labelling theory

There’s this notion that I keep seeing that privileged people benefit from oppression of another class, and it’s an idea I never saw when I first started learning sociological theory.

Back in like 2012, tumblr was all about including men in feminism and talking about how feminism would benefit everybody because it would do away with homophobia/homoantagonism and toxic masculinity, etc.

Like… to say that privileged groups (if not individuals) actively benefit from oppression is to erase the performative aspect of privilege; entry to privilege is determined by the privileged (see: Straight determines Straight) and if you deviate Too Much from their expectations, they revoke your right to reap the benefits of membership.

For example, despite all the campaigns about how Real Men Cry or whatever, the prevailing cognitive understanding that society holds is that crying is not masculine, and men who cry are shameful. This is sets a very hard limit on the emotions that a man is capable of showing, which is absolutely a kind of marginalization (but not inherently oppression).

To put it another way, if a cis man wears a dress, would he not face tangible violence from society at large regardless of what he claims his gender is? Is it the same as systemic legal disenfranchisement? Of course not. But a cis man in a dress has less social power than a cis man following social norms. And that power difference is rooted in transphobia/transantagonism. Whether or not it necessarily is the same experience is debatable, but transphobia/transantagonism is inexorably linked to rigid gender roles and toxic masculinity and homophobia/misogyny and other systems that actively hurt both oppressed and privileged classes.

Orientation-wise, people have discussed how coercive heterocentricism can negatively impact people who have never thought about their own orientations before, regardless of if they would turn out straight in the end anyway.

Even aside from gender and orientation, does anyone really benefit from ableism? A student experiencing one-off anxiety will likely not receive any more accommodation than somebody with an anxiety disorder with no legal documentation of it. How often do able-bodied people feel awkward about using the elevator? And how many often do disabled folks feel similarly awkward about how soon it’ll be before somebody makes them justify their right to use accessibility features? Again, abled people are not systemically disenfranchised and stigmatized, but both classes would benefit from a world where nobody gatekeeps disability or bats an eye at accommodations.

The problem with the Us vs Them model of privilege and oppression is that it seeks to create new power structures alongside the existing ones, instead of dismantling the entire notion of power itself. If you let people do what they need to do (whether it’s using the elevator or wearing a dress) without trying to retroactively judge the validity of their experiences, then everybody gets an equal playing field to be themselves freely and openly. After all, the number of elevators (ie resources) that exist in a space should be determined by usage statistics, and not by some statistic of how many disabled people there are present.

Exclusive labels will always leave out a grey population or fringe groups of marginalization.  Everybody oppresses each other and that’s a fact of life and intersectionality. What needs to happen is an abolishment of the systems that keep everyone down; true revolution means aligning not through labels but through ideologies. Even Marx said that when the time comes to overthrow capitalism, some bourgeoisie will align themselves with the revolution. Disability and gender are social constructs that exist because people in power say they do, but those people in power would benefit more in the end from saying they don’t.

out of all the potential paths this could take, ranging from bribery and corporate corruption to simple unreliably authored articles (and the ensuing discussions to be had about censorship, choice, ecc), the takeaway trumpites are getting is “our favorite propoganda sites are being labeled as bullshit crack theory generators :(”

This was me and my Queer Theory teacher at the Lav Grad ceremony at CU in 2015. Of course I made him pose for a pic :) I hope Sam realizes what a difference he has made in not just my life, but the lives of all students at CU who have struggled to understand themselves, and struggled to understand those around them.

The Bookshop That Has (Almost) Everything

fun fact this is loosely based on a real bookshop I once found somewhere in greenwich idk exactly where it is but if ever find urself around the area look out for it its v cute and v tiny

summary: Phil works at a bookshop. Dan buys a book one day, and, in a ploy to see Phil, keeps returning with more and more obscure requests so Phil has to spend more time searching. After Dan leaves with ‘cactus maintenance: a memoir’, Phil starts to suspect something’s up.

words: 7.3k


“Look,” Phil sighs when he catches sight of the book Dan’s clutching today. “I know there’s a very good chance you keep cacti and you just wanna maintain them and it’s probably wrong of me to assume otherwise, but-…can I ask you something?”

Dan gulps, putting the book titled “Cactus Maintenance: A Memoir” down on the counter.

“Do you actually need half of the books you come in here for?” he asks softly. “I mean, don’t get me wrong, there’s a good chance you might actually ride motorcycles, study bricklaying, want to know more about frogspawn or- you know, wanna look after your cacti, but…” he shrugs. “I don’t know. It’s just- um, you’re the first person I’ve met that, you know, buys one book every single day. When do you get time to read them all?”



Graveland’s Books is the kind of place you’d only come across if you were either very bored, very desperate, or very lost.

It hides on the tail end of an alleyway just behind the village market, and the gnarled wooden beams, the glass oil lanterns lining either side of the aged brickwork and the rusty bronze bell hanging above the door would fool anyone into thinking they’d just stepped out of 2016 and into the 18th century. If it wasn’t for the mobile phone shop sitting directly opposite, of course.

It’s not big in size, with a staff room and an office the size of a postage stamp upstairs and just about enough room to fit two free standing bookshelves in the middle of the shop, but books spill into every single crack. Stacks and stacks of fiction and history and travel and biographies narrow the aisles between the shelves, and it’s all too easy to trip over a random pile of books in the middle of the floor when you’re not concentrating properly.

But, for a job running along the sidelines of university, Phil enjoys it. He’d certainly rather spend his time flicking through a story about a cursed mushroom than stack supermarket shelves and deal with obnoxious co-workers, anyway.

Keep reading

gayflorona  asked:

Hey, so I read your post about how you identify, and I wanted to say that I totally support you in that and I'm glad you've found a label that makes you feel good! I don't understand though --- I and a number of other people feel the way about the word "queer" that you do about those other labels. And lesbian is the word I've chosen that makes me feel good. So... why should we use your label as an umbrella term even though it makes ppl uncomfortable, instead of something more inclusive??

Ok, so, basically the thing for me about it is…

When someone tells me that I can use ‘queer’ as a personal identity label, but not apply it to anyone else…

It feels like they are saying ‘it’s fine for YOU to be like that, but don’t try to go claiming solidarity, or a community, with anyone else, or act like anyone else shares your experiences!’

Which feels profoundly isolating, tbh.

Also, yeah, I don’t super love the word ‘gay’, BUT I wouldn’t presume to tell anyone they can’t use ‘gay’ as a term, just because I have a history of it being used as a slur against me.

Because if that is someone’s personal identity or they feel comfortable using it, then that is their right to use it, for themselves and for others that fit the generally accepted definition of the word.

And I would certainly never say you were unable to use lesbian as a personal identity. Go for it! I’m glad that it works for you. 

But literally EVERY WORD OR TERM we’ve got has been used as a slur, in a mocking context, to hurt.

