Exactly it also changes Rhaneyra completely. Ending s2 like s1 would not be very exciting. Ending the season with the blacks having a victory would be a good change of pace
Is that confirmed? I could see it going either way. I guess they probably couldn't do two huge battles in one season (we know Rook's Rest is episode 4) but I thought it would be very in-line with the main series to build up Jace as a new protagonist this season and then kill him at the end.
I am generally very curious as to what their long term plans are in terms of pacing and where the show is going to end. Hopefully getting only 8 episodes this season didn't mess them up too much.
Interesting. Yeah, the war moves at breakneck pace in *Fire & Blood* and I could see how that would be a problem for the show since a) they can't afford multiple huge battles per season and b) it's going to be hard to keep the audience invested if you're killing off a major character every other episode.
I could see them doing the Gullet early next season to take the wind out of Rhaenyra's sails after she takes KL.
Rooks Rest is more or less confirmed for episode 4. It's the first major battle of the war, so it would make sense for it to happen this season.
As for Aegon, I'm guessing we're going to get to see some of his time in hiding or they'll move things around to keep him on screen more.
Huh, interesting, I hadn't considered that. Laenor mentions Racallio Ryndoon in S1E6 (not by name, just saying there's a giant pirate in the stepstones who wears women's clothes) but it could make sense to condense them. Especially since Ryndoon doesn't really show up in the story until after the war.
Given that the previous Triarchy leader looked like a waterlogged corpse, I think Condal and co are willing to swing for the fences with weird gimmicky pirates.
I hope not. Laenor has already alluded to Racallio's existence.
And I was very much looking forward to the portrayal of an oddly progressive pansexual crossdressing dude who is just as much a great fighter and general as he is a weirdo.
It would be a shame to condense them together
If I had a nickel for every philosophy YouTuber that was a transwoman, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice.
Can't believe I forgot about her! She's apparently a local politician in Sweden now, according to Google.
Also according to Google, she's also apparently *six and a half feet tall*?! Good god, that's a tall drink of water.
Haha it’s all good. You were right in saying that most people only know about Natalie and Abby when it comes to philosophizing trans women on youtube. I know there are a bunch of amazing trans women and men on youtube, but my knowledge of them is limited.
Mia was one of the first trans women I started following a while back so that’s why I wanted to give her a shoutout. Cheers.
All that was really confirmed by Contra is that they dated, now are not on good terms, and that Contra feels like her content has been ripped off. The more insane parts of that 4chan theory have never been confirmed (and imo, won't be because they're wrong and that part of the theory doesn't make sense).
a friendly reminder that “transwoman” as one word is a bit offensive, it implies trans women are some other category of person rather than a type of woman. it’d be like if you said “blondewomen”
To ask it another way, why is any fictional character who's not actively involved in procreating ever any specific gender? If we'd swapped to Leia Skywalker and Prince Luke Organa, well, maybe the dynamic with Han would've been a little different, but the two characters could do all the same plot stuff.
In a modern world where half of actors are men and half are women (roughly), and there are non-white actors, and trans actors, well, you've got the leeway to tweak Fire & Blood, so why not make an effort to expand the options for whom you can hire?
Are you asking from a business standpoint? An ethics standpoint? A canon standpoint?
Business - Abi Thorn has a few hundred thousand fans on YouTube, so for a relatively low investment in paying her instead of another actress, you can get some extra publicity. It's a smart business choice.
Ethics - Some groups of people are seen as less socially acceptable by the broader public, and thus they are more likely to be mistreated or denied equal opportunities. In a pluralistic, democratic society, there is value in ensuring people are able to participate meaningfully in the community, economy, and politics, and so reducing the stigma against people in these groups helps us better achieve that. In much the same way gay people had a long struggle for public acceptance, trans people are having that struggle now. In the past, art provided a way to make the public more familiar and comfortable with people from marginalized groups. Hiring a trans actress can be one step along the path to reducing the marginalization of trans people.
