[siryouarebeingmocked]

"People have a moral obligation to include black characters in anime. For reasons."

[softsoundingsea]

I don’t really want to get into any arguments and am disappointed it came across my dashboard but this leaves me feeling uncomfortable in various ways. Overall, the responses to the ‘original post’ in question is unnecessary and lacks looking at ways that Japanese media is problematic. The ‘original post’ talks about a country that does have different social dynamics and politics towards race and ethnicity and is viewing and judging it through a western lens. 

I think @saotome-michi (https://saotome-michi.tumblr.com/post/75547920982/one-reason-for-why-i-get-tired-with-sj-oriented) and 5h1njuu (https://5h1njuu.tumblr.com/post/190778063505/interracial-sapphic-relationship-and-the-emphasis) cover what is problematic in terms of representation in their conversations about Japan and its media.

[sin-n-tonics]

Neither of these posts ever posit any argument as to why it is necessary to include black characters in Japanese-made and Japanese-intended media—and thus don’t address what OP was specifically criticizing.

Question: would you say it’s necessary for African nations to include widespread representation of other POC that occupy little-to-nothing of their population in films and media, too?

[unsweetenedlemon-deactivated202]

Why is it that when a woman works for a CEO she will never meet, it’s called “empowering”…

But when a woman works in the home for a husband who loves her, it’s called “opression”.

[sin-n-tonics]

Why is “working for a CEO you’ll never meet” discouraged as “degrading” or “unfulfilling” when a woman does it but laudable when a man does the exact same? Why are full-time jobs characterized as thankless, unfulfilling work for a faceless corporation when women are concerned (ignoring the fact that it’s common for many women to find purpose, joy and community in their work) but not so for men? How come you are ignoring all the women who are satisfied and fulfilled at their work and experience a healthy balance between their job and their home life?

Either you’re attempting to fallaciously misrepresent consensual labor to women so they’ll be turned off by it, or you genuinely believe laboring under “CEOs you’ll never meet” is a horrible and unethical way to live but only care about the women subject to those jobs and not the men (who make up the vast majority of people that are “working for CEOs they’ll never meet”). It’s either sexism against women or men. Nice.

[meladoodle]

i wanna be a reverse tooth fairy where i rob people and then scatter human teeth on their bed

[firelorcl]

a dentist

[turkeyimportedfrommassachusetts]

i dont know what your dentist is doing to you but i think you need to go to the police

[sakrogoat]

Léon Bonvin - Moonlight Scene, Houses in Background

[postmortemmischief]

ive said it before & ill say it again A doll made with the intention of being creepy will never be as creepy as a poorly-aged doll who was made to be loved & played with !!! the doll cant be haunted if you got it new at the halloween store motherfucker!! give a baby doll 50 years of love & memories and itll curdle the gel inside your eyeballs

[kyraneko]

in a similar vein, no special-effects zombie is ever going to be as deeply horrifying as a look at a deceased loved one some weeks or months or years after their burial. I don’t know precisely how embalming affects the decay process but the range of time when a corpse is very clearly decaying but also recognizable as the person they were is the height of unsettling

the horror is in the interaction of love and destruction. dolls made to be creepy and zombies made to be horror-movie props have no depth to them to be undone, no rightness to be corrupted. horror movies forget this sometimes; it’s not the threat level of the monster that provides the most horror, it’s the corruption, the destruction, the helplessness of love against the destructive forces. the most terrible zombie is not the strongest or the fastest but the one you used to know.

[stuck-in-jelly]

You know when pitbulls do that expression?

You know the really tender soft “I am in love and am so happy” expression where their eyes shine and they smile so gently and can’t stop looking at their object of affection as they wag their tail and fall in love more?

I’ve been thinking about it for days and am brought to tears with how tender and sweet they are oh my god

[fecktrecool-deactivated20220314]

Can Americans please not bring Irish Gaelic names into white names discourse?

Irish is the native language of Irish people. It’s an ancient language that is on the brink of extinction as a direct result of colonialism and cultural and physical genocide.

Names like Saoirse (freedom), Áine (radiant), Aoife (beautiful) etc are traditional Irish names. They’re spelt “funny” because Irish is a different language from English, and has some sounds that aren’t found in the English language.