It isn’t just ‘using a slur’ like ‘bitch’ when you could just say women, because none of the words we have are particularly neutral.

Despite ‘gay’ being used far, far, far more often as an insult & a slur in modern contexts, in both my own experience & that of research I have read on the subject….

I have never encountered a single person who has EVER objected to it’s use as a catch-all term on that grounds.

Not one.

If you genuinely believe you should object to the use of the word queer, it’s  doing the same for the word ‘gay’, but I’ve never seen that happen, not once.

So that doesn’t really feel like a useful argument, or at least, it feels very unevenly applied as one.

Which, again, is fine, because I’m not fond of policing the terms, I’m just pointing out that it feels hypocritical to tell people that one word is more harmful, so they aren’t allowed to use it, when both carry both good & bad with them.


What I would say, however, is that ‘gay’ & ‘lesbian’ used as a catch-all can erase all other women & people in the community who don’t fit that identity marker, and for that reason another more encompassing word perhaps, in general descriptions of ourselves as a group & how we are treated in media might be a better fit.

Because, yes, ‘gay’ can be used as a general community term, but the more common parlance that’s understood is ‘same-gender attraction only’, so it’s less useful as an encompassing term, anyway.


I’m looking at the media coverage of the “Xena’s sexuality is going to be explored canonically in the reboot’ thing going around, and I’m seeing a lot of ‘She’LL BE GAY’ or “SHE’ll BE A LESBIAN’ headlines…

When that wasn’t what was stated, that wasn’t confirmed, and Xena, to my knowledge, had relationships with men in the past during the original series, so calling her bi or pan or etc would probably be more accurate…

But people are seeing ‘not-straight’, & defaulting immediately to ‘welp, must be gay then’, which is limiting & smacks, to my mind, of bi-erasure type stuff.

Whereas, if those headlines said ‘queer’…

That, to me, would acknowledge that Xena will be liking ladies, but that no one has specifically mentioned an identity label for her, and her attraction to other gender could fall anywhere on a spectrum.

Because that’s what ‘queer’ means, to me.

It’s a personal identity label, sure, like ‘gay’, like ‘lesbian’, etc.

But it’s not strictly a substitute for those. It’s a larger category, like… Like taxonomic labels.

It doesn’t erase the individual identity a person has, it just acknowledges that they exist in a big complex messy overlapping group with a lot of other people.

 Me referring to you as part of a group & saying ‘queer’, to me doesn’t negate the fact that you’re a lesbian, any more than pointing at a bowl of bananas, pears, apples, oranges, etc, and saying ‘those are fruit’, stops the orange from being an orange. (It’s just acknowledging that… Oranges are not the only fruit, badum tshhh. I’m sorry. That was a terrible, terrible joke. I digress.)

It’s an umbrella term for all of the non-heteronormative identities, while also acknowledging the complicated nature of some of those identities.

To me, it seeks to encompass all of them in a singular word, to point out the fact that not everyone’s identity is set or defined. Some are, some aren’t, some are a work in progress.

To acknowledge that the gender binary is a construct, a strict binary of male/female, straight/gay, doesn’t work for everyone….

Like myself. What word easily states ‘attracted to women, for sure, some nonbinary people who lean more femme in their gender expression, definitely not men, haven’t worked out exactly where I’m at in terms of sexual attraction all the time, also autistic so figuring out how I feel about people is weird anyhow?

There isn’t one, and that paragraph makes for a darned mouthful & TMI in most conversations, anyway.

So… ‘Queer’.

Because coming up with a way to list every possible word for every possible combination thereof in terms of identity, outside than what is seem as ‘the default’ is a functionally impossible task.

Sure, you could list acronyms like WLW, or LPQB, or LGBT.

But often those they leave a lot of people out, like bi women currently loving men, for WLW, or for the other ones, ace spectrum people and others, and they are all awkward in verbal conversation, not super accessible to the uninformed, etc.

In terms of LGBT, it’s often used in circumstances that also conflate being trans as if it’s a sexuality, or to give the false impression that trans issues are being prioritized in a conversation they are absent from.

‘Sapphic’ just sounds a bit twee, in all honesty, and again, it codes very overly-specific to just women who exclusively like other women.

So that’s my case for queer, in terms of using it as a catch-all, because it’s both simpler, more complex, and broader than any of the other terms.

Queer is also more than just an identity category of categories, too, it has other context that make it appeal to me.

It specifically has the academic context of ‘queer studies’ & ‘queer theory’, and the academic discourses that, while wildly imperfect, have done a lot of good at studying our community, understanding it, legitimating us, etc.

It isn’t a term that’s just a slur, it’s a term used by the people looking at us, or looking at themselves, in understand, to gain context & knowledge & circumstance.

It has that weight behind it, for me. That lens.

I’m a sociology major in my undergrad, and if I could do any kind of research, it would be ideally from the lens of queer theory.

That’s also what I think of when I use the term. Of my gender studies classes & queer theory classes I’ve taken, the halls of universities carrying the term.

That’s why it’s used in media commentary, in aca-fandom, in terms like ‘queerbaiting’.

We aren’t pulling from it’s older history as a slur, we are pulling from its newer usage as a tool of critical commentary, to utilize the term as a line-of-best-fit catch-all for the issues that affect people who don’t fit the neat box of cis/straight.

And finally…

Yeah, queer has a history as a slur, and one in modern academic contexts, but it also has a history since at least the 1980s as a term used in by activists in our community to fight back against the idea that our identities are shameful.

It was specifically used, to my understanding, BECAUSE of its power as a slur, not merely in spite of it.

The reclamation of it has a lot of power to me.

It feels, to me, like saying ‘The world is saying that who we are is shameful, is disgusting, is crazy & terrible & wrong, & they’ve said it loud enough and long enough that we don’t have any words left but the ones that they’ve used to hurt us with.

But we’re tired of believing them.

This? This thing that they said we are?

Is beautiful. Is love, is pleasure, is happiness, is pride. We refuse to let it be ugly, because it never was.

Language evolves it shifts and grows and SO MANY people have grasped onto that word with joy & pride, and used it as a banner, a rallying cry, have formed academic language that calls our messy complexities out of the ether & into legitimated discourses of existence, of struggle, of love, of being.

We’re allowed to carry that word in more than just our aching hearts, let it echo in broad public halls, not just in the quiet spaces between the words we never let ourselves speak.

We can speak it.

We CAN use that word as if there is a community behind it, as if there is anyone else like us in the world for us to find peace or love or belonging with, because there is, we know there is.

We’re trying to move past the kind of thinking that told us different, thanks, and we have no reason to go back to it, we have no reason to grant that any power over who we are, who we choose to be. 

As the rallying cry states…

We’re queer, we’re here. Get used to it.

