Avatar

I CAN SEE FOREVER

@zelda-guru-momi / zelda-guru-momi.tumblr.com

Check out "About Momi" for all your Momi-relevant information and needs!

I'm gonna live up to my username for a hot minute and talk about where I think Breath of the Wild and Tears of The Kingdom take place on the Zelda timeline. I'm not putting it under a cut because the info I'm working with doesn't relate to any ToTK story spoilers.

According to Hyrule Historia, the Zelda timeline splits in three at Ocarina of Time: the Adult Link timeline, the Child Link timeline, and the Hero Defeated timeline. At the very beginning of the Hero Defeated timeline, before any of the games listed (the NES, SNES, and Game Boy Color games) is mention of the Imprisoning War.

That tells me that the flashbacks of ToTK take place at least 100 years after the events of OoT (possibly more, depending on how long it took the Zonai to integrate with those on the surface), that the seal by the seven Sages was imperfect due to Ganon not being weakened by the Hero, which allowed his soul to escape so he could be reborn and sound like Matt Mercer, leading to the events of the Imprisoning War.

The problem with this is that everyone in game says that Rauru was the first king of Hyrule, to which I can only surmise that he was the first king of Hyrule as this timeline knows it considering that we are, again, operating under the assumption that this is the "Hero Defeated" timeline and OoT's Hyrule could have been destroyed before the Zonai descended and made it anew.

TL;DR: I think BoTW and ToTK take place between OoT and aLttP in the "Hero Defeated" timeline.

thought too hard about MRI machines today and had this come to me in a vision

Avatar

mri accident is literally one of my biggest anxiety freakouts. i dont care about being in the tiny loud tube, im so scared of a secret piece of metal i dont know about in my body will tear through me like a knife through butter. what if i ate a quarter in my sleep

My brother has a metal rod in his leg

He can NEVER have an MRI or his thigh will kill him

Now that Pat Robertson's dead do you think his company will finally accept a buyout of their contractually obligated timeslot on Freeform (née ABC Family) or are they still absolutely committed to it

For anyone who doesn't know the history (or isn't American and doesn't know what this means)

In the 70s Christian Broadcasting Network founded a family TV channel they later sold. When they sold it they included a clause saying the new owners have to give them a timeslot for The 700 Club, and let them take over the network a couple times a year for a full day of fundraising.

During this time their family channel passed through the ownership of Fox and ABC, and during its time as ABC Family it gravitated towards teen dramas. Its brand now is actually not just teen dramas, but often queer, diverse teen dramas. Meanwhile they've been forced to platform a show where the host calls 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina God's punishment for homosexuality (there's also rumors that they forced the network to keep "Family" in the name long after it became a teen network)

By all accounts they've been offered copious amounts of Disney Money and have turned it down every time. The contract is so ironclad Disney lawyers can't find a way to get out of it. Their contract also mandates they can't bury it late at night either, so The 700 Club airs at 10/9 in the morning and 11/10 at night (the latter prevents Freeform from launching any kind of late night block), with disclaimers in front of it. Incredibly snarky disclaimers

Meanwhile their post-700 Club disclaimer looks like this

Pat Robertson's show is holding a network hostage due to a contract from three decades and two owners ago, and the network openly despises them. Literally nothing else like it

Like as an example of the type of Extremely Un-700 Clubian programming Freeform put on around it, at one point Pat Robertson's lead-in was The Fosters, a show about a interracial lesbian couple raising five children, with trans and gay recurring characters, and yes, apparently they did do it deliberately so anyone tuning in early to watch The 700 Club would catch a few minutes of the inclusive lesbian mom show

Avatar

🚨 FAKE TRANS DOCUMENTARY:

This week someone claiming to be from a trans-supportive film, “It Takes a Village,” reached out. After investigating, I figured out it was a front for far-right director and Robby Starbuck. If they contact you, DO NOT RESPOND. We don't need any more deceptively cut anti-trans films!

This is how Matt Walsh tried to con me into What Is a Woman last year. Thankfully, exposing him helped other trans people back out of the project. I hope sharing this information will do the same. These bigots can’t get interviews without lying to us.