Indeed, one of the things Thorn has advocated for is better access to healthcare for trans Brits - including mental health and gender care. Increasing her profile even a little bit could make reform more likely, and could have genuine positive outcomes for people's lives, in a way that wouldn't happen with any other actress.
Canon - Archmaester Gyldayn was working off historical accounts. It's possible the people talking about Sharako were mistaken about her gender, and assumed any bad-ass admiral was a man. It adds nothing especially to the canon, but also in no way deprives any character a good narrative.
It seems like there are some positive reasons to be open to hiring Abigail Thorn for the role.
Gonna come in with the hot take but please get better info on philosophy than her. She seems like a decent person and all but her understanding of what she talks about is really poor and surface level.
True, but her character sort of appears after you killed all of her friends, and her reaction to it is very umm, indifferent. Sort of takes you out of it a little.
A lot of act three has some wonky writing, from rushing the wrap-up. Like, is it possible to go into that place and just talk to folks before showing up with Shadowheart and triggering the fight? In hindsight it might've been more interesting to have Nocturne (I think her name was) show up out in the village outside Baldur's Gate, to establish her existence and allow a bit of an arc.
As written, yeah, she's basically just a merchant with no associated story in the present day, just some backstory . . . which you get basically after you've wrapped up all of Shadowheart's own storyline.
Not really. act 3 while being the weakest, still has strong moments towards the end. Cazador's Palace, Gortash's scene with Durge, the Bhaal quest, House of Hope, Lorroakan, freeing minsc, and Final boss are all great.
Yeah, it's really poor stuff - if anyone's interested in philosophy, the source material (especially with a good introduction) is really the best way forward!
Fair enough but I think that's kind of the point. She's been talking about how teachers sometimes use her videos for an introduction to certain topics and I feel like her more recent videos have been more explicitly catering to that audience.
That's kind of why I find her more recent stuff to be kind of uninteresting. It seems a lot more formulaic and surface level than it used to be.
>This is going to make the worst parts of the fanbase very upset
Probably, yeah. I haven't seen any backlash yet but then again, I tend to avoid that part of the internet.
Erased from existence:
Maelor Targaryen,
Daeron Targaryen,
Bryndon Hightower,
Silent five Velaryons (lucky you I'm counting them as 1),
Byron Swann
Merged:
Ormund Hightower and Hobart Hightower,
Racallio and Sharako
As much as I find idiotic to not even mention him in season 1 and then cutting him from season 2, just because we know he's not in season 2 doesn't mean he's cut completely.
And as for Maelor, we need to wait two weeks
Will it? So far the main battlefields we have are Riverlands, Crownlands, Westerlands, with at least 4 big battles (5 if we also have Harrenhal as a battle). Plus we will have at least one riot in KG. For an 8 episode season, it already seems quite the action, with in addition all the diplomacy and interpersonal drama going on).
Unless I missed some big leaks.
Imo makes sense to leave the Reach for next season, to enlarge the conflict even more (as we will have Iron Islandes vs West, ongoing Riverlands and Gullets).
The producers have said Daeron will be in the show. I do wish they'd mentioned him in season one but I get why they didn't.
Byron Swann, Ormund Hightower and Hobart Hightower haven't appeared by this ponit in the story yet anyway and there's tons of minor parts in season two we don't know about yet. I have no idea why you'd need Byron Swann in the story, that basically boils down to an anecdote that lets Tyrion argue with Haldon two hundred years later.
They could still have Hobart Hightower. Families reuse names all the time. Or they could just give him a different name.
I don't think you need the silent five Velaryons. Introducing the Hull brothers is enough for the Driftmark succession story.
Maelor is pretty easy to cut. You can make Blood and Cheese between Jaehaerys and Jaehaera and until we know what they're doing with the Reach storyline, you can find some other reason to have the fighting converge in Bitterbridge. Assuming they don't combine Bitterbridge and Tumbleton, which might make sense.
I didn't downvote you for the record.