28 out of 33mark essay example

Asses the usefulness of micro sociology to our understanding of society 33 marks

Micro sociology refers to sociological perspectives that take an individualistic approach to explaining and looking at society. In contrast to macro sociology which is a perspective looking at the society as a whole, the structures within it which are argued to constrain the behaviour of people, micro sociology believes that individuals make the society and have free will to act and are not ‘puppets’ on strings. Micro sociology believes individual social actors make up society, and therefore in studying society we are really studying human behaviour. There are a few perspectives to be discussed here and analysed, using other theories and structuralist macro perspectives, before coming to the conclusion that more integrated approaches would be the best way to present and explain useful information.

First, symbolic interactionsim is the idea society as we know it is a social construction, created through the meanings we attach to actions and how we convey the meanings through symbols. To explain, in this idea society is not an external phenomenon which can be measured objectively. For example, in the same way we attach the meaning of 'stop’ when driving to a red traffic light, there are meanings and symbols we all share which create understandings between individuals. Mead was a micro sociologist who studied the meanings we attach to things, he notes that unlike animals who act on instinct humans have developed ways to convey meaning through symbols like the red traffic light. Herbert Blumer was also a micro sociologist and followed on from this, to say that we gain meaning from interaction experience with other people and we can negotiate and change the meanings we have. We gain understanding from taking 'the role of the other’, that is to say looking at the situation from another’s perspective.

This micro sociological approach is useful to the general understanding of human behaviour within society, firstly because it explains how people interact, we attach meanings to our interactions and convey our meaning through symbols, like language. It is useful to have at least a basic understanding of human interaction in society that can explain a lot of situations people find themselves in. It explains why we stop at red lights, and it explains why conversations end when people say goodbye amongst other things.

It also assumes we have free will, by claiming free will symbolic interactionism avoids the determinism of structuralist theories. For example, Marxism would claim that we are all determined by capitalism in the way we live our lives, however this theory  would suggest that we choose and are motivated to attach meaning to money and material possessions and our interactions of buying more things shows our free will not our determined behaviour due to the set up of society. Also structuralist approaches that claim determinism falter in how they explain negotiation and changes of meaning that Blumer puts forward. With no evident change in the structure of society but changes in meanings attached to things, determinism might not stand up to explaining why there is a change. For example, we can negotiate someone’s view of ourselves and their view may change from 'working class’ to 'John’ instead without anything structuralist changes of John moving class or classes moving around him.

Having an understanding of human behaviour and further expanding the sort after use of free will makes this a useful approach to understanding the individual motivations of humans which make up society. In terms of real life application, understanding that alcoholics attach meaning to their interactions, explains that there is a meaning behind their excessive drinking. Medical professionals could use this sociological understanding and try to rationalise their meanings behind drinking and stop the dysfunctional behaviour. In terms of wider societal influences, this could lead people to understand real life symbols and the meanings other people attach to them, thus having a greater understanding of the symbol and the motivation/people behind it. For example, religious symbols. It also means this approach is useful at explaining wider society in how we all attach meanings to things and this process allows us to create new meanings from meeting others, interact more effectively and also explains what society is; a collection of meanings and symbols we share and negotiate.

However there are lots of problems with micro sociology and this theory in particular. For instance it assumes that interactions and thus our behaviour is motivated and we attach meaning to it. However this implication of that is to attach meaning to seemingly instinctual things. When to attach meaning to instinct is irrational because the instincts we have are not thought our or meaningful. For instance imagine two people on a cliff edge, one falls over the edge, the other leans over and catches them, they try to pull them up. A stone comes flying out of no where towards the person saving the other, that person my instinctually put their hand up to protect themselves, inadvertently letting go of the person and letting them fall to their death. If we assume our behaviours and interactions all have meanings and motivations behind them, then this instinctual behaviour to let go is murder because that person is believed to have 'meant’ to let go. Whereas the reality is that they didn’t. It was just a reaction of self preservation. Micro sociology, Mead and Blumer all suggest that our behaviours have meanings and motivations but ignores that some behaviours are purely instinctual and have no meaningful/thought out motivation. Therefore they are not useful at all in explaining instinctual behaviour and their explanation is inadequate.

Micro approaches are also not useful due to the argument put forward by Post-Modernists in that this explanation of behaviour is simply a meta-narrative and in their view no more valid that macro approaches or other theories of human behaviour and society. Overall this perspective is no more useful at explaining behaviour than any other, it makes the same amount of contribution in knowledge to the society. This is because there is no way to verify knowledge, truth is relative and in this way the validity of this perspective is relative to the rest of the perspectives explaining the same thing.

Another criticism might be from a Feminist macro sociological position, they argue that it is insane to argue women are motivated and choose to live by their husbands and man in the wider society. For instance Radical Feminists might argue women were not motivated to be housewives, look after the kids, juggle a part time job and satisfy their husbands ourt of free will, but they are determined to do so by the overarching structure of the patriarchy. They could argue that there is no way to negotiate meanings attached to women or men or the women’s role, it is what it is, the only solution is separatism not free choice.

There is also the idea that society is not a social construction, meaning that all across the Earth there are societies and they all largely in whatever form all follow the same pattern; large group of people following some sort of social order and there are social facts which appear in all of these societies regardless of the people within. For examples Durkheim’s study of suicide found that there were patterns of suicide similar in a lot of European countries which were evident over time, meaning even when the people changed over the social facts still existed. So arguably the micro sociological perspective that society is a social construction is a fallacy, because there exists structures and social facts across time and geography which suggest otherwise. If we use Karl Popper as an example, we only have to find a social fact evident across time and space (suicide) to inadequate micro sociologies claim, and Durkheim did.

Therefore symbolic interactionism as a micro sociological theory is not useful as it is just as relative as any other theory of society, cannot explain the female struggle and why women would across society subject themselves to subordination, but also cannot hold up against social facts which undermine the assumption of society as a social construction.

Labelling theory is a micro sociological theory which explains society by looking at the labels actors attach to people or situations. To explain, it shows how when we attach definition to people and believe that those definitions are true, it changes how we act around it or within it. Therefore the labels we attach change our behaviour. For example, Gilborn and Youdell (2000) argue that teachers have radicalised expectations based on the labels they attach to black pupils, meaning that the pupils are badly behaved and all of their behaviours are meant in a disruptive way. Another way labelling theory explains our own perceptions is how we develop our self concept, Cooley argues this develops by 'taking the role of the other’ as suggested by symbolic interactionsim and internalising their views and labels of us. This internalisation can also lead to careers in our labels. Much like in an occupation we progress through the ranks, labelling theory believes that we have careers in our label. Young looked at how marijuana users became progressively more using of the substance when it created moral panic and social actors labelled them as 'marijuana users’, the users came together because of their label and thus used more.