To be clear, I knew it was a sham from the start. They’re using Gmail, called drag bans “the drag issue,” and refused to reveal the distributor. I planned on having them book me a hotel so I could ask for the name on their card. I didn’t even have to go that far: they forgot to create a new Calendly account, which still was registered to Robby’s website!

Based on the questions they sent me, it appears Robby planned to use his connections to arrest me in Tennessee. He's called for my arrest many times before and his tactic probably would have worked had I fallen for his clumsy front. This is full-on fascist behavior.

A strange part of Robby's fake documentary is that it appears the alleged director Matt Rodgers is a real filmmaker. They sent me his website but claimed he couldn’t speak while filming in Croatia this week (another dead giveaway). Could he be directing the film? Or is he just another front?

So Robby, just like your congressional campaign, you've failed to achieve your goal. I'd love to hear what you have in store for us now that you’re exposed.

Be safe out there people. As an activist in another arena I have been contacted by underhanded documentary people twice and sometimes it takes a lot of detective work to sniff out what they’re really trying to do. Don’t accidentally help them and don’t put yourself in danger. Real activists making media will have checkable connections with established trustworthy organizations. (And the ones who may be just starting out and have no proof, well, on an issue like this, do you really want to risk your safety to do one of these projects with someone who’s given you no reason to trust them?)

God I'm so tired of people acting like not wanting to attract a lot of (often negative) attention is somehow Capitulating To Bigots like. The other day I was talking to someone about my strategic deployment of pronouns based on how much of an issue I think a person is likely to make about it and they were like "oh I just do what I want I'm done catering to cis people" and I was like BUDDY. I LIVE IN THE RURAL SOUTH WANTING TO NOT HAVE TO CONSTANTLY GET INTO IT WITH PEOPLE ABOUT MY PERSONAL GENDER IDENTITY IS NOT CATERING TO CIS PEOPLE I HAVE A RIGHT TO WANT TO MOVE THROUGH THE WORLD WITHOUT CONSTANT INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT

Or like I was talking about how I hate swimwear options bc they're all revealing but if you choose to wear like, a t shirt and shorts, people still stare at you because that's socially unusual so it sucks either way and someone was like "I just do it anyway and if people don't like it they can die mad about it" and like... okay. I want to be able to go to the local pool and not either be uncomfortable with what I'm wearing or have people treat me weird about it. I would like for my presence and clothing choices to be considered neutral and it's fine for me to state that actually. This is not assimilationist or capitulating to people. It's going "hm I would love if stepping out my front door didn't have to be a revolutionary act!!!!!" Agghhhhh

Avatar

I don't understand why this is hard to understand. Every time you don't correct someone who misgenders you because you just want to finish your interaction at the grocery store/bank/doctor's office and go home, you're doing this.

Like, I live in fucking Portland, OR, and I am the most fuck you, I do what I want motherfucker and sometimes it's just not worth the energy expended.

Sometimes "I don't care what people think about me" is being extremely flamboyant and sometimes it's blending in and knowing how people perceive you doesn't change who you are!

Avatar

That's it, exactly. My performance is a thing I do when I fucking feel like it and not when other people think i should.

Literally three nights ago a guest at my hotel tried to attack my male coworker and the only reason he didn't attack me or push past me when I blocked his path is because, to quote him, "You're lucky I don't hit women."

I am not a woman (I'm nonbinary) but I was not going to let this guy know that when my perceived cis-femininity was keeping my coworker and I out of danger. I specifically thought to myself "I am 900% not going to correct you on that, my dude."

Sometimes it's about being too tired to constantly have to explain to people what nonbinary means, and sometimes it's to literally keep yourself physically safe.

square enix: hey lets make a glam with over-ear headphones that sounds swag and cool

square enix: wait fuck some races have weird ear placements how do we deal with that

square enix:

square enix: perfect

and they're right. this fucks.

Actually, I want to do a study of regret rates for Harry Potter-themed tattoos versus regret rates for gender confirmation surgeries, because my naive suspicion is that the former are considerably higher at this point.

So what I’ve learned from the past couple months of being really loud about being a bi woman on Tumblr is: A lot of young/new LGBT+ people on this site do not understand that some of the stuff they’re saying comes across to other LGBT+ people as offensive, aggressive, or threatening. And when they actually find out the history and context, a lot of them go, “Oh my god, I’m so sorry, I never meant to say that.”