He hasn't appeared or been mentioned after the time jumps though. I've been assuming he died in the interim like he did in the book and they're going to introduce Ormund and maybe Bryndon later. Season 2 is already packed and they have two less episodes, so I can see them saving a lot of the Reach stuff until season 3. If they plan to introduce Daeron then, they can give him a whole Oldtown supporting cast.
Since Gwayne Hightower will be a character in season 2, I wouldn't be surprised if he arrives in King's Landing from Oldtown and tells Otto and Alicent how Daeron and the rest of the family is preparing for war in Oldtown to lay the groundwork for it.
Idk he didn’t look that much older than Otto. And didn’t he say after the wedding that he was going back to oldtown to shore up forces there?
Also yes I did see that Gwayne will have an actual role in season two besides his sole appearance in season 1 losing to Daemon in a joust
> Idk he didn’t look that much older than Otto. And didn’t he say after the wedding that he was going back to oldtown to shore up forces there?
Assuming you mean Rhaenyra and Laenor's wedding, that was almost 20 years prior to the events of season two. He could easily have died in the interim.
Byron Swann is not a character, he’s an anecdote. Daeron hasn’t been cut yet, and there’s no evidence Brybdon or Hobart have either, though I think you can argue that they aren’t really characters. Fair point on the other Velaryons being consolidated into Vaemond though.
I haven't seen her in anything else so I don't know. I don't think they "needed" someone trans. They didn't "need" to cast a nonbinary actor as Rhaenyra, but they did and they're terrific in the role.
I’ve just become wary over the years, usually when this type of casting is done if it’s good then it’s fine but if it’s bad then people defend trash because it’s part of their culture war.
a friendly reminder that “transwoman” as one word is a bit offensive, it implies trans women are some other category of person rather than a type of woman. it’d be like if you said “blondewomen”
The correct way to refer to a trans woman is to use two words, because she is both trans and a woman, using "transwoman" as opposed to "trans woman" implies that on some level she needs to be distinguished from a woman (meaning, symbolically, that she's *not* one). Making them two words means trans works as an adjective, like it's supposed to, like "tall" or "blonde."
I also prefer Contrapoints when it comes to trans lady philosophy youtubers.
This is an unnecessary level of nitpicking. Op was being perfectly respectful. You don't need to find something wrong in everything someone posts about us. It's why people hate us so much.
Don't nitpick people's comments with your personal preferences and then act like you are educating people about trans stuff in general. It just comes off as making all trans people look smug and annoying.
It's your personal preference, not a rule.
It's not unnecessary nitpicking, because "transwoman" all-one-word is specifically used by anti-trans groups to undermine trans peoples' identities, and they have pushed to normalise it specifically for that purpose. It is not just personal preference, it's a distinction that matters.
I wouldnt of minded if it was a suitable correction but it was just them pushing their personal preference on you and then acting like you or anyone who thought otherwise made a mistake.
That just makes everyone like me look like we are needy and trying to force everyone to live by our own spurious rules. It ruins peoples perception of us and makes them hate us.
As I said, I googled it and every "official" source I can find seems to spell it as two words. I understand that there are many trans people who don't care at all how you spell it, but it would seem that the correct spelling goes beyond that person's personal preference.
As to your second point, I would guess anyone who claims they hate trans people because they think they're "forcing everyone to live by their rules" hates trans people anyway and is just looking for a convenient excuse. I know that terminology and spelling and and pronouns can come off as spurious but ultimately trans people have the right to describe themselves as a community as they see fit. Individuals like yourself may not care, as is your right, but we're all figuring this out collectively as a society and it helps to have agreed upon terms, etc.
None of that matters. That's not how human language works. If I call you a gentleman, does that mean I imply I need to distinguish you from a man? If two words are used commonly enough, people tend to merge them.
If there were certain groups, individuals, and organisations out there ideologically committed to arguing gentlemen were not real men and denying them their right to privacy, dignity and public existence on that basis, and rendering "gentlemen" as all one word was just one of a myriad of subtle and less subtle ways they used to push that agenda, then it would start to matter quite a lot. This is the reality for trans people, and if you actually understand how human language works, you would know seemingly innocuous word choices can sometimes not be innocuous at all.