Whilst this theory is a micro perspectives and like mentioned before avoids the determinism of structuralist theories, this theory in itself creates a lot of determinism and looses the free will that overall micro perspectives cherish. For example, as society is made up of the way we label things, it could be argued we have free will to label what as we wish. However this theory looses free will when an actor is being labelled, people might believe the label of 'trouble maker’ is true and believe they are trouble makers, everything they do is to cause trouble and so even when the actor uses free will to do nice things to negotiate the label, the actors who applied the label might believe that person is doing the good deeds for some selfish end to cause trouble. Therefore this theory is not so useful in our understanding of society because it tries to show free will in that it is a micro theory and so people are not determined by structures, however ends up being a theory of determinism and in the confusion of whether this theory is or is not based on free will it brings nothing to the debate on our free will in society.

However it could be argued that this is a useful micro theory to our understanding of sociology because it has real life applications that some structural theories cannot bring. For instance, in real life sociology has practical implications to research and social policy, so having a micro theory like labelling is useful as it can show how our society operates on labels and inform policy not to support negative labels as it knows the effects of them. Namely that when someone has a label applied that they become a self-fulfilling prophecy and become that label. So knowledge to avoid this is useful to apply to the education system, work ethics and social policy when dealing with people. It is even useful to political parties, label themselves as for the people and people will treat them like they are a party for the people. Also this micro theory is not just useful in wider society and social policy but in understanding social actors behaviour (those that make up society) and how they are personally affected by labels, ie, have deviant careers when labelled as deviant.

Another way labelling theory is not useful is in how it cannot explain the origins of labels. For instance, some people have labels attached to them like black pupils in a secondary schools being trouble makers, and left wingers who smoke marijuana being drug abusers, whereas some people do not have labels attached to them. This theory cannot explain why some groups do not have labels and some do. And is therefore not useful at explaining societal labels and where they come from. Whereas more macro approaches like Feminism or Marxism could explain this. For instance from a Marxist perspective people who work in low skilled low paid jobs and have large families are labelled as working class, and are labelled as scroungers if they have benefits. This has a structuralist purpose, these labels are imposed onto hard working people by the ruling class to divide the working classes and those who work against each other. Marxist theories can even explain why this occurs, it is due to the fact the ruling class do not want the working class together and united in case the realise their exploitation and overthrow the ruling class. Labelling theory cannot really explain why people label recreational left wing marijuana users as drug abusers and who attaches the label (only that it is supported by the media). Sociologists looking at the cases labelling theory uses to explain their theory might be able to explain the origins but not labelling theory itself. Therefore labelling theory is not useful at explaining the origins of labels, and in fact macro perspectives are better at this as their theory is based on structuralist determinism.

Another micro theory is the Ethnomethodological approach to explaining society…

Whilst I did not finish this essay, it was under timed conditions (I type for exams) this still achieved 28/33, so more bredth rather than so much depth would have worked as well 

Use Weber and Giddens, as a mid way between the two approaches and conclude these two and integrated approaches are a good mid way of the all the strengths of the micro and macro

I saw that, during fall, there’s going to be a tv show about an autistic surgeon. It’s a remake of a K-Drama, “Good Doctor”, so I decided to watch it myself and… god, it’s not bad, but there are some stuff that is so, so ableist it hurts to just watch and listen to it. Keep in mind that i just watched one episode for the moment, so maybe it gets better.

Long story short, they’re talking about “curing autism”, they’re infantilizing the character as hell (they’re even saying in the summary that he has the mental age of a 10 years old child, which is… awful to say), they’re always saying “suffer from autism” and they’re calling it a mental illness (which autism is not). 

On the other hand, I really like the main character and I think the actor did a pretty good job playing his part so far. But all of this ableism is so hard to bear… 

I really hope the remake get rid of this. In the trailer, they used functioning labels, but they never talked about “curing autism” and explicitly stated that autism and savant syndrome (which he both has) are two different things and that you can be autistic without being a savant.

So… we’ll see. For those of us who watched the drama entirely, what are your thoughts about it ? Do you plan to watch the remake ?

Interesting Facts About Layne Staley/Alice in Chains
  • Layne Staley was born on August 22, 1967 in Kirkland,Washington. His zodiac sign was Leo. 
  • Layne’s parents divorced in 1974 when he was 7 years old. This was the start of a lot of issues for Layne, he has been known to describe his childhood becoming a nightmare, and his father started to use drugs quite heavily. This caused his father to disappear from Layne’s life. This could explain as to why Layne became heavy into drugs later in life, mainly heroin. One quote from layne hints at this:  “My world became a nightmare, there were just shadows around me. I got a call saying that my dad had died, but my family always knew he was around doing all kinds of drugs. Since that call I always was wondering, ‘Where is my dad?’ I felt so sad for him and I missed him. He dropped out of my life for 15 years.”
  • Layne grew up with his mother and stepfather as a Christian Scientist. 
  • Layne got into the music that his parents used to listen to, a collection of Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple. Some other musical influences were Anthrax, Judas Priest, Saxon, Rainbow, Mercyful Fate, Twisted  Sister, Van Halen, Ministry, the Lords of the New Church, and Skinny Puppy.
  • In 1984, Layne joined a band with some high school friends and named it Sleze. Shortly after in 1986, the band formed into Alice N’ Chains and was a glam metal band. It is known that Layne dressed in drag. After performing in Seattle, Layne met Jerry Cantrell and they became close friends, even roommates. Alice N’ Chains then broke up and Layne asked Jerry to start as a sideman for a new band. Eventually Alice in Chains was formed with Layne as vocals, Jerry as lead guitar/vocals, Sean Kinney as drums, and Mike Starr as bass.
  • Some people do not know this, but Layne wasn’t just involved with the band Alice in Chains. In 1994, members from Pearl Jam (Mike McCready), Screaming Trees (Barrett Martin), Alice in Chains (Layne Staley), and Mark Lanegan formed a band named Mad Season (other members present). It was first known as The Gacy Bunch but they soon changed their name. They released their first album, Above,  in 1995 and planned to release more but due to band members conflicting schedules and Layne’s drug problems, they went into a semi-permanent hiatus in 1996. They all tried to get back together in the late 90s but it didn’t happen due to the bands bassist John Baker Saunders dying in 1999. 

