Even if you pirate it. If you speak in any positive way about it, you are aiding transphobes, and may directly be the cause of someone else giving them money.
What if you say, "I really like watching Harry Potter films for free without funding JK Rowling's big hate project" or "I really like reading Harry Potter books while thinking about how cross JK Rowling would be knowing that I, a trans person or ally, am not paying for the experience so she can't use the money to do horrible things to people who deserve our love and support"?
Look I don't really care what you do privately buy if someone says they like Harry Potter in this day and age I immediately trust them less, no matter what their justification.
Their desire to exploit trans men as targets to delegitimise transness as somehow abusive, like they do, in another way, with detransitioners, is some of the most disgusting and insidious behaviour I've seen in any extant hate group.
You know, she has girls being attacked in the girl's bathroom several times. Hermione is attacked by a troll, Myrtle was killed in the bathroom, and I feel like i'm forgetting at least one more.
Rowling has like... a thing about this. She seems to genuinely, obsessively be terrified of this-- like, to a pathological level.
If there is some reason for it, I can have empathy and sympathy for her. But at the same time, get therapy instead of ruining the lives of others.
Whatever is wrong with her, she seems genuinely, truly unwell.
I know she's trans too, so has personal skin in the game, but any entertainer willing and able to sacrifice financial benefit to stick up for the T makes me smile.
This is a battle for survival—not survival of transness itself, if they think they'll stamp out our community they should read up on Elgabalus and trans+ identity during Cleopatra's reign—but of individual lives.
Elagabalus is really not the best example. There are no primary sources supporting them being transgender. The main source people point to was written by someone not alive at the same time, and who had an intense dislike of Elagabalus. Emasculating men was also a classic slander/libel tactic in Ancient Rome.
The Galli priestesses of Cybele are a much better example from Ancient Rome.
I realise that there's a non-zero chance the feminisation was scandal-fiction (see Boywife Nero in Tacitus) but, personally—and I realise this is me dipping into a specific historiographic philosophy—I don't think it matters that much.
Almost all we know of her(?) life are the claims of gender diversity. It's to a point where I think we can't legitimately accept any other potential aspect of her identity. She is either what we would now identify as a trans woman, or a historical nonentity.
I suppose I tend to think our relationship with history is living and crucial, rather than set in static fact. I do understand your point though and respect that you might not be as willing to accept what may very well have been an attempt at slander.
While I think we get to claim the figure, even if only as fictional 'representation' (in which case, in subversion of ancient hate) I would probably not actually use her with a GERM who could use the uncertainty as an out.
I grant your example is harder to do that with so might swap over.
Hell, maybe Zeus in his maternal arcs works better.
I realise that there's a non-zero chance the feminisation was scandal-fiction (see Boywife Nero in Tacitus) but, personally—and I realise this is me dipping into a specific historiographic philosophy—I don't think it matters that much.
Almost all we know of her(?) life are the claims of gender diversity. It's to a point where I think we can't legitimately accept any other potential aspect of her identity. She is either what we would now identify as a trans woman, or a historical nonentity.
The problem is that it's genuinely extremely unlikely that Elagabalus was transgender in any way. This isn't a case of typical straight-washing by historians, but there is actually no credible evidence to support it.
I do understand your point though and respect that you might not be as willing to accept what may very well have been an attempt at slander.
That's exactly my position. I agree that it's important to highlight historical queer representation, especially trans and gender non-conforming people, I just think that there are enough solid examples throughout history and across the world that we should probably avoid unconfirmable or potentially derogatory examples.
That's fair enough. I'll take your position into consideration.
Forgive me for not being more decisive right now, would you? I just got out of hospital and am a bit groggy. It's nice to have this discussion with someone who knows what they're talking about though.
That's totally fair, don't worry. I don't mean to beat you over the head until you change your mind, it's just a very niche bit of knowledge that crosses two of my interests haha.
Well speaking personally Gardyloop, I’m entirely with you on this. Taking into account of who Tacitus was, the mores and sexualities of Rome at the time and the inability of most people to understand exactly what we are, on the scant information provided, I believe Elagabalus was indeed a trans woman by our terms today. The Equestrian and Patrician classes of time were racist, misogynist and publicly disapproving of unmanliness in their own classes. But Rome in private and in the plebeian classes were much more permissive.