It’s not the same thing as edgy white Americans naming their kid Kathylyn instead of Kathleen to try to be different

[metradell-vyorei-deactivated202]

Also it’s not even called Irish Gaelic it’s called Gaeilge (gayl-ga) and is its own language, a beautiful one at that, fully encourage everyone interested in language revival to try learning it because we’re losing it rapidly and there’s not many Gaeilgeoirí (“gayl-gor-ee” ie: fluent speakers) left

[tikkunolamorgtfo]

Yes—this happens with Hebrew names all the time, too, and it’s really frustrating. No, the name Ariel isn’t just a stupid Disney reference, it’s Hebrew. Toby isn’t “weird for a girl,” it’s common for Jewish girls because it’s Toiba in Yiddish. Asher isn’t a “trendy white name”—the influencer yummy mummy fucking stole it from us (which I hate). Believe me, I absolutely loathe those trendy made-up white people names like Bryzzley and Paedon, but keep in mind that there’s a difference between names you haven’t heard of because they belong to a different culture, and names some Mormon housewife made up by adding a bunch of Ys to a random noun. 

[megapope-deactivated20220531]

lmao whoever made this is fucking FUMING

[magicalgirlpropaganda]

Actually i agree? It sucks that parents get mad at kids for doing something they enjoy if it isnt sports

[megapope-deactivated20220531]

the thing that is being said here is not “i wish other things than sports were acceptable in today’s society” but “i was born with glass bones and paper skin and therefore i should be allowed to play ten hours of video games a day, MOM”

[loathsomespider]

youre projecting

[megapope-deactivated20220531]

Does it look like I’m projecting to you?

[supergameboytwo]

since you asked and I want to be completely honest, yes it absolutely looks like you’re projecting

[transarsonist]

It doesn’t just look like you’re projecting, it looks like you’re also deliberately starting arguments with people half to a quarter your age on the internet to make yourself feel good about the mounting realisation that life is meaningless and we must all each make our own purpose and in 43 years you’ve done nothing towards that end

[megapope-deactivated20220531]

Yeah? Check out my Painting:

[sin-n-tonics]

Ngl that is a really good painting.

[pettycentral]

[takashi0]

@darkvioletcloud

[megapope-deactivated20220531]

i am honestly just very curious. why did you joined tumblr? most people here seem to joined because of a fandom, but you don't strike me as someone who would have this reason

like every other heterosexual man on tumblr i joined because a girl i liked used it. this is the greatest unspoken truth of this website

[renthony]

There are bisexuals who are not attracted to women.

There are bisexuals who are not attracted to men.

There are bisexuals who are not attracted to binary genders at all.

You can say “nonbinary people can be bisexual” or “bisexual isn’t nonbinary-exclusionary” all you want, but until you stop positing “MEN AND WOMEN!” as the Unifying Bisexual Experience, you’re just paying lip service.

This post brought to you by “tired bisexual enby” gang.

[transmedicalism-saves-lives]

No. No, bisexual means “attraction regardless of gender.” It’s not possible to tell by looking if someone is nonbinary.

[terflies]

You cannot tell, without some margin of error, what gender anyone is just by looking.

If we accept that it is impossible to tell if someone is nonbinary—and the premise that looking is the only contributing factor to attraction—then we have two possible conclusions:

Everyone is bi, and attracted regardless of gender;

People attracted only to men or only to women are also attracted to one of two sets of nonbinary people.

Either one or the other must be true for someone capable of attraction to both men and women to necessarily be capable of attraction to all nonbinary people, or someone capable of attraction to [men OR women] and all nonbinary to necessarily be capable of attraction to people of the other binary gender.

[sin-n-tonics]

I think the earlier definition should be amended: bisexuality should be considered “capacity for attraction to both male and female phenotypes/sex morphs”.

Admittedly, the simplification of only two possible “sex morph”s here has the drawback of belying the bimodal spectrum of ways sexual phenotypes can present, but phenotypes still present as unambiguously “male” or “female” 99% of the time. And in instances of ambiguity or mixed characteristics, the dimorphism of the individual is still predominantly “one or the other”. It’s an effective model to use for sexual orientation, which in itself is hardly binary or easily delineated.

When it comes to nb people, the nature of one’s sexual characteristics does not necessarily correlate to a non-binary identity the way it does for binary gender identities. Whereas those with a female gender identity (cis women and trans women alike) most typically present with female sexual characteristics/phenotypes (and similarly with cis/trans men and male sexual phenotypes), there is no “alternative” sexual phenotype that non-binary people generally present as. Which is what I assume @transmedicalism-saves-lives meant when they said “it’s not possible to tell if someone is non-binary” [therefore, it’s impossible for people to consider themselves categorically attracted to nb people, because they don’t have a sexual phenotype disparate from ‘male’ or ‘female’].