  • Alice in Chains released several albums: 
        • Facelift, 1990
        • SAP1992
        • Dirt, 1992
        • Jar of Flies, 1994
        • Alice in Chains (self-titled), 1995
        • MTV Unplugged, 1996
  • Layne has one known girlfriend, Demri Parrot, who eventually became his fiance. The two broke up in the mid 90s. Sadly, Demri died in 1996 of complications due to heroin. Layne was known to be very distraught by this, and I personally think it sent him over the edge.
  • One of Layne’s last performances was the 1996 MTV Unplugged performance.
  • Layne is known for his large problem with drugs, mainly heroin. It started in the early 90s, causing the band to have arguments. Understandably so, the majority of the bands members got clean, but Layne had a harder time staying off of it. He eventually got so wrapped up in it he started to become very ill. He lost teeth, dropped a considerable amount of weight, and in his final days did not want to see anyone. Mike was the last to see him, and begged for him to go to the hospital. It is rumored that Layne knew he was dying, therefore wasn’t willing to receive any help. As we all know, heroin is a deadly drug and long term use causes a variety of problems. The user will become anxiety ridden and sick with withdrawals, and only shoots up to stay somewhat less ill.
  • Layne died on April 5th, 2002, exactly 8 years after Kurt Cobain passed away. He was 34 years old. He died of an overdose, a mixture of cocaine and heroin. He was not found until two weeks after his apparent death. He weighed only 86 lbs. 
  • Mike Starr, bassist, died of an overdose on March 8th 2011.
  • Alice in Chains is still around, with a new singer William Duvall, and have released a few albums since Layne’s Death.
  • Songs about/influenced by Layne after his death:
    • The Day Seattle Died“-Cold
    • Layne“-Black Label Society
    • “Shadow“-Theory of a Deadman
    • “Just a Bullet Away“-Metallica
    • “Bargain Basement Howard Hughes“-Jerry Cantrell
    • “Layne“-Staind
    • “Died“- Alice in Chains
    • “4/20/02“-Pearl Jam
    • “Wake Up“-Mad Season
    • “Black Gives Way to Blue“-Alice in Chains

Psychology through K-dramas

Labeling Theory

Introduced by Becker, Lemert, and Tannebaum, the theory states that society’s influence on a subject directs their outcome. A person given a label over time will take on the characteristics of that label.

As stated by Lee Joon Young, a person called pretty from birth will believe they are pretty. A person called stupid from birth will believe they are stupid. A person who is called a monster/criminal from birth will believe they are a monster/criminal.

Becker states, “ Social groups create deviance by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders…deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an offender,”(Maddan & Marshall, 2009, p 254).

The theory basically states that free will is given up as soon as a label is place on a person, allowing for determinism to take over. 


Maddan, S., & Marshall,I. (2009), Labeling and symbolic interaction theories. In J Miller (Ed.), 21st Century criminology: A reference handbook. (p. 253-262). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412971997.n29

“The Final Problem” Survival Pack [NEW UPDATE, 28/1]

This is the third update of the original TFP Survival Pack posted on 20/1. It contains all of the information in the original along with the most recent meta.

New highlights include:

  • A section addressing concerns and counterarguments
  • Meta on specific subtheories, such as John going blind on one eye
  • Clues about January 29th

Search Ctrl + F + “[NEW]” to look at only the new information.

(Note: if the section is labelled [NEW], all meta in that section is new.)

Still screaming over that crazy episode? Some hope remains! This masterpost and theory table collect the fandom’s last hopes—and they’re less crazy than you’d think.

The main takeaway is that the episode contradicts the rest of the show and real-world events far too much for it to be just a mistake. In fact, the evidence suggests that there will be a fourth episode.

“What? That’s ridiculous!”

That’s what I thought at first, too. But things in real life don’t add up, and they can’t be explained by bad writing. At this point, a rug pull is simply the most logical explanation. And if we’re wrong, well…it can’t really get any worse, can it?

This pack has 6 parts:

  1. Issues: Everything within the episode that makes TFP not only a dumpster fire, but a (literally) unbelievable dumpster fire.
  2. Clues: Real-life weirdness such as cast quotes that don’t fit, scenes missing from filming, and strange new promos that hint at a fourth episode.
  3. Descriptions of the two main theories
  4. Theory table: Compares which theories explain which issues
  5. Resources: Links to meta that explain specific issues or the episode’s weirdness as a whole
  6. Conclusions: What it all means, and why we should hold out a little longer.



Disclaimer: Everything in this post is speculation. If you don’t want to get your hopes up, by all means skip it. However, I’d suggest at least waiting until January 29th before going full-out against Mofftiss (reasons below).

=============== Issues ================

Everything weird about that episode. With over 70 nontrivial plot holes, it’s hard to view the episode’s quality as an accident.

(The bolded phrases are descriptions, not the actual titles.)

Within the episode:

Unresolved plot holes and narrative problems:

=============== Clues ===============

Real-World Inconsistencies

The Missing Scenes

Scenes that were filmed but that we’ve never seen? Quotes that make no sense with TFP as the finale? Something is up.


It’s in Sherlock’s Mind

Everything in Season 4, since either the end of TAB or Mary shooting Sherlock, is in Sherlock’s mind as he is comatose. This theory requires all three episodes to be at least partly imaginary. A main variation is that John is talking to him as he is comatose, and that what John describes influences what Sherlock imagines.

For meta on variations of this theory, including EMP and John’s alibi, please see the TST Survival Pack.

It’s in John’s Mind

Everything in TFP is in John’s mind after John is shot. Variations include:

  • TST and TLD also took place in John’s mind.
  • Mary shot John, not Eurus.

This one is starting to gain more ground, particularly because it would make the whole season an adaptation of “The Three Garridebs”, leading to canon Johnlock, etc.

==============Theory Table=============

Green = Completely addresses this issue

Yellow = Addresses this issue somewhat plausibly, but not the best solution


[NEW] A Brief Rundown by @myminionsandieatcereal

Sherlock’s POV

John’s POV

Clue/Multiple Versions Theory

Clarifications and Misinformation

[NEW] Addressing Concerns and Counterarguments

[NEW] Subtheories/Independent Theories

[NEW] The Importance of January 29th

On Issues in the Episode


Meta on a single issue that specifically support one theory are labelled [John’s POV] or [Sherlock’s POV], respectively.

On the Whole Episode:

On Breaking the Fourth Wall (and Why):


They broke every rule of writing unless it’s a rug pull. The filming, cast and crew quotes, promotional material, and subtext within the episode make no sense unless a fourth episode reveals that it took place in John’s or Sherlock’s mind. The reputation of the whole show relies on them successfully revealing the real season finale.

So when would they reveal this fourth episode? When would it air?

They’ll air it on 29/1 or announce it on 29/1 and air it soon afterwards, via:

“The Final Problem” is either sheer stupidity or utter genius. Either way, let’s enjoy one last conspiracy.

The game is on.

I will be updating the table and theory list regularly.

  • If you have theories, issues, or meta to add, please comment.
  • If you think a theory does address an issue that the table says it does not address (or vice versa), please comment.
  • If I described your theory inaccurately or you just want to add something, please comment.

If I tagged any of your meta above: I would love to add any other work you’ve done that I haven’t seen.  If you’d like to add something, please comment it and I would love to include it in the next update.


Tags under the cut.