The patrician slurs retrospectively against other powerful men were always simple, uncomplicated slanders designed to incite revulsion.
The specific claims against Elagabalus detail the same actions I would be trying to take, were I suddenly the most powerful figure in Rome if I tried to transition: the depilation, the announcement of female titles and pronouns, the desperate search for a surgeon who could change her gender.
The historical establishment says no definitely not, but the historical establishment has a whole host of its own, especially in the Victorian era, of suppressing politically, religiously or “morally” inconvenient histories, and of attacking and destroying the careers of historians who challenge the orthodoxy.
So wherever possible I look at the facts available, and come to my own conclusions. Whilst it is not with 100% certainty, on the balance of probability, I am far more convinced than not, that Elagabalus was a trans woman.
I am not inclined to argue with those who blindly repeat the orthodox view.
But, I know enough about Roman ways and prejudices. I know what it feels like to be a trans woman. I can compare this against the accusations against Elagabalus and see authenticity. I can see the slanders hurled against trans women today, which are entirely inauthentic and lacking understanding of who we are. Were Tacitus simply slandering Elagabalus he would use those slurs. But he didn’t.
SHE was the trans Empress of Rome to me until better arguments to the contrary are provided., thus far I have seen none
Joan of Arc constantly identified as the "maiden from the borders of Lorraine" from a prophecy which she often recited about a girl who was predicted to save France, meaning that she identified as that specific girl and therefore as female. The idea that she was transgender is usually based on her so-called "male clothing", which was simply a military horseback-riding outfit whose various purposes during her campaigns and imprisonment were explained by many eyewitness accounts (outside the trial transcript) which often quote her directly on the subject. The soldiers who escorted her to Chinon said they gave her this outfit (one of them, Jehan de Metz, said he brought up the subject); and several eyewitnesses who were at her trial said she told them she continued wearing it in prison so she could keep the outfit's long hip-boots, wool trousers and tunic "securely laced and tied together" into one piece to make it more difficult for her guards to pull her clothing off when they tried to harass, molest or rape her. This was a lot safer than a dress, which wouldn't offer any protection at all. The trial bailiff, Jehan Massieu, said that her alleged "relapse" was orchestrated by the guards who simply took away her dress and forced her to put the riding outfit back on, then the pro-English judge used that as an excuse to convict her. This was a case of entrapment and therefore it was not something she chose due to a male identity as some modern activists have claimed, and this incident certainly does not supersede her constant description of herself as the maiden from the prophecy mentioned above. There were some historical figures who may have identified as transgender, but Joan of Arc is one of the least likely. St. Marina / Marinos was one of several saints who entered a monastery before the first convents for nuns were set up beginning around the 5th or 6th century (depending on region), and in this case the stated reason was because her father was planning to enter a monastery and wanted to marry her off to a stranger to provide her with financial support, but she avoided the arranged marriage by entering the monastery with her father. Avoiding marriage to a stranger seems unlikely to indicate a transgender identity, and it's probably not coincidence that similar saints only existed prior to the establishment of convents for nuns (after which women in similar circumstances became nuns instead).
Please stop bringing up Elagabalus in discussions about putative trans history.
We will never know who or what Elagabalus was. The story is simply too muddied.
"That man behaves in the ways women behave," was pretty much the most cutting insult you could throw at a public figure in the late Roman empire, and Syrians were, in Rome, stereotyped as effeminate well before Elagabalus came to power.
(Among other things, Syrian men wore makeup and Romans considered that feminine.)
And Elagabalus was deeply unpopular for political and religious reasons, as well as racial prejudice. Sufficiently so that people at the time and politicians who came directly after were all too eager to disparage and insult Elagabalus.
None of this is to say Elagabalus definitely wasn't trans. It's unlikely but possible, but it's all too probable that most of the stories we have are just that, stories, fabricated to demean an unpopular emperor.
We really only have three sources concerning Elagabalus' allegedly feminine behaviour and requests, and none of them are known to be reliable, even by the standards of the day. Ninety percent of the stories about Elagabalus come from a single source, Cassius Dio, who hated Elagabalus and is known to have lied about other things.
More importantly... As trans people, we, more than anyone else, should not be assuming anyone else's gender, you know?
Doesn't that leave a bad taste in your mouth? It does in mine.
Nor should we be listening to people driven by hatred.
