"The Trannies Should Be Able To Piss In Whatever Toilet They Want And Change Their Bodies However They

When I was younger and more abled, I was so fucking on board with the fantasy genre’s subversion of traditional femininity. We weren’t just fainting maidens locked up in towers; we could do anything men could do, be as strong or as physical or as violent. I got into western martial arts and learned to fight with a rapier, fell in love with the longsword.

But since I’ve gotten too disabled to fight anymore, I… find myself coming back to that maiden in a tower. It’s that funny thing, where subverting femininity is powerful for the people who have always been forced into it… but for the people who have always been excluded, the powerful thing can be embracing it.

As I’m disabled, as I say to groups of friends, “I can’t walk that far,” as I’m in too much pain to keep partying, I find myself worrying: I’m boring, too quiet, too stationary, irrelevant. The message sent to the disabled is: You’re out of the narrative, you’re secondary, you’re a burden.

The remarkable thing about the maiden in her tower is not her immobility; it’s common for disabled people to be abandoned, set adrift, waiting at bus stops or watching out the windows, forgotten in institutions or stranded in our houses. The remarkable thing is that she’s like a beacon, turning her tower into a lighthouse; people want to come to her, she’s important, she inspires through her appearance and words and craftwork.  In medieval romances she gives gifts, write letters, sends messengers, and summons lovers; she plays chess, commissions ballads, composes music, commands knights. She is her household’s moral centre in a castle under siege. She is a castle unto herself, and the integrity of her body matters.

That can be so revolutionary to those of us stuck in our towers who fall prey to thinking: Nobody would want to visit; nobody would want to listen; nobody would want to stay.

As a disabled person, I feel this so much. Yes, we‘re not lesser than anyone else, not any less deserving of happiness and recognition but sometimes we have to work harder for things, because people around us won‘t see it that way otherwise.

Also as an aside most people are disadvantaged in one way but might have some privilege compared to others and most people have to compensate for something they shouldn‘t have to compensate for.

Aemond had to compensate for not having a dragon and being seen as lesser for it, Jace had to compensate for not looking remotely Valyrian. In both instances they shouldn‘t have been bullied in the first place, but both lads worked to overcome their problems. Rhaenyra just doesn‘t.

I finally formulated why I don't like Rhaenyra. And it's not about misogyny, or even that I find her boring (although I do). If we look at this story the way TB fans do it, then we get something like "a woman fights the system in a patriarchal world." It sounds great, it sounds like a story that I might like. But does she fight? Because the problem is that she doesn't. She doesn't fight. And the whole rhetoric of TB fans usually boils down to "you demand from Rhaenyra what you wouldn't demand from a man in her place." But isn't that how it works? If you live in a place where women aren't considered equal to men, you should try to become ten times better than any of them in order to earn respect, and that's normal. Characters who understand the realities of their world and accept them to fight injustice command respect. At the same time, Rhaenyra didn't do anything - she just wanted the world around her to change itself for her convenience, so that the rules by which it worked before she was born would simply be forgotten at the snap of her fingers. She wasn't trying to prove that she was worthy of being a queen, she wanted to be respected just because her father ordered it, but it doesn't work that way. That's why I don't like her - she wanted the world to change on its own, instead of trying to change it with her own efforts.

So let me get this straight - Alicent was “evil” and “crazy” and “overreacting” for wanting an eye for an eye (a belief she doesn’t normally hold unlike Daemon) in a moment of fear and desperation after her son was permanently maimed and her husband’s response was to not give any punishment at all to Luke, sending a message to everyone that Alicent’s children don’t matter even to the King and anyone can harm them without recourse. Viserys even threatened to further maim and disable “anyone”, meaning Aegon and Aemond, by cutting out their tongues to protect Rhaenyra’s obvious lies. Viserys proved he will never protect Alicent’s kids and Rhaenyra confirmed Alicent’s fear that she will kill her children by not even trying to apologize or show any remorse or diplomacy at all (but Alicent is the enabling boy mom, and also an abusive bitch when she does punish her son for being a perv… okay) instead blaming Aemond and demand he be “sharply questioned” (aka probably tortured) for exposing her lie. Of course Alicent would want to make a show of strength back after such a clear threat to herself and her children.

But a grown man ordering the murder and decapitation of an innocent toddler is totally justified. Like they’re celebrating the murder of a toddler, I know not all Team Black people are doing that but enough to be deeply disturbing. And this is the same grown man who cut the hands off of poor people for stealing while he has never known what it’s like to not have food or clothes. Hammurabi’s Code is totally good with Team Black except it’s barbaric and evil when it’s over Aemond being disabled and disfigured for life by his childhood bullies. Even if it was gonna be revenge, Aemond should’ve been killed then (even though he didn’t mean for that to happen, he’s more responsible than a baby). That’s what Rhaenyra wanted. Daemon is a psychopathic abuser who can’t help but undermine Rhaenyra’s power and the lengths people will go to justify his actions astounds me.