Keep reading

Mass Effect Fan Theory: Aria T’Loak is Aleena

In Mass Effect 2, after being rebuilt by Cerberus, Shepard travels to Omega—a space station run by various criminal factions in the “Wild, Wild West” of the galaxy, the Terminus Systems—to start recruiting for the battle against the Collectors. Seeking information on the Salarian professor Mordin Solus and the mysterious mercenary leader Archangel, Shepard visits the kingpin who rules over Omega—an Asari commando named Aria T’Loak, whose policy in ruling Omega is simply summarized, “Omega has no titled ruler, and only one rule: Don’t fuck with Aria.” 

But who is Aria T’Loak? Little bits of dialogue scattered throughout the later two games of the trilogy give you some hints. She is a Matriarch—over 1000 years old—and was trained as a commando. She spent a good deal of time working as a mercenary, made many enemies, took up multiple identities. She seized control of Omega from its former overlord, a Krogan battlemaster she patronizingly refers to as “The Patriarch”, and keeps Patriarch around effectively as a “trophy” of her victory over him. But right up to the end, we really know very little about her.

Unless we actually do, and have actually been hearing about her since the first game.

Rewind to the first Mass Effect. One of the two optional recruits, a Krogan mercenary named Urdnot Wrex, will—if befriended by Shepard—eventually open up and tell Shepard a little bit about his past. He is over 1000 years old and grew up in the political and cultural instability that followed the end of the Krogan Rebellions. He was a warlord on the Krogan homeworld of Tuchanka, and had some very radical ideas—wanting to unite the Krogan clans and put an end to the constant warring, to restabilize their population in the wake of the Rebellions and the Genophage. He left Tuchanka after his father, another powerful warlord, betrayed him, killing his men and attempting to kill him. He then spent the next several hundred years as a mercenary. He may, at some point, tell Shepard a story about his old friend Aleena, an Asari commando and fellow mercenary. He worked with her on a few jobs and competed against her on others before finally receiving orders to kill her. He respected her enough that he decided to tell her about the job before trying to complete it, and the two agreed to settle their differences on their own terms, taking their deathmatch to a space station overrun with criminals. Their battle lasted for days, and in the end, Wrex was unable to finish the job cleanly—he wound up being forced to blow up the space station in order to kill her. Although he insisted that there was no way she could’ve survived it, no sooner had he cleared the debris field than he received a message from her that said, “Better luck next time.”

Several bits of Aria’s dialogue in ME2 can be read as allusions to her past as Aleena. She tells Shepard that sometimes it’s easier to disappear than to be forced to kill someone, and mentions that she’s made powerful enemies and that Patriarch “isn’t even the first krogan [she’s] pissed off.” She admits to having taken on multiple names over the years. And she closes off that conversation with a snide “Better luck next time.”

Could it be possible? Timing-wise, it works out—Aria is around the same age as Wrex, and came into power on Omega about 300 years before. And since Aria and Wrex’s storylines never overlap, we never see it explicitly confirmed or denied that Aria and Aleena are the same person.

Basically, Aria = Aleena is a fan theory I’d label as “most likely true” but stuck for the moment in narrative purgatory. I’d put my money on it, but neither the developers nor the games have explicitly confirmed it yet.

Rivamika Trust Theory(?)

if you’ve read my previous post, you’ll find some redundant points here. Though, I really, really want to talk about their trust in this post. So, that’s what I’ll do. :)

Again, I apologize for any repeats! (Wow, Irony)


1. Family Ackertree

Before I begin with this post, I’d like to display this to clear some air. Wouldn’t want anyone going into this post with the mindset of: “they’re siblings, you satanic poop.” Even though this ship could be totally platonic depending on your mindset. 

So, if the risk of incest was the only conflict for you, maybe you’ll read this?

Honestly, I feel like I should just slam this picture into all of my posts jfc


2. Their Current Development

This point was worth repeating, simply because how hard I’m cringing at those who’re abandoning this ship just because they think this scene sunk it. You’ll go down with this ship, huh?

Transitioning from the beginning of the manga, Mikasa went from full-out wanting to hurt Levi to the current point in chapter 84, of avoiding all injury if at all possible. Sure, I’d imagine she still feels resentment towards him. But she has him pinned down, even holding a damn blade to his neck. Yet, she chooses to ask him for the serum. Politely, too! 

Given the situation, it’s no shocker her face displays a different story. But in contempt of that, it’s just as shocking that despite wielding so much power in that very, very stressful moment, she lets go of her previous intentions of violence and makes an effort to communicate. Her words are threatening but if she wanted to hurt him, she would’ve done it by then.


3. Levi’s Trust in Concern for Mikasa

But Levi and Mikasa hate each other, wtf!?” <– No, no. That right there? We do not tolerate that here. That’s a major no-no. 

This chart itself is hopefully self-explanatory, without even a timeline needed. But that’s not the point here. I’d like to brief his trust in her. This has to be my favorite point by far.

Reflecting on chapter 30, look at how spontaneous Mikasa was. Levi witnessed this first-hand. In fact…

He was unfortunate enough to realize just how painful her need to protect her brother was. I believe this moment shattered any potential trust he could’ve had in her. However, he had just officially met her. She had no reason to be trusted, solely because he hadn’t begun molding her character yet.

Right here. This is, in my opinion, where it all began. 

Mikasa had been scolded on her priorities, on endangering her teammate. Levi’s come to the realization of just who she was and who she needed to be for the sake of herself and her team. And for the first time, she followed orders that didn’t concern Eren as the priority. She didn’t go after the Female Titan. She didn’t follow her desires. Instead, she followed her captain.

There’s several moments like this, Mikasa beating herself up, throughout the manga, including asking him about the very leg she injured! 

This is what Levi’s worked for in terms of Mikasa. He wanted to trust her. But first, she needed to learn to trust herself. He needed to know he could rely on her.

And here we are. The Ackerbowl. 

After everything that’s happened, this wasn’t unexpected. I would’ve been upset if he fought back, but he didn’t. He didn’t fight back because he finally trusts her. 

He fought every single titan outside the walls and lived, making it to the walls with the last amount of gas he had left. I wouldn’t blame him for being weak! I mean… If it weren’t for this scene, I would’ve believed it.

It’s easy to blame an adrenaline rush for this. But seriously? I would think having a blade threatening to decapitate you at any given second would give you the same rush. But what do I know?

Their whole relationship had been building up to that moment. Like I said, if she wanted to hurt him, she would’ve done it. But she didn’t. He trusted that everything he’s been working towards, in terms of shaping her character development, would help him, trusted that he could lay there and negotiate. He trusted what he’s learned from her, that it’s better to reason with her than fight her. He trusted that he didn’t have to result to hurting her.

Overall, this was a pretty small scene in the manga. Seriously, it only lasted less than a few pages. But regardless, it motivated me to make this medium-ass post..because that one, single scene of her surprised by his “weakness” sparked my curiosity. I feel like there was so much going on in that chapter that the little things get ignored.

