Tucker Carlson Implies The Existence Of A Girlbulge Carlson

Another thing I've noticed working as a children's librarian is like... kids get so Paralyzed By Choice and the adults in their lives never really register why. Like, for example, we have little scavenger hunt sheets in the children's section and when a kid completes it, they get to pick out a cute eraser from our prize basket. We also have a little toy prize chest as part of our "1000 books before Kindergarten" challenge for when kids complete 100 books--and kids will spend minutes carefully picking through everything while their parents are shooting us anxious looks like "sorry they're taking so long! I know this is silly and it's completely ridiculous that my child is taking so long to choose between a bath toy and a cube puzzle because these are cheap and arbitrary objects! Hurry up, Harper! Just pick something! You're embarrassing me!!" But in the kids' perspective, they already have so little control over what objects come into their lives, and in this case, the object represents labor and effort on their end, so of course they feel they must choose very carefully. I've always been an anxious and indecisive person, so it's striking to see how being rushed really doesn't help that and really only makes it harder for kids to figure out what they want.

Angy 👿

Workshopping a fnaf au for twewy so stay tuned for that one lads :)

(also for those curious, i'm a xaiver girl myself lol)

The rise in the popularity of Love and Deepspace (which, for brevity, I’ll be abbreviating to LADS) is incredibly interesting to me, particularly when we analyse it in conjunction with broad social trends within dating and relationships. I think that the uptick in AI Companionship and how women engage with it reflects a deeper set of issues pervading relationships and intimacy with women who experience attraction to men. Moreover, I think that this does speak to a generalised divestment - or, at the very least, re-examining - from previous views and approaches to heterosexual relationships. Personally, I believe that this is developing as a reaction to the broader uptick in misogyny.

While LADS is often dismissed as simply a ‘Gooner Game’ - that is, essentially, pornography for women - I think that such a dismissal is both inaccurate in terms of the game’s content as well as the motives and draw experience by its playerbase. It’s not entirely incorrect to point out that, yes, there is a degree of suggestive content in the game, particularly in the dating/relationship sides of the game, but LADS is much deeper than that. The game presents a self-directed approach to players: players interested in the story and universe of LADS can focus on that, whereas those players who wish to prioritise the ‘dating simulator’ aspects of the game are free to do so - while the dating aspect is, admittedly, much of the draw, presenting it as solely a dating game is, really, quite inaccurate.

Moreover, I think the way such a criticism is levelled is far more telling about the critics than the players; fundamentally, it suggests a refusal to engage with the game by simply writing it off as nothing more than just simple fluff met to titillate touch-starved players. Plus, the fact that this criticism has been, broadly, made by men is rather revealing. Firstly, it’s quite telling that a game that heavily targets, and is played primarily by, women receives these critiques, whereas arguably far more ‘explicit’ games that target men do not - or at least not from these same critics. Secondly, I think it’s rather telling that a game where the Love Interests are primarily approaching the player/main character through a lens of respectful attraction receives such heavy criticism from men.

But what truly fascinates me is the draw of LADS; as previously mentioned, I think that LADS represents a sort of ‘Heterosexual Idealism’ - that is, the idea of a heterosexual relationship where the man genuinely loves, respects, and cares for his girlfriend. And I think this speaks to a broader trend in society; we see more and more women turning to these types of ‘escapist’ content - such as LADS, CharacterAI, Dark Romance, and similar content - that, arguably, fulfills this Heterosexual idealism in response to the resurgence of misogyny in society, particularly in terms of dating.

To put it bluntly, as more and more men demonstrate themselves to be incapable of being a proper partner - often reacting with blatant misogyny when called out for such failings - I think we’ve seen a growing divestment from women. Relationships with men can be perilious, toxic, traumatising, and, unfortunately, too-often abusive. Naturally, it’s understandable that many women would choose to simply refocus their time and decentre men from their lives.

And this is where LADS comes in. LADS, and AI Boyfriends broadly, offers a sense of fulfillment for this desire for emotional intimacy with men while often avoiding the pitfalls that come with it. Women don’t have to worry about Xavier, Zayne, Rafayel, Sylus, nor Caleb abusing them, manipulating them, cheating on them, or anything else - they represent a simultaneously wish fulfillment of Heterosexual Idealism while also highlighting how, truly, low the bar is. Really, do the LADS boys truly represent an unattainable ideal, or do they simply represent the idea of a man who consistently goes above the bare minimum? It wouldn’t be impossible for a man to be what LADS players desire - sensitive, kind, emotionally intelligent, respectful, and supportive - it’d simply require consistent effort. But such a request is too often met with anger, resentment, mockery, or dismissal.