And I would agree. Colloquially basing sexual orientation more so on gender identity than on sex presentation neglects how sexual attraction to others actually functions (on the basis of physical cues and appearance), and ignores physiologically-based developments in understanding human sexuality.

[sin-n-tonics]

so identifying as human is what makes you human, sis?

so apparently you didn’t understand the point of my response at all. All I was saying was that to identify as something, and to say you *are* something, is the same thing: when you say you *are* a woman, you’re still *identifying* as a woman. To “identify” is just to establish or declare the nature of something—in the context of how people use it with gender, it is to establish or declare the nature of themselves. When someone “identifies” as a woman, they are establishing or declaring that they *are* a woman. Now, to your question: sure, I identify as a human. Which is the same as saying I *am* human. And I know that I can identify myself as a human because of my morphological and cognitive features.

[sin-n-tonics]

@evillgayhera I mean, I would have gladly responded to you with a full argument if you had given me the opportunity to, but you went off to hide your responses in the notes instead.

Yes, I believe transwomen should be considered women socially. Their sex incongruence/dysphoria warrants—and sometimes necessitates—medical intervention in the form of transitioning to present, and socially assimilate, as female. The gesture of acknowledging transwomen as female, in that sense, is not only in service and respect to their mental health and desires, but also socially utilitarian. the vast majority of transwomen pass as their gender, it makes no sense to insist they all be referred to as males or with male pronouns when they are perceived by everybody to be female, and when they want to be perceived as female.

And before you object on the grounds that “people who aren’t of the female sex shouldn’t be called females or women”—sex, and what it means to be considered “female” or “male” socially and medically—is hardly as clearly delineated as you probably think.

For example: genotypic males with the DSD/intersex condition called Androgen Insensitivity Disorder develop a female phenotype. The degree to how “female” their phenotype is varies depending on the severity of their insensitivity, but in instances of complete androgen insensitivity, they can develop whole female genitalia (vagina, etc.), but maintain an internal pair of testes without the development of any uterus or ovaries. AIS males are almost always raised as females because of their female phenotype, and so they’re “socialized female” as you like to say.

You probably would not exclude an AIS woman (who is of the XY genotype) from your feminism because she was raised female and is subject to the issues of females as a group. You would also not probably call her a “man pretending to be a woman”, or “not a real woman”, or disrespect her in any other shape or form. All transwomen (and transmen) ask is to be able to blend in and be treated the same as anybody else of their gender. None of them want in on your scam brand of “feminism”, that degrades and mistreats anybody outside of its movement (even other vulnerable peoples). I really want to know how you think you can throw around slurs like “trannies” and still somehow be convinced you’re in the right.

[theevillfemme]

stop using intersex people as your pawn, and transpeople throw around dyke and faggot and bitch and make rape and death threats regularly, so I ain’t stressed about my use of the precious T slur one bit

[sin-n-tonics]

Which trans person in the notes threw around slurs like that at you? And how is other people using violent slurs somehow justification for you using them as well? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

And.. I’m not using intersex people “as a pawn”, although I know that’s the excuse y’all jump to nowadays when you can’t rebut relevant arguments that so much as reference the existence of intersex conditions. I was not attempting to use AIS as “proof” that sex is a spectrum or something—I’m just saying that there are individuals of the [genotypic] male sex that are reared, from birth, as females (AFAB), and whom you would consider a woman that can be included in your feminism.

It’s apparent that you have no actual response to me on this, because you haven’t addressed a single one of my arguments.

[greenmossloveisreal1998iloveyou]

you know what, fuck you [unsucks your titties]

[smoked-out-xx--wolfhunter--xx]

LOOOL I Would Never Do This I Suck The Titties So Hard That I Am Basically A Newborn Baby And I Am Not About To Be Bottle Fed Unless That Bottle Is Full Of Liquor Hahahaha Of Course Im Just Messin With You But Seriously What I Need In My Life Is A Joint, Xbox And Someone To Just Vibe With And See What Happens

[earlgraytay]

hot take: there need to be more butch women in media that are explicitly both butch and attracted to men. 