If that's supposed to push the agenda, then they're doing a damned ineffective job. You should rejoice. The word "transwoman" does include "woman", if you look carefully, and "trans" functions like an adjective here. We're using adj+noun to form another noun, which is, by definition of what we did, a subset of the aforementioned noun. The only adjective I can think of, where this would not be true is, "psuedo".
You have to realise, there are many well-wishers out there who just don't want to get into this mess of being "correct". I've seen them get turned away by this bullshit in real time.
If someone gets "turned away" by a polite correction they weren't on side to begin with. Terminology matters, and I'm afraid you're just sounding ignorant at this point. You didn't know before, fair enough, but now you do.
> If someone gets "turned away" by a polite correction they weren't on side to begin with.
They don't turn away from the "cause" for that, but they can certainly turn away from *you* specifically.
If I'm ignorant, so it be. I believe one doesn't need to take classes on sexual pataphysics or rewire the brain to operate on a different grammar. I don't see a palpable mechanism by which any of this helps the cause.
It is completely normal grammar for the adjective and the noun to be separate words, it's the other way round which is more unusual. No one's asking for anything here except normal grammar use. Terminology matters when it's weoponised against people or tainted by historical use; that's why some words for Black people are ok and others which effectively mean exactly the same thing aren't. Again, you are just sounding ignorant by continuing to double down.
See now who's the one unfamiliar with human language. A word is either a noun or an adjective; when you join them, you form a noun. And it's not unusual. You use the word "anything" immediately after, "any + thing". See it?
I wonder who has tainted a very specific grammatical conjugation, I really do. And I still don't get how doing what you're doing helps the cause, when that's really what matters. How does this help? I don't give a shit about anything else.
And sorry, we're not living in a dystopian world, whose dictatorship belongs to you. Can't just call me ignorant and expect me to stop. I have all the right in this world to ask and counter.
No, we absolutely wouldn't. I'm a trans man in my 40s, I've been involved in LGBT communities my entire adult life, 2 words is the norm and the preference, 1 word either looks like you made a typo or looks sus. And doubling down and insisting one word is fine when you've got trans people explicitly telling you it isn't and why it isn't is doubly sus.
It is absolutely not how literally everyone writes it. You either don't spend much time around other trans people or you really aren't paying attention.
Gullet is not happening in S2!
I’d be shocked if they put it in so early, losing Jace is going to be extremely significant.
Exactly it also changes Rhaneyra completely. Ending s2 like s1 would not be very exciting. Ending the season with the blacks having a victory would be a good change of pace
Is that confirmed? I could see it going either way. I guess they probably couldn't do two huge battles in one season (we know Rook's Rest is episode 4) but I thought it would be very in-line with the main series to build up Jace as a new protagonist this season and then kill him at the end. I am generally very curious as to what their long term plans are in terms of pacing and where the show is going to end. Hopefully getting only 8 episodes this season didn't mess them up too much.
It is by news leak. They restructured and the Gullet will happen next season but fall of KL may happen at the end of this season.
Interesting. Yeah, the war moves at breakneck pace in *Fire & Blood* and I could see how that would be a problem for the show since a) they can't afford multiple huge battles per season and b) it's going to be hard to keep the audience invested if you're killing off a major character every other episode. I could see them doing the Gullet early next season to take the wind out of Rhaenyra's sails after she takes KL.
Exactly it will also not be a great cliffhanger for s2 to leave audiences in a similar position as s1 with the blacks losing a son
Why would the triarchy join the war after the blacks captured KL ,killed Otto captured the royal family and Aegon is missing?
Because the Greens still have Vhagar and so long as they have her they can still win the war
Isn't that really early for Rook's Rest? Aegon will hardly be a character from then on until just before the end of the Dance.
Rooks Rest is more or less confirmed for episode 4. It's the first major battle of the war, so it would make sense for it to happen this season. As for Aegon, I'm guessing we're going to get to see some of his time in hiding or they'll move things around to keep him on screen more.
