This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think I missed that one; I got through the first 3 volumes (as in, where the show left off, AIUI).
But then I looked at the latest volumes and the other related doujins (specifically about one of the other boys) completely convinced me that the transness is only important inasmuch it creates space for the development of authority -> 'manliness' on Mahiro's part.
That's the part that's anti-trans (femininity as means, not as end). If it was pro-trans (as in, 'he doesn't want to exhibit the primary/attractive characteristics of a man, and maybe he gets a sexual thrill from not doing that', or 'femininity as end') he would only be participating passively (or get over being terrified with physical contact with the other girls) and that's not quite what I observed.
(Like, look at episode 100. Does the cat-Mahiro imagine spot really scream 'Mahiro is enjoying being submissive and breedable' there? Why would he set himself up as the dominant partner in the exchange if the entire point was getting off on the submission? It's more gay than trans in the sense that the narrative takes pains to clarify that Mahiro [who... still continually appears to perceive himself as a man] is far more interested in being a sexual object to (and by extension, dominating) Yuta/Minato than anyone else [and at least by chapter 50 still doesn't yet see himself as authorized to dominate the girls, which is the kind of thing I'd expect to be present in a pro-trans fantasy]. In 67, he's notably not dysphoric about wearing male-appearing clothes or being called a boy.)
I will admit this is also contingent on a particular definition of 'trans' that isn't just 'changed gender'- it's that plus the attendant overeager lipstick-lesbian sexuality that has to be present, and that's missing in this case. One might even go so far to say it doesn't make sense to evaluate 'definitionally transgender' solely from a physical/male-only perspective considering the claim that framing isn't sufficient is literally in the name.
But I know for sure that if there is a third gender, that this is media that clearly represents it, and that I am probably of it.
But she really doesn't, though; that's the entire reason I found it strange. If that was the point it'd have ended with Takumi in either permanent chains or something like that, but Takumi's active participation is required for the endings to occur how they do (they either die together, or die fighting each other).
That's not usually how that trope/fantasy goes- or at least, not my understanding. But maybe I'm missing some required reading; I'm sure you could fill me in.
More options
Context Copy link