not at the expense of writing butch lesbian characters, it shouldn’t be one or the other. (hell, it’d be interesting to have both a butch lesbian and a butch straight woman in the same cast.) but i keep seeing people say “make this butch character a lesbian! if you make her straight that’s boring and cowardly!”

and… i don’t know what fucking planet those people are living on where media is full of butch women, like actually butch women, not just Furiosa and Gwendolyn Christie’s oeuvre. I don’t know on what fucking planet media regularly has women who don’t perform femininity shown in loving relationships with men, and their lack of femininity isn’t A Thing. 

 how many girls are growing up and seeing that if they want to be A Woman who Loves Men they have to be femme? seeing that the only people who are dressing and acting and existing the way they want to are lesbians and trans men? while… you know, not being lesbian or transmasc, or not knowing that they’re lesbian or transmasc. 

like most people are still straight??? 

[tabbythekouhai-deactivated20201]

A straight butch woman and a gay butch woman as best friends! They bond over their shared love of sports and auto-repair. They could be like the show’s “Those Two Guys”.

[earlgraytay]

Oh my god, yes. 

“We play for different teams.”

“Oh, so you’re straight and she’s….” 

“What? Well, yeah, but she’s on $RIVAL_SPORTS_TEAM and we’re going up against them in the playoffs.” 

[fierceawakening]

this post cleared my pores and sorted my laundry

[thesassycat]

You can only reblog this today.

[askjennaflorida]

I missed my chance last year. Not gonna let it happen again

[sin-n-tonics]

so identifying as human is what makes you human, sis?

so apparently you didn’t understand the point of my response at all. All I was saying was that to identify as something, and to say you *are* something, is the same thing: when you say you *are* a woman, you’re still *identifying* as a woman. To “identify” is just to establish or declare the nature of something—in the context of how people use it with gender, it is to establish or declare the nature of themselves. When someone “identifies” as a woman, they are establishing or declaring that they *are* a woman. Now, to your question: sure, I identify as a human. Which is the same as saying I *am* human. And I know that I can identify myself as a human because of my morphological and cognitive features.

[sin-n-tonics]

@evillgayhera I mean, I would have gladly responded to you with a full argument if you had given me the opportunity to, but you went off to hide your responses in the notes instead.

Yes, I believe transwomen should be considered women socially. Their sex incongruence/dysphoria warrants—and sometimes necessitates—medical intervention in the form of transitioning to present, and socially assimilate, as female. The gesture of acknowledging transwomen as female, in that sense, is not only in service and respect to their mental health and desires, but also socially utilitarian. the vast majority of transwomen pass as their gender, it makes no sense to insist they all be referred to as males or with male pronouns when they are perceived by everybody to be female, and when they want to be perceived as female.

And before you object on the grounds that “people who aren’t of the female sex shouldn’t be called females or women”—sex, and what it means to be considered “female” or “male” socially and medically—is hardly as clearly delineated as you probably think.

For example: genotypic males with the DSD/intersex condition called Androgen Insensitivity Disorder develop a female phenotype. The degree to how “female” their phenotype is varies depending on the severity of their insensitivity, but in instances of complete androgen insensitivity, they can develop whole female genitalia (vagina, etc.), but maintain an internal pair of testes without the development of any uterus or ovaries. AIS males are almost always raised as females because of their female phenotype, and so they’re “socialized female” as you like to say.

You probably would not exclude an AIS woman (who is of the XY genotype) from your feminism because she was raised female and is subject to the issues of females as a group. You would also not probably call her a “man pretending to be a woman”, or “not a real woman”, or disrespect her in any other shape or form. All transwomen (and transmen) ask is to be able to blend in and be treated the same as anybody else of their gender. None of them want in on your scam brand of “feminism”, that degrades and mistreats anybody outside of its movement (even other vulnerable peoples). I really want to know how you think you can throw around slurs like “trannies” and still somehow be convinced you’re in the right.

[sin-n-tonics]

so identifying as human is what makes you human, sis?

so apparently you didn’t understand the point of my response at all. All I was saying was that to identify as something, and to say you *are* something, is the same thing: when you say you *are* a woman, you’re still *identifying* as a woman. To “identify” is just to establish or declare the nature of something—in the context of how people use it with gender, it is to establish or declare the nature of themselves. When someone “identifies” as a woman, they are establishing or declaring that they *are* a woman. Now, to your question: sure, I identify as a human. Which is the same as saying I *am* human. And I know that I can identify myself as a human because of my morphological and cognitive features.