Who was Elagabalus? We shall never know, and we must be comfortable admitting that we shall never truly know the dead in a way we may find satisfying.
I do take my position as another trained classicist who studied Roman gender roles at University. I'm afraid I just have a different position. Call it naive if you like, that's very understandable and possibly even a better position than mine.
That said, the point about assuming gender does leave a desire in me to double-check where I'm coming from. I think I shall try to be more qualified about this topic in future.
Elagabalus was described as trans. Perhaps was, perhaps wasn't. There are definitely more concrete examples. I will, at least, take the writing on the wall and preference them instead.
I hate how people point to Elagabalus as some evidence of "trans identities" in classical antiquity and completely ignore the context. The 3 main narratives are all deeply moralistic and can't be taken at face value. I don't have Herodian on hand but here are relevant extracts from the other two:
tell me if you really think Cassius Dio was being truthful when he wrote this:
Σαρδανάπαλλος should be a clear giveaway of Dio's angle here. The following section (80.13.2) "αὐταῖς, λαμβάνῃ. πολλὰ μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἄτοπα, ἃ μήτε λέγων μήτε ἀκούων ἄν τις καρτερήσειεν, καὶ ἔδρασε τῷ σώματι καὶ ἔπαθε:..." reinforces this.
The SHA's account (which is later and follows Dio), is just as sensational with such lines as Ergo cum hibernasset Nicomediae atque omnia sordide ageret inireturque a viris et subigeret. and agebat praeterea domi fabulam Paridis ipse Veneris personam subiens, ita ut subito vestes ad pedes defluerent, nudusque una manu ad mammam altera pudendis adhibita ingenicularet, posterioribus eminentibus in subactorem reiectis et oppositis.
Herodian is the most balanced, but even he presents Elagabalus as more of a barbarian who subverts Roman norms with his excesses than anything else.
I have some interest in this topic and personally I've never seen satisfactory evidence of transgender identity in the Graeco-Roman world that is comparable to the modern sense of the term. Gay and lesbian relationships yes (literature, curse tablets, epigraphy), but being trans? harder to determine. Certainly not Elagabalus nor the Galli, Philaenis is a more interesting case but the sources are problematic.
Maybe if you posted those wipes translate into English your arguments from superior knowledge would hold some wait. I’m not really impressed with cut and pasting in the original language. While original READABLE sources are helpful, I’d be more interested in your personal interpretation. I’ve read the orthodoxy’s arguments before and I’m not really impressed. Since it was definitely derived from the opinions of cis Victorian men with zero concept of WHO trans people are. This is then accepted as historical dogma and never challenged again.
If you can't engage in the source language you shouldn't comment. Leave this type of stuff to people who know what they're doing, these texts aren't obscure and there is special context given by words in the original like sordida and ἀσελγέστατα that is less obvious in a translation without commentary.
People like you assume that the professionals must be wrong and prefer your own interpretation of lgbt topics on antiquity based on nothing but an opinion. In doing so, all you do is affect actual research being done in the area by spreading misinformation.
I have SO much respect for creators that do this!! <3 Thank you for speaking up and letting your audience know that transphobia (and JK Rowling funding ridiculous crusades) are not okay!!
I wish I could get more people around me to boycott they’re all so dumb like yes you grew up with it but if I found out the creator of animal crossing, for example, was a horrific transphobe I would never consume the content again it’s not that hard
Brilliant. If only more people would realise that consuming HP media directly funds trans hate.
Unless you pirate it. Not that I would ever approve of that sort of thing.
Even if you pirate it. If you speak in any positive way about it, you are aiding transphobes, and may directly be the cause of someone else giving them money.
What if you say, "I really like watching Harry Potter films for free without funding JK Rowling's big hate project" or "I really like reading Harry Potter books while thinking about how cross JK Rowling would be knowing that I, a trans person or ally, am not paying for the experience so she can't use the money to do horrible things to people who deserve our love and support"?
Look I don't really care what you do privately buy if someone says they like Harry Potter in this day and age I immediately trust them less, no matter what their justification.
Ah yes, of course.
Even pirating keeps it in the public consciousness. The only way to stop it is to ignore it completely & let it die
Good for you, Annie.
Harry Potter and RK Jowling haven't been cool for a very long time.
About time everybody said no to fascism and dropped them.
It’s a little jarring that Harry Potter as an entity is basically a front to oppress trans (and cis) women.