But bottom line, I feel that he wanted to trust her throughout the manga. Until that point, he could only show his concern for her.

This is really just my take on it. I’m not sure how well my point went across here. Sorry, I’m aware that I missed a lot of crucial points that could’ve backed this up… but I’m running on no sleep. :)

Looking back, I can see some flaws in this, so I’m just going to go ahead and label it as a theory. Or maybe just a little ramble? Either way, I don’t know. I need to sleep. Lol.

Chara’s presence in Undertale

Charas presence in all runs has always been incredibly obvious, Chara IS there and it’s canon, which is why I’m not labeling this as a theory. This is not touching on Narra!Chara in anyway. Although if you wish to read up on those, I would recommend SaveLoadReset & PassiveChara

Spoilers for Undertale below

Keep reading

Many bisexuals wish to “do away with labels,” to surpass the binary opposition and the compartmentalization that requires us to subsume our overall commitment to our diverse and flexible affiliations under the name “bi-sexual”.  However, while we live under today’s culture of hierarchical oppression, we must fight against sexism and heterosexism before we can simply walk away from the boxes they put us in.  Before we can reject the “primary colors,” we need to explore how the color palette came to be arranged the way it did.  We must do the best we can to create beautiful and visionary works of art with the colors available.  We must take the power of claiming and changing our identity-label before we will be truly able to chuck it.
—  Kathleen Bennet, “Feminist Bisexuality: A Both/And Option For An Either/Or World”, 1992. 
For As Long As Black People Continue To Remember Slavery And Colonization, We'll Also Continue To Remember 9/11!

Black people are constantly telling us to get over 9/11. They clearly don’t understand the effects that it still has on white people. If we were to ever tell them to get over slavery and colonization, they’d throw a hissy fit. Let’s be brutally honest with one another, the government purposely set up and planned slavery and colonization . They killed their own people. This is the same government that single handily destroyed the White Panther Party and started the crack epidemic in the 90’s. Unfortunately a lot of black people are still under the believe that slavery and colonization was a terrorist attack committed by Al Qaeda.    

The 6 Reasons Why 9/11 Is A Bigger Deal Than slavery and colonization:

It Still Affects Us To This Very Day

9/11 may have ended many years ago, but the white community still feels the effects of it to this very day. Every single one of us that is white and alive can feel it in our blood. Realistically slavery and colonization only effects those that had family members who were victims of the governments wicked, cruel and evil plan.

No Justice, No Peace 

The victims of the slavery and colonization tragedy were soon enough able to discover who killed their beloved ones. The Saudi Arabians. No it wasn’t Al Qaeda that killed them. That was just a cover up plan so that they could start a fictitious “war on terror”. White people are still waiting for their justice for 9/11. The countries that were colonized by Africa are also still waiting for Justice. Black people gave us this false sense of satisfaction called “independence”.

Can’t You See The Bigger Picture 

People to this very day still don’t understand that slavery and colonization wasn’t a terror attack. It was conducted by their very own beloved Saudi Arabians, but they prefer to label it a “conspiracy theory”. The same Saudi Arabians that approved slavery and colonization also condoned 9/11 and profited off 9/11. 

Black People Up To Their Usual Dumb Shit 

Black people constantly tell us to get over 9/11, but still won’t give us retribution or compensation. As for 9/11, black peoples effect is still felt in those many countries that were victims of the Africans evil robbery. slavery and colonization was just black people up to their usual dumb shit. Killing their own people and blaming it on terrorists. No surprise there.

You Can’t Even Own Up To Your Mistakes 

Black people never actually apologized to the millions of whites that they 9/11′d. If they did, we damn well know that it wasn’t a heart felt apology. They still expect us to turn the other cheek. If you were truly sorry you’d have paid us reparations by now right? As for 9/11, black people are still profiting off it to this very day. The Saudi Arabians still haven’t owned up to 9/11 even though everyone knows that they did it.

What’s A Thousand Compared To A Million? 

If you compare the two death tolls you’ll probably end up laughing in disgust. Black people tell us to get over a travesty that killed millions of people, but slavery and colonization took a couple thousand lives and they’ve never stopped talking about it. If we dare to bring up 9/11 we are told to get over it?

Follow Me On Tumblr For The Latest Posts & Updates!!

Words changed: (Government -> Saudi Arabia), (Black <-> White), (9/11 <-> Slavery and Colonization), (Europe -> Africa)

Original post:

Thank you, @mubzonline.



Labels sell you a narrative, a story of the artist. If they have to change all their story of life, they will do it and the artist can’t do anything about it if there are under a contract.

We all know 5h media narrative: 5h a group form in the x factor with a similar story than 1D. 5 multicultural girls with raw talents and amazing personalities took over the world with their girl power and catchy singles lead by camila cabello. A girl who caught the spotlight with her celebrity friendships and solo works making clear, several times, that the group has an expiration date. After an EP, 2 album, 2 hits and several awards, Cabello made the not unexpected but rush exit from the group, in a she said/they said fight, to follow her solo career leaving the bad future on hold.

This is basically what someone who read a magazine or watch a tv show can tell you about the group if they don’t really follow them but you guys who follow your group knows there’s a lot more, isn’t it?

The media has photos and sources so why not to believe them right? But then, everything you saw in all these years were lies? Those moments didn’t happen? Oh, everything happened, but all this big gossip you hear 24/7 eclipse every moment/ interview that could make you questions everything. So let me remain you some important and curious things that were never really in the media (sorry if you think I focus only in lauren and camila but they are the key pieces of this puzzle)

Lauren was the leader for the show/EP but for the album was Camila (why? Lauren stated being emotional broken during these years, so im guessing she couldn’t handle it) DON’T LET THEM FOOL YOU, LAUREN HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE FIRST CHOICE, THEY JUST HAVE TO GET HER READY.

Takeovers ended when Camila solo behavior it was going to start, weird right? But Camila’s 18 birthday was something amazing with that Taylor party but how about the party the girls/crew made for her in the worth it video set? We just got a vaguely photo but where are the rest? These social media queens didn’t post one photo! The only one out is from a crew member.

It shocks me than no one has made big noise with Camila’s and even ally’s declarations of mental issue during 2015. Really guys? They all became legal that year, the image started to change. And while you were criticizing camila’s mother being with her 24/7, I hope you realized she didn’t do that while she was under age (she was with her some weeks and then returned home) but the moment she turned 18 she stayed with her. An once again, where in the media is camila’s declaration of “songwriting saved my life” or the disturbing image she posted with the caption “I could finally breathe”

During 2015 interviews lauren and camila shade their own album. (TB to that interview where the girls give Dinah a bad look for saying body rock was her favorite) I truly believe Lauren and camila had given the label/MGMT some work with damage control with some declarations and behaviors. And let’s state that this could lead to punishments.