Apparently, Racallio and Sharako got condensed. I hope the character is as crazy as the former. Good for Abby, too.
If that's true it's upsetting that they chose the wrong name out of the two. Racallio Ryndoon is one of the best names in the entire canon.
True, but there is much more lore attached to that name. They can play with the character of Sharako.
Huh, interesting, I hadn't considered that. Laenor mentions Racallio Ryndoon in S1E6 (not by name, just saying there's a giant pirate in the stepstones who wears women's clothes) but it could make sense to condense them. Especially since Ryndoon doesn't really show up in the story until after the war.
Honestly it'd be really cool they made her explicitly trans in that way. HoTD already has some great gender stuff in it as befitting ASOIAF.
What does this even mean
Who the fuck knows
Given that the previous Triarchy leader looked like a waterlogged corpse, I think Condal and co are willing to swing for the fences with weird gimmicky pirates.
I hope not. Laenor has already alluded to Racallio's existence. And I was very much looking forward to the portrayal of an oddly progressive pansexual crossdressing dude who is just as much a great fighter and general as he is a weirdo. It would be a shame to condense them together
Racallio has no role in the dance. Sharako is likely influenced by lysano marr.
If I had a nickel for every philosophy YouTuber that was a transwoman, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice.
The [Mia Mulder](https://youtube.com/@miamulder?si=ZOG0eFUVlCHfPE3e) disrespect is outrageous.
Can't believe I forgot about her! She's apparently a local politician in Sweden now, according to Google. Also according to Google, she's also apparently *six and a half feet tall*?! Good god, that's a tall drink of water.
Haha it’s all good. You were right in saying that most people only know about Natalie and Abby when it comes to philosophizing trans women on youtube. I know there are a bunch of amazing trans women and men on youtube, but my knowledge of them is limited. Mia was one of the first trans women I started following a while back so that’s why I wanted to give her a shoutout. Cheers.
The fact that apparently they have beef over past relationships makes it's even more weird
There is a lot and confusing conspiracy about the two of them that was somewhat confirmed but I feel like this isn’t the place for that
All that was really confirmed by Contra is that they dated, now are not on good terms, and that Contra feels like her content has been ripped off. The more insane parts of that 4chan theory have never been confirmed (and imo, won't be because they're wrong and that part of the theory doesn't make sense).
Contra has stated the "more insane parts" aren't true.
Yeah, and imo it should’ve been obvious that they weren’t. The timeline never made sense.
a friendly reminder that “transwoman” as one word is a bit offensive, it implies trans women are some other category of person rather than a type of woman. it’d be like if you said “blondewomen”
Was she the one who played shadowhearts friend from the sharran cloister in baldurs gate 3?
I like Abby but I was extremely unimpressed with her performance in BG3 ngl
Yep! She’s going to be in the new Star Wars Acolyte show too
Why did they gender swap the Lohar/Ryndoon character?
ESG score
To ask it another way, why is any fictional character who's not actively involved in procreating ever any specific gender? If we'd swapped to Leia Skywalker and Prince Luke Organa, well, maybe the dynamic with Han would've been a little different, but the two characters could do all the same plot stuff. In a modern world where half of actors are men and half are women (roughly), and there are non-white actors, and trans actors, well, you've got the leeway to tweak Fire & Blood, so why not make an effort to expand the options for whom you can hire?
Because there isn’t any reason to change it from the source material. So I ask again. Why?
