's believed that Archaic Kaitian 1-A would have likely split with Proto-Luomusu-ni no later than 6500 BCE, and this language would likely have diverged from the ancestors of the other Central Kaitian languages perhaps as early as 8000 BCE. This analysis has also served to complicate attempts to construct a unified language tree for all the Kaitian languages. Much as in the traditional appraisal, linguistic reconstructions of a hypothetical unified Kaitian language family typically sees Central Kaitian as the last of the four Kaitian language families to branch off, which would in this case place the Proto-Kaitian language so far in the past as to be completely indiscernable.
There also exist a handful of other fragmentary inscriptions from the Archaic period, which while utilizing a script similar to the other Kaitian hieroglyphs, don't obviously resemble any of the 3 understood Archaic Kaitian language groups. These fragments are unlikely to ever be understood without additional findings.