Like, “queer is a slur”: I get the impression that people saying this are like… oh, how I might react if I heard someone refer to all gay men as “f*gs”. Like, “Oh wow, that’s a super loaded word with a bunch of negative freight behind it, are you really sure you want to put that word on people who are still very raw and would be alarmed, upset, or offended if they heard you call them it, no matter what you intended?”

So they’re really surprised when self-described queers respond with a LOT of hostility to what feels like a well-intentioned reminder that some people might not like it. 

That’s because there’s a history of “political lesbians”, like Sheila Jeffreys, who believe that no matter their sexual orientation, women should cut off all social contact with men, who are fundamentally evil, and only date the “correct” sex, which is other women. Political lesbians claim that relationships between women, especially ones that don’t contain lust, are fundamentally pure, good, and  unproblematic. They therefore regard most of the LGBT community with deep suspicion, because its members are either way too into sex, into the wrong kind of sex, into sex with men, are men themselves, or somehow challenge the very definitions of sex and gender. 

When “queer theory” arrived in the 1980s and 1990s as an organized attempt by many diverse LGBT+ people in academia to sit down and talk about the social oppressions they face, political lesbians like Jeffreys attacked it harshly, publishing articles like “The Queer Disappearance of Lesbians”, arguing that because queer theory said it was okay to be a man or stop being a man or want to have sex with a man, it was fundamentally evil and destructive. And this attitude has echoed through the years; many LGBT+ people have experience being harshly criticized by radical feminists because being anything but a cis “gold star lesbian” (another phrase that gives me war flashbacks) was considered patriarchal, oppressive, and basically evil.

And when those arguments happened, “queer” was a good umbrella to shelter under, even when people didn’t know the intricacies of academic queer theory; people who identified as “queer” were more likely to be accepting and understanding, and “queer” was often the only label or community bisexual and nonbinary people didn’t get chased out of. If someone didn’t disagree that people got to call themselves queer, but didn’t want to be called queer themselves, they could just say “I don’t like being called queer” and that was that. Being “queer” was to being LGBT as being a “feminist” was to being a woman; it was opt-in.

But this history isn’t evident when these interactions happen. We don’t sit down and say, “Okay, so forty years ago there was this woman named Sheila, and…” Instead we queers go POP! like pufferfish, instantly on the defensive, a red haze descending over our vision, and bellow, “DO NOT TELL ME WHAT WORDS I CANNOT USE,” because we cannot find a way to say, “This word is so vital and precious to me, I wouldn’t be alive in the same way if I lost it.” And then the people who just pointed out that this word has a history, JEEZ, way to overreact, go away very confused and off-put, because they were just trying to say.

But I’ve found that once this is explained, a lot of people go, “Oh wow, okay, I did NOT mean to insinuate that, I didn’t realize that I was also saying something with a lot of painful freight to it.”

And that? That gives me hope for the future.

Similarily: “Dyke/butch/femme are lesbian words, bisexual/pansexual women shouldn’t use them.”

When I speak to them, lesbians who say this seem to be under the impression that bisexuals must have our own history and culture and words that are all perfectly nice, so why can’t we just use those without poaching someone else’s?

And often, they’re really shocked when I tell them: We don’t. We can’t. I’d love to; it’s not possible.

“Lesbian” used to be a word that simply meant a woman who loved other women. And until feminism, very, very few women had the economic freedom to choose to live entirely away from men. Lesbian bars that began in the 1930s didn’t interrogate you about your history at the door; many of the women who went there seeking romantic or sexual relationships with other women were married to men at the time. When The Daughters of Bilitis formed in 1955 to work for the civil and political wellbeing of lesbians, the majority of its members were closeted, married women, and for those women, leaving their husbands and committing to lesbian partners was a risky and arduous process the organization helped them with. Women were admitted whether or not they’d at one point truly loved or desired their husbands or other men–the important thing was that they loved women and wanted to explore that desire.

Lesbian groups turned against bisexual and pansexual women as a class in the 1970s and 80s, when radical feminists began to teach that to escape the Patriarchy’s evil influence, women needed to cut themselves off from men entirely. Having relationships with men was “sleeping with the enemy” and colluding with oppression. Many lesbian radical feminists viewed, and still view, bisexuality as a fundamentally disordered condition that makes bisexuals unstable, abusive, anti-feminist, and untrustworthy.