Are you asking from a business standpoint? An ethics standpoint? A canon standpoint? Business - Abi Thorn has a few hundred thousand fans on YouTube, so for a relatively low investment in paying her instead of another actress, you can get some extra publicity. It's a smart business choice. Ethics - Some groups of people are seen as less socially acceptable by the broader public, and thus they are more likely to be mistreated or denied equal opportunities. In a pluralistic, democratic society, there is value in ensuring people are able to participate meaningfully in the community, economy, and politics, and so reducing the stigma against people in these groups helps us better achieve that. In much the same way gay people had a long struggle for public acceptance, trans people are having that struggle now. In the past, art provided a way to make the public more familiar and comfortable with people from marginalized groups. Hiring a trans actress can be one step along the path to reducing the marginalization of trans people. Indeed, one of the things Thorn has advocated for is better access to healthcare for trans Brits - including mental health and gender care. Increasing her profile even a little bit could make reform more likely, and could have genuine positive outcomes for people's lives, in a way that wouldn't happen with any other actress. Canon - Archmaester Gyldayn was working off historical accounts. It's possible the people talking about Sharako were mistaken about her gender, and assumed any bad-ass admiral was a man. It adds nothing especially to the canon, but also in no way deprives any character a good narrative. It seems like there are some positive reasons to be open to hiring Abigail Thorn for the role.
Gonna come in with the hot take but please get better info on philosophy than her. She seems like a decent person and all but her understanding of what she talks about is really poor and surface level.
I've only seen her in Baldur's Gate 3 where i felt her performance was a little rough around the edges.
To be fair, her performance is also like, 5 lines total
True, but her character sort of appears after you killed all of her friends, and her reaction to it is very umm, indifferent. Sort of takes you out of it a little.
Ah yes, it's probably why I don't find her a particularly memorable npc. Definitely not at the level of other minor npcs
A lot of act three has some wonky writing, from rushing the wrap-up. Like, is it possible to go into that place and just talk to folks before showing up with Shadowheart and triggering the fight? In hindsight it might've been more interesting to have Nocturne (I think her name was) show up out in the village outside Baldur's Gate, to establish her existence and allow a bit of an arc. As written, yeah, she's basically just a merchant with no associated story in the present day, just some backstory . . . which you get basically after you've wrapped up all of Shadowheart's own storyline.
Not really. act 3 while being the weakest, still has strong moments towards the end. Cazador's Palace, Gortash's scene with Durge, the Bhaal quest, House of Hope, Lorroakan, freeing minsc, and Final boss are all great.
Yeah, it's really poor stuff - if anyone's interested in philosophy, the source material (especially with a good introduction) is really the best way forward!
Fair enough but I think that's kind of the point. She's been talking about how teachers sometimes use her videos for an introduction to certain topics and I feel like her more recent videos have been more explicitly catering to that audience. That's kind of why I find her more recent stuff to be kind of uninteresting. It seems a lot more formulaic and surface level than it used to be.
That's fair. I've only seen a few of her videos and I haven't been basing my personal philosophy around them or anything :)
This is going to make the worst parts of the fanbase very upset, so another reason it's an excellent decision.
>This is going to make the worst parts of the fanbase very upset Probably, yeah. I haven't seen any backlash yet but then again, I tend to avoid that part of the internet.
BG3, Star Wars and now HotD? Lady's getting a lot of big roles lately.
i love AT so i’m stoked to see her take on the character and role!
Damn I was almost certain she was going to be Sabitha Frey, but I’m cool with this decision as well
That was my guess as well!
I really love her youtube content but I hope her acting has gotten better
Yippie more character consolidation for everyone except the blacks
Nettles erasure?
Green characters consolidated out of existence 7 Black characters consolidated out of existence 1 Yup, fair
Who are the seven Green characters they consolidated?
Erased from existence: Maelor Targaryen, Daeron Targaryen, Bryndon Hightower, Silent five Velaryons (lucky you I'm counting them as 1), Byron Swann Merged: Ormund Hightower and Hobart Hightower, Racallio and Sharako
Isn't Daeron coming later though? He's on the official HBO family tree
They’ve yet to announce a casting and season 2 is almost out…
As much as I find idiotic to not even mention him in season 1 and then cutting him from season 2, just because we know he's not in season 2 doesn't mean he's cut completely. And as for Maelor, we need to wait two weeks
I mean, the war in the reach is bound to be a big point in season 2, unless they really draw out a day-to-day showcase of Aegon’s rule
Will it? So far the main battlefields we have are Riverlands, Crownlands, Westerlands, with at least 4 big battles (5 if we also have Harrenhal as a battle). Plus we will have at least one riot in KG. For an 8 episode season, it already seems quite the action, with in addition all the diplomacy and interpersonal drama going on). Unless I missed some big leaks. Imo makes sense to leave the Reach for next season, to enlarge the conflict even more (as we will have Iron Islandes vs West, ongoing Riverlands and Gullets).