Capitalism is fun
It also oppresses Trans men too, it might not be their directly stated aim but it's definitely another thing they do
Yeah a lot of TERF transphobia pretty blatantly targets trans masc people.
Their desire to exploit trans men as targets to delegitimise transness as somehow abusive, like they do, in another way, with detransitioners, is some of the most disgusting and insidious behaviour I've seen in any extant hate group.
You know, she has girls being attacked in the girl's bathroom several times. Hermione is attacked by a troll, Myrtle was killed in the bathroom, and I feel like i'm forgetting at least one more.
Rowling has like... a thing about this. She seems to genuinely, obsessively be terrified of this-- like, to a pathological level.
If there is some reason for it, I can have empathy and sympathy for her. But at the same time, get therapy instead of ruining the lives of others.
Whatever is wrong with her, she seems genuinely, truly unwell.
Rita Skeeta (described as "mannish" a lot as an insult) spied on the girl's bathroom as well, I think?
I know she's trans too, so has personal skin in the game, but any entertainer willing and able to sacrifice financial benefit to stick up for the T makes me smile.
This is a battle for survival—not survival of transness itself, if they think they'll stamp out our community they should read up on Elgabalus and trans+ identity during Cleopatra's reign—but of individual lives.
Here and in so many places, we must fight.
Elagabalus is really not the best example. There are no primary sources supporting them being transgender. The main source people point to was written by someone not alive at the same time, and who had an intense dislike of Elagabalus. Emasculating men was also a classic slander/libel tactic in Ancient Rome.
The Galli priestesses of Cybele are a much better example from Ancient Rome.
I realise that there's a non-zero chance the feminisation was scandal-fiction (see Boywife Nero in Tacitus) but, personally—and I realise this is me dipping into a specific historiographic philosophy—I don't think it matters that much.
Almost all we know of her(?) life are the claims of gender diversity. It's to a point where I think we can't legitimately accept any other potential aspect of her identity. She is either what we would now identify as a trans woman, or a historical nonentity.
I suppose I tend to think our relationship with history is living and crucial, rather than set in static fact. I do understand your point though and respect that you might not be as willing to accept what may very well have been an attempt at slander.
While I think we get to claim the figure, even if only as fictional 'representation' (in which case, in subversion of ancient hate) I would probably not actually use her with a GERM who could use the uncertainty as an out.
I grant your example is harder to do that with so might swap over.
Hell, maybe Zeus in his maternal arcs works better.
The problem is that it's genuinely extremely unlikely that Elagabalus was transgender in any way. This isn't a case of typical straight-washing by historians, but there is actually no credible evidence to support it.
That's exactly my position. I agree that it's important to highlight historical queer representation, especially trans and gender non-conforming people, I just think that there are enough solid examples throughout history and across the world that we should probably avoid unconfirmable or potentially derogatory examples.
That's fair enough. I'll take your position into consideration.
Forgive me for not being more decisive right now, would you? I just got out of hospital and am a bit groggy. It's nice to have this discussion with someone who knows what they're talking about though.
That's totally fair, don't worry. I don't mean to beat you over the head until you change your mind, it's just a very niche bit of knowledge that crosses two of my interests haha.
Hope you have an uncomplicated recovery.
Well speaking personally Gardyloop, I’m entirely with you on this. Taking into account of who Tacitus was, the mores and sexualities of Rome at the time and the inability of most people to understand exactly what we are, on the scant information provided, I believe Elagabalus was indeed a trans woman by our terms today. The Equestrian and Patrician classes of time were racist, misogynist and publicly disapproving of unmanliness in their own classes. But Rome in private and in the plebeian classes were much more permissive. The patrician slurs retrospectively against other powerful men were always simple, uncomplicated slanders designed to incite revulsion. The specific claims against Elagabalus detail the same actions I would be trying to take, were I suddenly the most powerful figure in Rome if I tried to transition: the depilation, the announcement of female titles and pronouns, the desperate search for a surgeon who could change her gender. The historical establishment says no definitely not, but the historical establishment has a whole host of its own, especially in the Victorian era, of suppressing politically, religiously or “morally” inconvenient histories, and of attacking and destroying the careers of historians who challenge the orthodoxy. So wherever possible I look at the facts available, and come to my own conclusions. Whilst it is not with 100% certainty, on the balance of probability, I am far more convinced than not, that Elagabalus was a trans woman. I am not inclined to argue with those who blindly repeat the orthodox view. But, I know enough about Roman ways and prejudices. I know what it feels like to be a trans woman. I can compare this against the accusations against Elagabalus and see authenticity. I can see the slanders hurled against trans women today, which are entirely inauthentic and lacking understanding of who we are. Were Tacitus simply slandering Elagabalus he would use those slurs. But he didn’t. SHE was the trans Empress of Rome to me until better arguments to the contrary are provided., thus far I have seen none
To provide some more, better-evidenced examples, in rough chronological order:
Trans people as a catagory needing awareness is mentioned in the Talmud.