Which creates the question: if an AI Boyfriend can offer a sufficient simulacra of a relationship beyond what many men are willing to do, is it worth it? Is it worth letting oneself be wooed by the digital embrace of Artificial Intelligence?

It seems many women have, to some extent, answered yes.

But from this comes another question: how do we bridge the human desire for physical intimacy with the intangibility of AI? Currently, while AI has made admittedly shocking strides in advancement in terms of communication ability, memory, and realism, it is still bound by the limitations of the black mirror of computer screens.

Shout out to the autistic who’s abilities have regressed as they’ve gotten older.

“You didn’t used to be like this when you were a kid.” I know please don’t remind me

Which one?

I'd rather hangout with the straight boyfriend than the queer cop who insists they're one of the "good ones" while harassing people of color

I'd rather hangout with the straight palestinian grandma than the queer zionist who keeps insisting that the death of palestinians is the one way ticket to queer liberation

I'd rather hangout with the leather dyke who is a mspec gaybian and uses paw/pawself pronouns than the puritan who makes "callout posts" clearly targeting disabled queer artists

(xavier ramble that i posted on discord and now u get to read here <3)

so. my main faves are xavier (main), rafayel, and caleb. and i was thinking... what's pulling me to xavier over the other two? (especially caleb LMAO) i feel like i'd commonly go with the outspoken clingy dramatic boys (raf) or the 'childhood best friend' archetype (caleb) but something about xavier captivated me.

when i first started looking to him, i felt like there was waaay more than meets the eye for his character, and that's intentional, since he wants to live a quiet life, but has so much history behind him.

aside from differences in personalities and preferences (i love raf but irl im not a sea or seafood person, and i love caleb but.. but nothing. xavier just pulls me in more LMAO), xavier to me truly has that sneak attack for your heart.

he's awkward, and silly, and insanely powerful on the battlefield. he loves reading comics, playing video games, and being delusional about his cooking skills. he's a rock that you can always depend upon in a quiet life. he's cheeky and gets easily jealous, but would much rather pout and be sulky than direct that to you. its adorable. as xavier and caleb are jokingly deemed the 'possessive' duo, caleb's possessiveness to me could go left (affectionate, i know why), whereas i feel as though xavier's stems from just wanting to capitalize on your attention. he has someone in his life that he cares deeply about, its only natural for him to be a little clingy about it.

on top of the fact that he's just a good friend in of itself, keeping an eye on you and making sure you take care of yourself without crossing a boundary. he loves being around you so much so that he admires the person you are, and wants to be that type of person himself. he relishes in being recognized by you in a world where he's only ever known as an entity to be utilized, rather than a person who has feelings and passions.

'this is the first time someone's asked me to play support' he says, which sounds normal at face value, but its definitely something to be unpacked: he's not used to being the person that supports, he's used to being the leader, the strong hunter that needs no one to finish the job, the crown prince that's above all else, the leader of the backtrackers, the elusive lumiere… now he just gets to be xavier that supports his friends. he thinks of himself as a nobody, someone who used to be 'everything', not out of personhood, but out of necessity. being able to be seen by someone he loves despite everything is by far the greatest joy in life he could ever have. and i love him SOOOO MUCH FOR IT!! im sure all of the lads love mc and they make their life better by being in it, but for me, there's something so comforting and lovely about xavier growing into a person he wants to be because someone he loves makes him want to figure out who he is for himself. because the person that loves him will love him at his core regardless of who he decides to be. thats why he gets jealous because mc looks to lumiere, and im sure she's picked up on that too. he loathes the idea that she loves someone that isnt him. obviously, lumiere IS him, but it's not 'him' in the sense that it's a persona, an idea, a hero. xavier… simply thinks of himself as a man who quietly lives in his apartment and goes to work like everyone else. he doesnt have a tether to anything other than just wanting to live life the way he wants to, after living so many lives that were not given by choice. at least… not until mc.

but as an addendum to this rambling, he's just!!! great and i love his personal journey and how it intertwines with mc at the core of it. im happy he gets to be in a world where he can live a quiet life!! and his joy is by far something that leads me to him over the other lads.

-- (i love him in his entirety and i think i havent found that spark with the other lads yet. caleb is a close second though, his relationship with mc is so silly and they have such a sweet bond that im sure he cherishes. his devotion, affection, and love languages are to die for.

but i think xavier's way of being there for you and picking up the cracks when you cant or before you even realize appeals to me more. thinking about precious bonfire clips i saw and how he took every opportunity to stay by and support mc and how he looked after her, made sure she was having fun, and allowed her to use him as a scapegoat so that she didn't get burnt out or the call where he saw she was alone at a team building thing at the bar and offered to leave with her since she wasnt really keen on hanging out to begin with he's just. so sweet. hes always thinking about the small things and wants his favorite person to be happy because it makes him happy :> this doesnt even go into the smaller nuances or traits that i love about him. maybe i'll do a post about it or just how personality wise i feel like if i were to bond with anyone irl xavier would be #1 in a landslide.)