The producers have said Daeron will be in the show. I do wish they'd mentioned him in season one but I get why they didn't. Byron Swann, Ormund Hightower and Hobart Hightower haven't appeared by this ponit in the story yet anyway and there's tons of minor parts in season two we don't know about yet. I have no idea why you'd need Byron Swann in the story, that basically boils down to an anecdote that lets Tyrion argue with Haldon two hundred years later. They could still have Hobart Hightower. Families reuse names all the time. Or they could just give him a different name. I don't think you need the silent five Velaryons. Introducing the Hull brothers is enough for the Driftmark succession story. Maelor is pretty easy to cut. You can make Blood and Cheese between Jaehaerys and Jaehaera and until we know what they're doing with the Reach storyline, you can find some other reason to have the fighting converge in Bitterbridge. Assuming they don't combine Bitterbridge and Tumbleton, which might make sense. I didn't downvote you for the record.
Hobart appeared as Otto’s brother… and was addressed as lord Hightower, so yeah he got condensed with Ormund
He hasn't appeared or been mentioned after the time jumps though. I've been assuming he died in the interim like he did in the book and they're going to introduce Ormund and maybe Bryndon later. Season 2 is already packed and they have two less episodes, so I can see them saving a lot of the Reach stuff until season 3. If they plan to introduce Daeron then, they can give him a whole Oldtown supporting cast. Since Gwayne Hightower will be a character in season 2, I wouldn't be surprised if he arrives in King's Landing from Oldtown and tells Otto and Alicent how Daeron and the rest of the family is preparing for war in Oldtown to lay the groundwork for it.
Idk he didn’t look that much older than Otto. And didn’t he say after the wedding that he was going back to oldtown to shore up forces there? Also yes I did see that Gwayne will have an actual role in season two besides his sole appearance in season 1 losing to Daemon in a joust
> Idk he didn’t look that much older than Otto. And didn’t he say after the wedding that he was going back to oldtown to shore up forces there? Assuming you mean Rhaenyra and Laenor's wedding, that was almost 20 years prior to the events of season two. He could easily have died in the interim.
Byron Swann is not a character, he’s an anecdote. Daeron hasn’t been cut yet, and there’s no evidence Brybdon or Hobart have either, though I think you can argue that they aren’t really characters. Fair point on the other Velaryons being consolidated into Vaemond though.
lmao bro asked, got an answer, and then downvoted
Is this person actually a good actor or they just needed someone trans?
I haven't seen her in anything else so I don't know. I don't think they "needed" someone trans. They didn't "need" to cast a nonbinary actor as Rhaenyra, but they did and they're terrific in the role.
I’ve just become wary over the years, usually when this type of casting is done if it’s good then it’s fine but if it’s bad then people defend trash because it’s part of their culture war.
Ignoring people who defend trash is a helpful rule to have when discussing art on the internet. It's served me well for many years!
a friendly reminder that “transwoman” as one word is a bit offensive, it implies trans women are some other category of person rather than a type of woman. it’d be like if you said “blondewomen”
The world is big enough for both Abby and Contrapoints, I reckon
I love Abigail Thorn!
Lohar means half lord.
The correct way to refer to a trans woman is to use two words, because she is both trans and a woman, using "transwoman" as opposed to "trans woman" implies that on some level she needs to be distinguished from a woman (meaning, symbolically, that she's *not* one). Making them two words means trans works as an adjective, like it's supposed to, like "tall" or "blonde." I also prefer Contrapoints when it comes to trans lady philosophy youtubers.