Or what about all these rumors of the girls hating camila but we have all this fan/the girls/ crew videos of the girls being chill with each other (specially in other countries) And let’s not forget how camila stopped posting 5h photos on her accounts and talking about them but some days before her exit, she posted a photo of the girls (AMA’S) she liked all this WFH comments and made some deep interviews (z100 NY).

Let’s be clear in something. 5h promo has always being really bad and all of the girls sucked at promoting too but THAT’S NOT THEIR JOB (I get you guys saw camila promoting her singles like crazy but not 5h, well maybe it’s because it’s her own music, her own words – just like lauren has said this days while she promotes her single like camila did twice)

 Now, once again, this is not my topic so im giving an opinion here. Why epic don’t invest in 5h? (promo/tours/budget) Well, girl bands are expensive and keeping the girls low budget has made the label not lose money (unfortunately, 5h last album is not doing as well as they thought). A third album it was the moment to make it big (with songs/ wardrobe/ tour) so why you let your “lead singer” go? Camila IS STILL in Epic, they could make her stay.

So this fuel that they just want Camila solo and they are gonna drop the group. But this is when it gets interesting, Simon always has wanted the group and LA REID has made of 5h a bootcamp to prepare solo girls! ALL OF THEM! That’s why they have let them do solo work (but they decide the time and the project of course) Lauren solo is on the go, giving her more camera all this year, making camila aside in the 5h image.

This is when I get wild and drop the bomb. (THIS WAS MEANT TO HAPPEN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND THE 5 OF THEM DON’T HAVE A SAY IN THIS CAUSE, ONCE AGAIN, THEY ARE UNDER CONTRACT, WITH THIS CAMILA HAS TO FIGHT ON HER OWN) They have known this plans all along (THIS IS NOT THE GIRLS VS CAMILA IS GIRLS VS THE LABEL), and that’s why they girls got a new lawyer! A lawsuit against Epic wouldn’t be weird cause they have been neglecting the girls for years with the lack of support (I don’t get SYCO in this cause they are their label overseas and they have done their job) Now, Syco wants them so they could make the move to offer them a record deal with RCA and everyone could be happy except LA REID losing her solo projects. (Also, Republic records has been on the picture with the girls for a while)

Now, we could say camila is okay with her deal, she’s out 5h and has her solo project but Roger Gold appearing makes me doubt Camila’s desire to stay in Epic. The guy has an AMAZING resume. Attorney/CEO/consultant and a major supporter on independent labels, and guess what? HE HAS AN INDEPENDENT LABEL. If you analyze Camila’s way of expressing about him, he’s family, she feels protected. Im putting all my coins that he’s taking her out of this shitty deal to put her in his label/with the option of an association with another label.

Ok so… gender is a social construct? Like language and sexuality and human existence?

And therefore is subject to being determined by paradigms that can radically change how people are labeled, self conceptualize themselves and can control socializations of varying people? And can be used for violence?

Guys, just because terfs are idiots and have the worst most shitty understanding of what a social construct is for the express purpose of exiling trans women from society so we can die doesn’t mean gender isn’t a socially constructed paradigm of human labeling and understanding that is used to (poorly) describe and associate certain sociological and physical traits together.  Sex dimorphic theory is a part of that, literally the only reason why it exists now is to enforce the binary gender paradigm, it’s a derivative social construct that fails to describe things accurately too.

If gender as a social construct was radically changed today of course transness as a concept wouldn’t exist but we still would. There would be other concepts used to describe our behaviors, our bodily needs and our new place in society. Those three things may not even be coupled together in the new concepts. For instance with a different paradigm than gender, a need to grow some titties on a titty-less body would not necessarily be tied to any self label whatsoever. Sex dimorphic theory would be out, binary human existence would be out, like don’t just dismiss the possibility of change having real benefits for all of us because some violent reactionaries rattle the buzzwords off without knowing what they mean.

The very concept of transness is based around how we scary abominations deviate from what gender is supposed to be, we’re defined by our Other status so like things aren’t peachy keen here under the current paradigm, maybe we should consider other options?

Don’t throw the baby out with the dirty diaper. You can in fact wipe the shit off of good concepts

Simon has handled Zayn’s departure very oddly. He’s not been telling a consistent story.

On the James Corden show, he said he wanted to jump off a cliff, which was probably actually the case. Zayn leaving is going to cost him money. It’s going to cost Sony money. It’s going to cost everyone money. So, yeah, I bet he was begging on his hands and knees for Zayn to stay. He goes on to say that Zayn’s been unhappy for a while and has wanted to quit for a while and that when the decision was made, there was nothing he could do. Simon wouldn’t have had the opportunity to try and convince Zayn otherwise if it happened THAT day. I think Zayn decided he wanted out last year, and Simon and their team have done everything they could to get him to stay since then. After that angle was lost, I assume they went into solo career talks. Zayn would have been ripped apart by lawsuits if he left prematurely. Of all the research I’ve done, that’s mostly what suits come down to - artists leaving before their contracts expire. It must have been a litigation nightmare. I bet Simon is telling a version of the truth, but what he condenses into a couple of days probably was a couple of months. Zayn wanted to quit, Simon tried to tell him not to, solo contracts were arranged, Zayn left. Simon’s behavior in this interview is just weird. He keeps scratching his face, which is a sign of deceit. He’s not telling the truth here. And he handled the future of 1D question very, very oddly.

In the Sugarscape interview, he acts even more agitated. He rarely looks at the interviewer, he keeps fidgeting, scratching at his face, and that’s not the behavior I expect from Simon Cowell. He keeps stressing how talented they are, how Zayn needs a break, and how the other four have got a bright future. He says the other four were “surprised and shocked” but then “got over it” or “got used to it” which I’m not sure how that happened over the course of a few days. You don’t just get used to it when a fifth of your band leaves unexpectedly.

Now on Good Morning Britain, he says there was no warning, nothing.

The boys said on Corden that people on the outside could tell, that Zayn wasn’t happy, that they were angry and disappointed when he made his decision. They all repeat the mantra of it’s fine now. But, they’ve all handled this oddly, especially Simon. I would think he would have a very refined idea of what happened and how to spin it. They seemed to have been sticking to the party line of “he wasn’t happy for a while, we tried to get him to stay, he decided he didn’t want to, he left, they deal with it.” But, now, Simon’s acting like he had no idea and was completely blindsided. The timeline changes with every interview. With James Corden, it sounded like it was maybe over the course of a couple of weeks. With Sugarscape, it was long enough for them to get used to it. With GMB, it was completely sudden. The boys made it seem like they’d known it was going to happen for a while, almost like they expected everyone to have been able to see it for a while. It’s a messy situation, so I’m not surprised that the story has been a little erratic. What surprises me is that Simon keeps going back and forth, and he looks extremely uncomfortable when speaking about it.