I don't know about y'all but I find it very funny and a bit satisfying that despite all the anti-feminism and conservatism and pro-patriarchy accusations Alicent was thrown, so many people of color and queer folks (and other definitely radically left-leaning people) still watched hotd and rallied behind her and flock together to defend her (despite being accused of being pro-conservatism ourselves in doing so).

And I wonder... Why is that? What nerve did Alicent touch that make us so protective of her, of her story and point of view?

Wehrt euch, leistet Widerstand

Gegen den Faschismus hier im Land

Haltet fest zusammen, haltet fest zusammen

(translation: Fight back / resist / against fascism here in this country / stand together)

New lyrics sung to the tune of an old folk song. Berlin, Jan 25th, 2025.

For a friend who wanted links to some posts I made about antisemitism, allyship, and how to support Palestine without being antisemitic—which is both possible and easy to do!

How do you know if you’re antisemitic?

How to be a good ally for Jewish people. I responded to a wonderful ask from @faggotry-enjoyer about how to be a better ally and to discuss Israel/Palestine with people who are inclined to distrust Jews due to unexamined antisemitism.

Important post about the dangers faced by Jews as an extreme minority. There are good examples in the reblogs and replies and tags—both of great ways for non-Jews to provide support as well as if antisemites denying their own antisemitism. Therese even one example of ways Jews can and do disagree with each other while remaining respectful without delving into antisemitism OR Islamophobia OR denying the rights and dignity of Palestinians. Jews can do this and so can non-Jews. But that can’t happen if people hate us too much to listen to anything we have to say.

The emotional toll of antisemitism on Jewish people.

Example of the death threats we get that are designed to make us look like bad guys.

If Jews can learn about the Holocaust in detail before we even reach the age of ten, you can and should too.

Don’t trust people who rely on bad sources. People do make genuine mistakes. Here’s an example of bad faith link sharing. Especially when Reblogging things. Even I don’t have time to always check every source in a post. Also, it’s possible that a link seemed legitimate when it was originally posted but the source is either no longer trustworthy or the OP got better at assessing sources. If an error in their original sourcing is pointed out, they should correct it publicly. If they are sharing a link as an OP they should always take time to be as responsible as possible.

There are plenty more posts under my #leftist antisemitism tag to look into about a variety of ways that antisemitism manifests in left wing circles.

Allies, please reblog with any posts you think relevant for a someone new to dismantling their antisemitism.

If he commited a war crime than there must have been a war. You kind of need one to have the other. Otherwise it would have been a „crime against peace“, but at a cursory analysis of the facts that does not seem to fit the bill either, and is very rarely used.

You are contradicting yourself.

European Union Agency for Asylum

6.2.1. Crime against peace, war crime, or crime against humanity

The European Union Agency for Asylum - EUAA is an agency of the European Union mandated with supporting Member States in applying the packag

Otto being there to prevent war from spreading does not negate war having broken out. It merely means that the Greens are willing to avoid further bloodshed. I will admit however that me calling Rhaenys‘ massacre of Non combattants (which according to our standards should have been protected from the hostilities) the first act of war, was somewhat debatable. It could just as well be regarded as an act of Terrorism.

In any case the Greens were justified acting as if at war, because the blacks did the same:

Her first act was to declare Ser Otto Hightower and the Dowager Queen Alicent as traitors and rebels. (G.R.R.Martin, Fire and Blood, Dublin 2018 this edition 2020 p. 408) (Highlights mine)

That is as formerly a declaration of war as we ever got. And it did not come from the Greens.

As with regards to what Alicent and Otto thought on the matter:

„Queen Alicent went pale when she heard what he had done crying „mother protect us all.“ Nor was Ser Otto pleased „You only lost one eye,“ he is reported to have said „how could you be so blind?““ (G.R.R.Martin, Fire and Blood, Dublin 2018 this edition 2020 p. 422) the word warcrime does not appear on the page once what does appear however is the term kinslayer, and that seems to be what Alicent is so horrified about, as no crime is so accursed in the eyes of both gods and men. Otto meanwhile seems to be of the Fouché-mindset „This is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.“ (Yes, I know the quote is sometimes attributed to Talleyrand or others)

And later we have this line from Alicent with regards to Lucerys‘ death:

„Bastard blood, shed at war“ (G.R.R.Martin, Fire and Blood, Dublin 2018 this edition 2020 p.483) (Highlights mine)

So in what capacity was he there then? Into which category does he fit? Was he trying to surrender? Was he trying to arrange an exchange of prisoners? and how was Aemond supposed to know that from what was spoken?

