Tag: replies

Are deadnames ONLY for trans contexts, or can you have a deadname for other reasons too? Like say your family is abusive and you change your name to distance yourself from them, can you call your old name your deadname or is that trans “appropriation”? Wikipedia, Urban Dictionary, etc basically say “it’s a name you don’t use anymore but usually in a trans context” but I’ve only ever seen it used in a trans context.

rogueoftimeywimeystuff:

wetwareproblem:

goodpositivitylgbt:

Hm, that’s interesting. I’ve also only ever heard it in a trans context, but I’m not sure. Followers? 

Mod Wesley

Whether or not it’s currently a trans thing (it is, IME), this strikes me as something where the curb-cut effect applies? Where exactly is the harm in normalizing the idea that some people have a fraught relationship with the name they were given at birth, and asking for it can be rude or inappropriate?

I’ve known at least 2 people who are cis with dead names.

One to escape her abusive ex husband.

One because she dislikes the implications of her name.

And it’s just as important that their names are respected.

(This isn’t even including my own deadname… which is also not my legal name.)

It’s normally used in a trans context but I’ve head it used in other contexts, and I’d say giving it wider use is appropriate. Specifically I have known people who didn’t like their ties with their family (for w.e reason) and either considered their last name or first name or both a deadname. I think wider use can also be helpful because the more deadname as a term gets used the more people can talk about deadnames without necessarily outing themselves.

please im begging you where is my homophobia

More like transphobic, but misgendering people because you hope you can make a misogynist joke about their age. Supporting and encouraging your partner threatening violence against someone because an LGBT person you don’t like said queer. 

Also you and your partner seem to enjoy harassing people as a couple’s activity, but that’s not homophobia it’s just you being a dick and bully tbqh.

Why are you expending so much energy arguing with. gay and trans 16 year olds about whether or not pedo and abuser characters are gay you’re LITERALLY 25

It doesn’t require a lot of energy, this ask requires more tbh. I usually don’t talk to 16 year olds, I engaged before I knew they were 16.

Bad people in the queer community are still gay. Pretending everyone in the gay community is perfect because they are gay is… what leads to a lot of abuse in the community, actually.

Also even if they’re 16 you do realize they’re behaving really badly right? Telling someone you’re going to physically assault them, misgendering them and calling everyone who disagrees with them a crackhead, and trying to start a harassment campaign cuz one person disagreed with you… Like. I’m not going to keep talking to them, but being 16 doesn’t mean you should just be free to harass people and be the biggest asshole you can possibly be. It’s my last word on them, but they’re a horrible bully in the community.

c-has-a-blog
replied to your post “btw the old animated bfg movie i watched in the early 2000s is better…”

please give us a long analysis of this bc i still have not seen the entirity of the new one bc every time the kids put it on they get bored and switch it to something else and i have enough trepidation to not watch it on my own

Hmm my comments are going to be a bit general because it’s been awhile since I watched some of the other versions, but in general….

The biggest flaw is the new film tries to hide some of the darker elements of the story that both the book and the original animated film embrace. I think there’s a real sense of organic horror to learning children are eaten in both other versions. there is a real fear, a real tension. it is the feeling of unveiling a conspiracy, something you didn’t know was true all along. there are still ‘funny’ things about this but it is also quite scary. and even though the new film follows a ‘by the dots’ version of these plot themes, it feels like it tries to downplay the feelings that would result from finding this out, or even cuts away to make us more emotionally blase about the discovery. really, i think the biggest flaw is somehow the emotional directing of the new bfg. it feels really stale and like its sheltering its audience from feeling much but good will and safety, when the story itself gives you plenty of opportunities to scoop into a huge emotional range.

in general, roald dahl works are about both comedy and fear and triumphing over it all. they tend to have a lot of dark comedy at play specifically while our protag deals with the cruelty of the world. we see that in the witches, or matilda, or charlie and the chocolate factory. kids triumphing over unusually cruel circumstances.

but it’s all too nice and bland in spielberg’s version. it’s nice and sweet and …. it’s over.

I will say bfg 2016 can do fantasy and whimsy, but somehow fantasy and whimsy falls apart without a real sense of danger. a real version of fantasy, of uncovering a world unknown, and danger. found family, lonely people connecting. but for some reason the bfg feels like we’re never leaving a room, like we’re stuck in a safety net of vaguely learning about the mechanics of a world and then the story is over. and without danger, without even the feeling of consequence and fear, it makes winning at the end less satisfying, and even makes the emotional connection the protags make less satisfying…. and we have beat our bullies, monster of our world with no sacrifice, without giving up any vulnerability on our end, or hard thinking at all. it all moves far too smoothly in the new version – and the problem is, that’s a flaw that turns up at every single point of the film. 

hope that helps! those are just my thoughts. I grew up with the bfg, so even though I went into the story pretty open I felt a bit let down by how it was handled.