TME and TMA as intersexist terms: as written by an intersex transfem

I’ve had a few different people in my inbox asking me why I view these terms the way I do. In particular, why I claim it’s intersexist. So, I thought I’d lay out a few examples, so everyone can understand where I’m coming from.

Imagine an intersex woman. She was assigned female at birth by her doctors, and was able to go about her childhood as a woman with no inclination that anything was amiss. Sure, she didn’t experience certain parts of puberty, but puberty was different for everyone, right?

But, later in life, she learns she has Turner syndrome. This is an intersex condition where a woman has only one X chromosome, rather than the usual two.

Soon after she learns this, she finds that laws are being made to attempt to keep trans women out of women’s spaces (often specifically sports) which use chromosomes as a defining factor of womanhood.

Would this intersex person be considered “transmisogyny affected”? She has been raised as a cisgender woman with no problems regarding being ‘clocked’, but she is also a direct target of transmisogynistic laws. She lies in a gray area.

Now, let’s go to another intersex person. Imagine an intersex man with PAIS. AIS is an intersex condition where babies are born with testes and XY chromosomes, but their body is immune to or can’t respond to androgens (which includes testosterone). Intersex people with partial AIS (PAIS) often develop a vulva and clitoris during puberty.

This intersex person identifies as a man, and he was assigned male at birth. However, his body does not produce testosterone, and he went through a feminizing puberty. To the average eye, he appears to be a woman now because of this.

Would this intersex person be considered “transmisogyny affected?” He was assigned male at birth, and now appears to be a woman, much like many transfems. However, if many saw how he looks now, stating that he is a male, they would probably clock him as transmasc. He was raised as a boy until puberty, and then faced astrozcization from his peers when he began a puberty that feminized him. What he was facing was a form of intersexism where transmisogyny was playing a huge part. Does his childhood matter? Can one become TME over time, when they were TMA as a child? Again, he lies in a gray area, where the answer is not quite so simple.

What about the “opposite”, per se — an intersex woman who had a masculinizing puberty? She has aromatase deficiency, which means that many ‘male’ hormones (which would usually be converted to ‘female’ hormones) would remain unconverted. She identifies as a woman, and was identified as a female at birth and was raised, until puberty, as a female. But now, she would be clocked as a trans woman upon looking at her. What does that make her? Is it different from the previous example? How and why? This intersex person also lies in a gray area. How she should be described with these terms is not clear.

And keep in mind, these are all relatively simple examples. All of the examples I listed self-identify as cisgender. But there are intersex people who are trans in any direction you can imagine.

If that last example identified as a trans woman, because she is now clocked as one, would you be able to say she’s wrong for that? What about if she identified as transmasculine, because of her experience with puberty? What if she’s multigender, bigender or genderfluid, and says she’s both transmasc and transfem because of her complicated experiences? Would that make her a TMA transmasculine person? But I thought that transmascs were all TME? That’s how it’s so often framed, anyway.

The reason why these questions are so difficult to answer is because these terms were not made with intersex people in mind. Very real intersex transfems were pushed to the wayside in favor of centering the perisex view of transgenderism. Intersex people are nothing but an inconvenient little afterthought, annoying perisex people with their demand for “inclusion” and “consideration”. (As per usual.)

You cannot simply make a new gender binary and say, “No, really, this time everyone fits into these two categories! Forcing people to confine themselves to these two rigid labels which are shown as opposites, and as never interacting, will definitely include everyone this time!!” No matter what the contents of the new binary is, it’s not going to work, because sex and gender alike are too complicated for that. There will always be people in the gray area.

This isn’t even getting into the fact that these terms, for all intents and purposes, seem to have been popularized by and associated with the Baeddelism movement around 2017, which was essentially “Radical Feminism 2: We’re Trans Women, So It’s Fine!” This movement is known for chronic villainization of trans men and non-binary people who aren’t transfem. (They act like this with cis people too, but noticeably less so than they do with non-transfem trans people. How curious.) Think along the lines of how regular radfems treat all men (and who they deem to be men) as inherently morally disgusting scum who deserve to be attacked.

Methinks that maybe these terms aren’t the neutral, fact-based descriptors of oppression that many people nowadays tout them to be, considering that.

So, yeah. “Transmisogyny exempt” and “transmisogyny affected” as terms: not even once. Listen to intersex people, stop trying to make sex and gender into binaries, and for the love of God, stop drinking the queer seperationist koolaid!