Calling an envoy, a soldier and a threat, is quite literally the dumbest thing you can say. They are basically postmen with diplomatic immunity. It really sums up the extent of intelligence I have come to expect from team green fans. Lucerys was innocent and he will keep being it, murdering him was a war crime + king slaying being a taboo.

You can take your stupid posts somewhere else. Him saying "I will not fight you" isn't a joke, he is representative of borros's enemy and his only Job is to take a letter and bring back an answer, if he joins in fighting he starts a war.....like aemond did.

all RIGHT:

Why You're Writing Medieval (and Medieval-Coded) Women Wrong: A RANT

(Or, For the Love of God, People, Stop Pretending Victorian Style Gender Roles Applied to All of History)

This is a problem I see alllll over the place - I'll be reading a medieval-coded book and the women will be told they aren't allowed to fight or learn or work, that they are only supposed to get married, keep house and have babies, &c &c.

If I point this out ppl will be like "yes but there was misogyny back then! women were treated terribly!" and OK. Stop right there.

By & large, what we as a culture think of as misogyny & patriarchy is the expression prevalent in Victorian times - not medieval. (And NO, this is not me blaming Victorians for their theme park version of "medieval history". This is me blaming 21st century people for being ignorant & refusing to do their homework).

Yes, there was misogyny in medieval times, but 1) in many ways it was actually markedly less severe than Victorian misogyny, tyvm - and 2) it was of a quite different type. (Disclaimer: I am speaking specifically of Frankish, Western European medieval women rather than those in other parts of the world. This applies to a lesser extent in Byzantium and I am still learning about women in the medieval Islamic world.)

So, here are the 2 vital things to remember about women when writing medieval or medieval-coded societies

FIRST. Where in Victorian times the primary axes of prejudice were gender and race - so that a male labourer had more rights than a female of the higher classes, and a middle class white man would be treated with more respect than an African or Indian dignitary - In medieval times, the primary axis of prejudice was, overwhelmingly, class. Thus, Frankish crusader knights arguably felt more solidarity with their Muslim opponents of knightly status, than they did their own peasants. Faith and age were also medieval axes of prejudice - children and young people were exploited ruthlessly, sent into war or marriage at 15 (boys) or 12 (girls). Gender was less important.

What this meant was that a medieval woman could expect - indeed demand - to be treated more or less the same way the men of her class were. Where no ancient legal obstacle existed, such as Salic law, a king's daughter could and did expect to rule, even after marriage.

Women of the knightly class could & did arm & fight - something that required a MASSIVE outlay of money, which was obviously at their discretion & disposal. See: Sichelgaita, Isabel de Conches, the unnamed women fighting in armour as knights during the Third Crusade, as recorded by Muslim chroniclers.

Tolkien's Eowyn is a great example of this medieval attitude to class trumping race: complaining that she's being told not to fight, she stresses her class: "I am of the house of Eorl & not a serving woman". She claims her rights, not as a woman, but as a member of the warrior class and the ruling family. Similarly in Renaissance Venice a doge protested the practice which saw 80% of noble women locked into convents for life: if these had been men they would have been "born to command & govern the world". Their class ought to have exempted them from discrimination on the basis of sex.

So, tip #1 for writing medieval women: remember that their class always outweighed their gender. They might be subordinate to the men within their own class, but not to those below.

SECOND. Whereas Victorians saw women's highest calling as marriage & children - the "angel in the house" ennobling & improving their men on a spiritual but rarely practical level - Medievals by contrast prized virginity/celibacy above marriage, seeing it as a way for women to transcend their sex. Often as nuns, saints, mystics; sometimes as warriors, queens, & ladies; always as businesswomen & merchants, women could & did forge their own paths in life

When Elizabeth I claimed to have "the heart & stomach of a king" & adopted the persona of the virgin queen, this was the norm she appealed to. Women could do things; they just had to prove they were Not Like Other Girls. By Elizabeth's time things were already changing: it was the Reformation that switched the ideal to marriage, & the Enlightenment that divorced femininity from reason, aggression & public life.

For more on this topic, read Katherine Hager's article "Endowed With Manly Courage: Medieval Perceptions of Women in Combat" on women who transcended gender to occupy a liminal space as warrior/virgin/saint.

So, tip #2: remember that for medieval women, wife and mother wasn't the ideal, virgin saint was the ideal. By proving yourself "not like other girls" you could gain significant autonomy & freedom.

Finally a bonus tip: if writing about medieval women, be sure to read writing on women's issues from the time so as to understand the terms in which these women spoke about & defended their ambitions. Start with Christine de Pisan.

I learned all this doing the reading for WATCHERS OF OUTREMER, my series of historical fantasy novels set in the medieval crusader states, which were dominated by strong medieval women! Book 5, THE HOUSE OF MOURNING (forthcoming 2023) will focus, to a greater extent than any other novel I've ever yet read or written, on the experience of women during the crusades - as warriors, captives, and political leaders. I can't wait to share it with you all!