(This despite the fact that radical feminists and political lesbians are actually a small fraction of lesbians and wlw, and lesbians do tend, overall, to have positive attitudes towards bisexuals.)

That process of expelling bi women from lesbian groups with immense prejudice continues to this day and leaves scars on a lot of bi/pan people. A lot of bisexuals, myself included, have an experience of “double discrimination”; we are made to feel unwelcome or invisible both in straight society, and in LGBT spaces. And part of this is because attempts to build a bisexual/pansexual community identity have met with strong resistance from gays and lesbians, so we have far fewer books, resources, histories, icons, organizations, events, and resources than gays and lesbians do, despite numerically outnumbering them..

So every time I hear that phrase, it’s another painful reminder for me of all the experiences I’ve had being rejected by the lesbian community. But bisexual experiences don’t get talked about or signalboosted much,so a lot of young/new lesbians literally haven’t learned this aspect of LGBT+ history.

And once I’ve explained it, I’ve had a heartening number of lesbians go, “That’s not what I wanted to happen, so I’m going to stop saying that.”

This is good information for people who carry on with the “queer is a slur” rhetoric and don’t comprehend the push back.

ive been saying for years that around 10 years ago on tumblr, it was only radfems who were pushing the queer as slur rhetoric, and everyone who was trans or bi or allies to them would push back - radfems openly admitted that the reason they disliked the term “queer” was because it lumped them in with trans people and bi women. over the years, the queer is a slur rhetoric spread in large part due to that influence, but radfems were more covert about their reasons - and now it’s a much more prevalent belief on tumblr - more so than on any queer space i’ve been in online or offline - memory online is very short-term unfortunately bc now i see a lot of ppl, some of them bi or trans themselves, who make this argument and vehemently deny this history but…yep

Avatar

Or asexuality, which has been a concept in discussions on sexuality since 1869. Initially grouped slightly to the left, as in the categories were ‘heterosexual’, ‘homosexual’, and ‘monosexual’ (which is used differently now, but then described what we would call asexuality). Later was quite happily folded in as a category of queerness by Magnus Hirschfeld and Emma Trosse in the 1890s, as an orientation that was not heterosexuality and thus part of the community.

Another good source here, also talking about aromanticism as well. Aspec people have been included in queer studies as long as queer studies have existed.

Also, just in my own experiences, the backlash against ‘queer’ is still really recent. When I was first working out my orientation at thirteen in 2000, there was absolutely zero issue with the term. I hung out on queer sites, looked for queer media, and was intrigued by queer studies. There were literally sections of bookstores in Glebe and Newtown labelled ‘Queer’. It was just… there, and so were we!

So it blows my mind when there are these fifteen-year-olds earnestly telling me - someone who’s called themself queer longer than they’ve been alive - that “que*r is a slur.” Unfortunately, I have got reactive/defensive for the same reasons OP has mentioned. I will absolutely work on biting down my initial defensiveness and trying to explain - in good faith - the history of the word, and how it’s been misappropriated and tarnished by exclusionists.

Worth noting here is a sneaky new front I’ve seen radfems start using:

Yeah, okay, maybe older LGBTs use queer and fag and dyke…but they’re cringey, and you don’t want to be cringe, do you?

I’m not even joking. They strip the loud-and-proud aspects of our history out of all context, remove every bit of blood, sweat, and tears the queer community poured into things like anti-discrimination laws and AIDS research funding, and use those screams of rebellion to say we’re weird, and you wouldn’t want to be WEIRD.

Stop and think about that for a minute.

Yeah. They are not the arbiters of our community and they never were, and it’s important to not give them the time of day.

idk if any young person needs to hear this but when you work at a job you absolutely can google anything you don’t know or ask someone for help. school has you conditioned to think you have to have everything memorized all the time but let me tell you. I am dumb as shit and I am great at my job because it’s not a test, it’s just work. the more resources you utilize the better.

I’m serious about this, I got out of school and thought life would be like a test where I had to have everything memorized and be smart all the time and then I got into the work force and was like. Oh everyone is stupid and google exists ok cool