Marinos the Monk was a trans male monk. And a christian saint.
Ignoring the ending, Le Roman De Silence tells a (fictional) story about a trans man.
Joan of Arc also doesn't have good evidence, but has better evidence than Elgablus.
The Public Universal Friend.
The documents the Nazis didn't burn from their first book-burning at Hirschfeld's clinic in Berlin.
That's just off the top of my head.
Joan of Arc constantly identified as the "maiden from the borders of Lorraine" from a prophecy which she often recited about a girl who was predicted to save France, meaning that she identified as that specific girl and therefore as female. The idea that she was transgender is usually based on her so-called "male clothing", which was simply a military horseback-riding outfit whose various purposes during her campaigns and imprisonment were explained by many eyewitness accounts (outside the trial transcript) which often quote her directly on the subject. The soldiers who escorted her to Chinon said they gave her this outfit (one of them, Jehan de Metz, said he brought up the subject); and several eyewitnesses who were at her trial said she told them she continued wearing it in prison so she could keep the outfit's long hip-boots, wool trousers and tunic "securely laced and tied together" into one piece to make it more difficult for her guards to pull her clothing off when they tried to harass, molest or rape her. This was a lot safer than a dress, which wouldn't offer any protection at all. The trial bailiff, Jehan Massieu, said that her alleged "relapse" was orchestrated by the guards who simply took away her dress and forced her to put the riding outfit back on, then the pro-English judge used that as an excuse to convict her. This was a case of entrapment and therefore it was not something she chose due to a male identity as some modern activists have claimed, and this incident certainly does not supersede her constant description of herself as the maiden from the prophecy mentioned above. There were some historical figures who may have identified as transgender, but Joan of Arc is one of the least likely. St. Marina / Marinos was one of several saints who entered a monastery before the first convents for nuns were set up beginning around the 5th or 6th century (depending on region), and in this case the stated reason was because her father was planning to enter a monastery and wanted to marry her off to a stranger to provide her with financial support, but she avoided the arranged marriage by entering the monastery with her father. Avoiding marriage to a stranger seems unlikely to indicate a transgender identity, and it's probably not coincidence that similar saints only existed prior to the establishment of convents for nuns (after which women in similar circumstances became nuns instead).
Public Universal Friend is one of my absolute favourites.
I like to think of Joan like I do Cleopatra. Trans? Probably not, but definitely assuming a non-mainstream gender role.
Hi there, classicist here.
Please stop bringing up Elagabalus in discussions about putative trans history.
We will never know who or what Elagabalus was. The story is simply too muddied.
"That man behaves in the ways women behave," was pretty much the most cutting insult you could throw at a public figure in the late Roman empire, and Syrians were, in Rome, stereotyped as effeminate well before Elagabalus came to power.
(Among other things, Syrian men wore makeup and Romans considered that feminine.)
And Elagabalus was deeply unpopular for political and religious reasons, as well as racial prejudice. Sufficiently so that people at the time and politicians who came directly after were all too eager to disparage and insult Elagabalus.
None of this is to say Elagabalus definitely wasn't trans. It's unlikely but possible, but it's all too probable that most of the stories we have are just that, stories, fabricated to demean an unpopular emperor.
We really only have three sources concerning Elagabalus' allegedly feminine behaviour and requests, and none of them are known to be reliable, even by the standards of the day. Ninety percent of the stories about Elagabalus come from a single source, Cassius Dio, who hated Elagabalus and is known to have lied about other things.
More importantly... As trans people, we, more than anyone else, should not be assuming anyone else's gender, you know?
Doesn't that leave a bad taste in your mouth? It does in mine.