I sat down to write my reaction post to the second ep of HOTD and…realized Idk how to approach it, where to start. And not because I hated every single thing about it – like with ep1 there were lots of good or at least interesting moments. There were other choices I wouldn’t have personally liked in any circumstance but that weren’t necessarily bad in and of themselves if they’d been in another show, surrounded with other context or other scenes. The problem is how ridiculously biased this writing is and how that bias and the ridiculousness of it permeates everything, even the parts that were good or fine or reasonably in character. We knew, of course, even from S1, that the writing was biased. But this season it feels especially blatant.

How am I supposed to feel about say…Jae’s funeral? On one hand, a gut-wrenching scene, carried so well by Olivia and Phia’s superb understated acting. It’s a scene that has every reason to be there – royal funeral processions/spectacles were (and still are) normal. And even if it’s not a regular occurrence in this universe (questionable), it’s a very good and smart play by Otto. On the other hand, is it not suspect that the funeral of this child was less of a melancholy moment of mourning like Luke’s funeral (despite the obviously grieving family) but focused on Helaena’s panic attack at being too close to too many people, and with the distraction of Jae’s cart getting stuck in the mud (was that supposed to be symbolic of something???). Do we not remember TB shrieking long before the episode aired that the Greens have a public funeral for Jae “just to make the Greens look bad”? These people are known for the worst faith takes, so what does it say that the writers apparently agree with them?

How am I supposed to feel about Alicent’s inability to successfully, if at all, to comfort her children? Is this a potentially interesting exploration of how her own grief, guilt, self-blame/low self-esteem, and complicated relationship with her kids due to their common and individual family traumas (and, in Helaena’s case…neurodivergence, I guess?) have and are affecting her? Or is it just a low-key attempt at character assassination, given that last season she was shown as perfectly capable of showing affection to her children (more than one with Aemond, hugging Helaena and making other attempts when she was less receptive, even kissing Aegon at the coronation despite their turbulent relationship)?

Is Alicent’s self-blame and guilt a potentially interesting exploration of how grief can affect people, of what happens when a person feels they are breaking some moral or ethical or religious code of conduct that they sincerely believe in/believe they can be punished for breaking? Or does the narrative blame her too/knows that a large chunk of the audience will too or at least will find the self-blame and guilt pathetic or unsympathetic (because goodness knows that’s all Twitter/X has to say on the matter, it seems).

How am I supposed to feel about Aegon hanging the ratcatchers? Of course, Otto is right – this was a terrible thing to do, not just because it was politically a misstep, but first of all because there were many innocent people executed without trial. It’s a canonical event, and in context of Aegon’s grief and fury, it’s interesting in and of itself, it’s part of the commentary on the wreckage that war and nobles’ games cause. I’d have no issue with it, except…. Why was this made into a literal cartoon-villain-esque kick the dog moment? By making me feel sorry for the sad, cute puppy am I supposed to think that hanging Cheese was somehow wrong? After he sawed off a child’s head? And why is it that the smallfolk get angry when Aegon hands the ratcatchers but not when Rhaenys trembles dozens of smallfolk in the dragon pit? How come Aegon is held accountable for all his mistakes, at least by the people closest to him, and Criston very specifically sends a kingsguard member to impersonate his twin and kill Rhaenyra, but the show removed maximum responsibility from Daemon and of course made sure that Rhaenya was just appalled by the whole thing. (And suddenly cares about Helaena? I actually rolled my eyes at that line so hard it hurt.)

What am I to think of the messy/awkward/complicated TG family dynamics? They’re interesting! They’re fun! They could make for some great television (and fic lol). I could/should/would enjoy this. But on the other hand, when TB get all these bonding moments, or the potential messiness (e.g. Rhaena feeling ignored by her father) is ignored in like 85% of situations? And when this imbalance is not at all in the book? (When it feels like they wanted to cut/held off on Daeron specifically because he was so sweet and mild tempered and beloved by everyone?) It becomes frustrating, not fun.

At what point do I need to decide that this show isn’t worth it? After all, I think the sentiment that “maybe this is just not telling the kind of story you want to hear/watch” is generally a wise approach. Except…that would hold if this was an original show or if it was one of those “loosely based on/inspired by” things that were not pretending to be adaptations. But when you’re advertised an adaptation, you’re not coming in blind. Ideally, you’re coming in knowing what sort of story you’re coming for, at the very least. Unlike  ASOIAF, the Dance is a fully finished story. There shouldn’t have been any “nasty surprises” like some people got in the last seasons in GoT…

But they mentioned Daeron by name. Tom’s acting is incredible. We know I’m not going anywhere for now lmao.

Maybe I won’t do my usual type of notes/reaction post this time, after all I’ve said so much of what I most feel right now anyway.

Sorry for the depression/pessimism guys. I’m just so tired.