A Very Sensible Place

shelbyscircus:

Yay! Got a new skirt! It is by axes femme

I’ve always loved the idea of not being what people expect me to be.
Dita Von Teese (via mrsfscottfitzgerald)
Genuine equality means not treating everyone the same, but attending equally to everyone’s different needs.

Eagleton, Terry, Why Marx Was Right (Yale University Press, 2011) p.5 (via fuckyeahdialectics)

And this is why I get pissed off when.. I talk about equality, and someone says “YOU WANT EVERYONE TO BE THE SAME”.  No, that’s not how it works, and I’m sick of explaining it.

(via comfemgem)

victoriousvocabulary:

SOUHAITER
[verb]
to hope for; to wish for; feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that is not easily attainable; want something that cannot or probably will not happen.
Etymology: from Old French sohaider, from Gallo-Roman Latin *subtus-haitare “promise with little commitment”, a hybrid of Latin subtus “under” + Frankish *haitan "to order, promise".
[Christian Schloe]

victoriousvocabulary:

SOUHAITER

[verb]

to hope for; to wish for; feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that is not easily attainable; want something that cannot or probably will not happen.

Etymology: from Old French sohaider, from Gallo-Roman Latin *subtus-haitare “promise with little commitment”, a hybrid of Latin subtus “under” + Frankish *haitan "to order, promise".

[Christian Schloe]

xathrid:

鳩

xathrid:

Telling the oppressed that expressing their anger and hatred for their oppressors is okay is a huge step toward ending oppression, which is the real goal, not “ending hate” which is some abstract nonsense privileged people like to spout to try and pretend they’re not part of the problem because they don’t actively hate the oppressed.
smitethepatriarchy in this post. Just thought it was a really good articulation of something that gets repeated often without thought: the end goal isn’t really to “end hate.” It’s to eliminate oppressions. Hate is a feeling everyone has sooner or later, as is love — oppression is an extra obstacle the privileged group does not have to deal with/be burdened with (via feministdisney)
If flowers can
teach themselves
how to bloom after
winter passes,
so can you.
Noor ShirazieSpringtime  (via childoflust)
victoriousvocabulary:

AVETROL
[noun]
bastard; illegitimate child.
Etymology: perhaps from Old French avoistre, “adulterous man” or “bastard”, as in child born outside of wedlock.
[Ania Mitura]

victoriousvocabulary:

AVETROL

[noun]

bastard; illegitimate child.

Etymology: perhaps from Old French avoistre, “adulterous man” or “bastard”, as in child born outside of wedlock.

[Ania Mitura]

The prince fought valiantly.
He slayed the dragon.
The princess cried for days.
She loved that dragon.
The stories fairytales don’t tell (via milkied)
In fairy tales, monsters exist to be a manifestation of something that we need to understand, not only a problem we need to overcome, but also they need to represent, much like angels represent the beautiful, pure, eternal side of the human spirit, monsters need to represent a more tangible, more mortal side of being human: aging, decay, darkness and so forth. And I believe that monsters originally, when we were cavemen and you know, sitting around a fire, we needed to explain the birth of the sun and the death of the moon and the phases of the moon and rain and thunder. And we invented creatures that made sense of the world: a serpent that ate the sun, a creature that ate the moon, a man in the moon living there, things like that. And as we became more and more sophisticated and created sort of a social structure, the real enigmas started not to be outside. The rain and the thunder were logical now. But the real enigmas became social. All those impulses that we were repressing: cannibalism, murder, these things needed an explanation. The sex drive, the need to hunt, the need to kill, these things then became personified in monsters. Werewolves, vampires, ogres, this and that. I feel that monsters are here in our world to help us understand it. They are an essential part of a fable.
Guillermo Del Toro (via iwearthecheeseyo)
aescpr:

wings are way too much fun to draw

aescpr:

wings are way too much fun to draw

Gender and sex

bangbangbeautiful:

building-an-unstoppable-fist:

Now there are some folks on tumblr, (not sure if this goes beyond tumblr or not) that are trying to say the whole idea of a biological sex binary doesn’t exist…..What?

Now I understand this whole gendergluid/nonbinary movement.

THere are various ways to present your gender. If you wanna present and identify as male cool. As a female? cool. As a mix of both? Cool. As neither? cool. In my mind gender is indeed a very social construct depending on where you live. And going outside of that construct is not bad in my eyes.

But the idea of no sex binary? Thats just wrong and ridiculous and unhealthy tbh. If there is anything more solid in this world its that there are males and females. In almost every species on this planet. It’s how the human race got here. Through sexual reproduction between males and females. That is a undeniable truth.