Nor should we be listening to people driven by hatred.
Who was Elagabalus? We shall never know, and we must be comfortable admitting that we shall never truly know the dead in a way we may find satisfying.
It's okay to say we simply do not know.
I do take my position as another trained classicist who studied Roman gender roles at University. I'm afraid I just have a different position. Call it naive if you like, that's very understandable and possibly even a better position than mine.
That said, the point about assuming gender does leave a desire in me to double-check where I'm coming from. I think I shall try to be more qualified about this topic in future.
Elagabalus was described as trans. Perhaps was, perhaps wasn't. There are definitely more concrete examples. I will, at least, take the writing on the wall and preference them instead.
I hate how people point to Elagabalus as some evidence of "trans identities" in classical antiquity and completely ignore the context. The 3 main narratives are all deeply moralistic and can't be taken at face value. I don't have Herodian on hand but here are relevant extracts from the other two:
tell me if you really think Cassius Dio was being truthful when he wrote this:
"Ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος ὁ Σαρδανάπαλλος, ὁ καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς γάμου νόμῳ συνοικίζειν ἀξιῶν, ἀσελγέστατα αὐτὸς διεβίω. ἔγημε μὲν γὰρ πολλὰς γυναῖκας, καὶ ἔτι πλείοσιν ἄνευ τινὸς νομίμου προσρήσεως συνείργνυτο, οὐ μέντοι ὡς καὶ αὐτός τι αὐτῶν δεόμενος, ἀλλὰ ἵνα τῇ συγκοιμήσει τῇ μετὰ τῶν ἐραστῶν τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν μιμῆται καὶ κοινωνοὺς τῆς ὕβρεως, φύρδην ἀναφερόμενος"
Σαρδανάπαλλος should be a clear giveaway of Dio's angle here. The following section (80.13.2) "αὐταῖς, λαμβάνῃ. πολλὰ μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἄτοπα, ἃ μήτε λέγων μήτε ἀκούων ἄν τις καρτερήσειεν, καὶ ἔδρασε τῷ σώματι καὶ ἔπαθε:..." reinforces this.
The SHA's account (which is later and follows Dio), is just as sensational with such lines as Ergo cum hibernasset Nicomediae atque omnia sordide ageret inireturque a viris et subigeret. and agebat praeterea domi fabulam Paridis ipse Veneris personam subiens, ita ut subito vestes ad pedes defluerent, nudusque una manu ad mammam altera pudendis adhibita ingenicularet, posterioribus eminentibus in subactorem reiectis et oppositis.
Herodian is the most balanced, but even he presents Elagabalus as more of a barbarian who subverts Roman norms with his excesses than anything else.
I have some interest in this topic and personally I've never seen satisfactory evidence of transgender identity in the Graeco-Roman world that is comparable to the modern sense of the term. Gay and lesbian relationships yes (literature, curse tablets, epigraphy), but being trans? harder to determine. Certainly not Elagabalus nor the Galli, Philaenis is a more interesting case but the sources are problematic.
Maybe if you posted those wipes translate into English your arguments from superior knowledge would hold some wait. I’m not really impressed with cut and pasting in the original language. While original READABLE sources are helpful, I’d be more interested in your personal interpretation. I’ve read the orthodoxy’s arguments before and I’m not really impressed. Since it was definitely derived from the opinions of cis Victorian men with zero concept of WHO trans people are. This is then accepted as historical dogma and never challenged again.
If you can't engage in the source language you shouldn't comment. Leave this type of stuff to people who know what they're doing, these texts aren't obscure and there is special context given by words in the original like sordida and ἀσελγέστατα that is less obvious in a translation without commentary.
People like you assume that the professionals must be wrong and prefer your own interpretation of lgbt topics on antiquity based on nothing but an opinion. In doing so, all you do is affect actual research being done in the area by spreading misinformation.
Good.
Based 🫡🏳️⚧️
I have SO much respect for creators that do this!! <3 Thank you for speaking up and letting your audience know that transphobia (and JK Rowling funding ridiculous crusades) are not okay!!
I wish I could get more people around me to boycott they’re all so dumb like yes you grew up with it but if I found out the creator of animal crossing, for example, was a horrific transphobe I would never consume the content again it’s not that hard
Thank you. I'm not on twitch, but everyone who is, please send them some love and tell them they did the right thing.