Now a lot of them bring up the fact that there are intersex people, and various folks with hormonal disorders that can mess with your chromosomes, therefore messing with your sex itself, and even how you mentally think about your sex and gender. I can’t deny that. A simple bit of research can prove this.

Now I can say there is a bit of a grey scale because of this. Not everyone is male or female. BUT to suggest that there is no binary at all? And that most beings on the planet aren’t male of female is just unrealistic.

Okay, no, I can’t ignore this. This isn’t even speaking as a nonbinary advocate, this is me speaking as a biologist.

"Most beings on the planet" aren’t male or female in any way you could map onto the human sex binary. Yes, sexual reproduction in plants and animals is achieved through the fusion of two cells, and in many cases those cells have differentiated into one large sessile kind and one small mobile kind. In many species it is true that some members of that species carry one kind and some members another. This is, for example, true for most (but not all) mammals (some mammals have lost the male sex, and reproduce asexually!)

Non-mammals do things way differently (like, some fish change their sex depending on what’s convenient, and a lot of animals have no genetic component to sex, or any non-reproductive sexual dimorphism), but hey, let’s focus on our closest relatives: primates. That’s about as comparable as we’re going to get, right?

Turns out, primates have all kinds of approaches to sex. Some species have very clearly delineated sexes with definitely separate roles and the biological differences to match (gorillas are an example). These species tend to live in polygamous troupes, where most males do not engage in reproduction. Other species, generally the rarer monogamous ones like bonobos, have such weak sex characteristics you can’t tell without looking at their genitals.

And of course, in all these species there is a percentage of individuals where, even if you strictly define sex as reproductive capacity (which is what biologists tend towards, since it is the one that is most portable across species), they are neither male nor female. They aren’t numerous enough to have a defined social role, but they exist.

Now how does that relate to humans? Well, hominids are an odd one. Nobody knows what social structure early hominids had, and our sex characteristics do not fit with either a dominant-male polygamous origin, a partial monogamy model (like most birds have), or a bonobo-like pure monogamy. We do present sexual dimorphism, but it is weak and far more fluid than is usual for dimorphic species. Think, even humans presenting canonical sex traits vary wildly in their expression. Some have a lot of body and facial hair, some have barely any. Body fat arrangements exist on the full continuum between canonically “feminine” and “masculine”. Breasts can be incredibly prominent or barely present, while still displaying full functionality.

This is odd. You don’t see male peacocks without tails! Sexual dimorphism is an evolutionary adaptation arising for the need to compete for mates, and selection pressure is strong: non-dimorphic individuals do not reproduce. Yet hominids appear to play fast and loose with how our bodies express our hormonal makeup, with differences between “sexes” having to be drawn in terms of small gaps in statistical averages rather than clear differences. Different hypothesis have been suggested, but my two favourites are that either early hominids lived in cooperative groups where members freely chose mating partners and offspring were raised by the group as a whole, or hominids descended from a polygamous species but changed into a mostly monogamous structure, with our dimorphism being a genetic relic that is not selected for anymore.

I kind of got carried away there, so let’s talk about the sex binary. What is the sex binary? The sex binary is the idea that all humans can be clearly separated into male and female, and that each of those groups is distinct in a number of characteristics, including genetics, anatomy, reproductive capacity, chemical biology, and even social role.

This is bollocks.

And I don’t say that because of some ideological conviction, it is literally not true. Reproductive capacity (that is, whether an individual produces eggs or sperm) is the one with least exceptions, but there are some even there, and anyway reproductive capacity is not associated with any other traits half as strongly as the idea of the binary says. Genetically XX and XY are the two most common caryotypes related to reproductive potential, but because genotype =/= phenotype, not even all XY people develop sperm or XX people eggs. Anatomy is a spectrum, and anatomically intersex people are actually fairly common (but overwhelmingly receive non-consensual cosmetic surgery in infancy to “normalise” their anatomy), as is chemical biology, and to throw a further wrench in those gears, humans love to play around with those things. And social roles, well, anyone who tries to tell you that gender roles are clearly defined and immutable needs to get out more.

So yes, on a biological level, humans, like most mammals, are divided into sperm-producers and egg-producers.

But this isn’t strongly related to anything else, and it is certainly not what people mean when they talk about “male” and “female”. It’s not the “sex binary” that people talk about existing or not existing. And the kind of gametes you produce isn’t all that significant to your identity, in general.

It’s a frustrating beverage designed for frustrated people.
But remember, there are two ways to dehumanize someone: by dismissing them, and by idolizing them.
(via mistakeofgrandeur)