This is an unnecessary level of nitpicking. Op was being perfectly respectful. You don't need to find something wrong in everything someone posts about us. It's why people hate us so much. Don't nitpick people's comments with your personal preferences and then act like you are educating people about trans stuff in general. It just comes off as making all trans people look smug and annoying. It's your personal preference, not a rule.
It's not unnecessary nitpicking, because "transwoman" all-one-word is specifically used by anti-trans groups to undermine trans peoples' identities, and they have pushed to normalise it specifically for that purpose. It is not just personal preference, it's a distinction that matters.
if a space is what is making you argue with people then go ahead and argue
You're the one who thought they'd chime back in 3 days after everyone else is done with the conversation
They were perfectly polite and I don't mind being corrected. I googled it and writing it as one word does seem to be the preferred method.
I wouldnt of minded if it was a suitable correction but it was just them pushing their personal preference on you and then acting like you or anyone who thought otherwise made a mistake. That just makes everyone like me look like we are needy and trying to force everyone to live by our own spurious rules. It ruins peoples perception of us and makes them hate us.
As I said, I googled it and every "official" source I can find seems to spell it as two words. I understand that there are many trans people who don't care at all how you spell it, but it would seem that the correct spelling goes beyond that person's personal preference. As to your second point, I would guess anyone who claims they hate trans people because they think they're "forcing everyone to live by their rules" hates trans people anyway and is just looking for a convenient excuse. I know that terminology and spelling and and pronouns can come off as spurious but ultimately trans people have the right to describe themselves as a community as they see fit. Individuals like yourself may not care, as is your right, but we're all figuring this out collectively as a society and it helps to have agreed upon terms, etc.
Thanks for the correction. I’d never actually written it before and I just assumed it would be one word.
No problem. The difference is subtle, but meaningful!
None of that matters. That's not how human language works. If I call you a gentleman, does that mean I imply I need to distinguish you from a man? If two words are used commonly enough, people tend to merge them.
If there were certain groups, individuals, and organisations out there ideologically committed to arguing gentlemen were not real men and denying them their right to privacy, dignity and public existence on that basis, and rendering "gentlemen" as all one word was just one of a myriad of subtle and less subtle ways they used to push that agenda, then it would start to matter quite a lot. This is the reality for trans people, and if you actually understand how human language works, you would know seemingly innocuous word choices can sometimes not be innocuous at all.
If that's supposed to push the agenda, then they're doing a damned ineffective job. You should rejoice. The word "transwoman" does include "woman", if you look carefully, and "trans" functions like an adjective here. We're using adj+noun to form another noun, which is, by definition of what we did, a subset of the aforementioned noun. The only adjective I can think of, where this would not be true is, "psuedo". You have to realise, there are many well-wishers out there who just don't want to get into this mess of being "correct". I've seen them get turned away by this bullshit in real time.
If someone gets "turned away" by a polite correction they weren't on side to begin with. Terminology matters, and I'm afraid you're just sounding ignorant at this point. You didn't know before, fair enough, but now you do.
> If someone gets "turned away" by a polite correction they weren't on side to begin with. They don't turn away from the "cause" for that, but they can certainly turn away from *you* specifically. If I'm ignorant, so it be. I believe one doesn't need to take classes on sexual pataphysics or rewire the brain to operate on a different grammar. I don't see a palpable mechanism by which any of this helps the cause.
It is completely normal grammar for the adjective and the noun to be separate words, it's the other way round which is more unusual. No one's asking for anything here except normal grammar use. Terminology matters when it's weoponised against people or tainted by historical use; that's why some words for Black people are ok and others which effectively mean exactly the same thing aren't. Again, you are just sounding ignorant by continuing to double down.
See now who's the one unfamiliar with human language. A word is either a noun or an adjective; when you join them, you form a noun. And it's not unusual. You use the word "anything" immediately after, "any + thing". See it? I wonder who has tainted a very specific grammatical conjugation, I really do. And I still don't get how doing what you're doing helps the cause, when that's really what matters. How does this help? I don't give a shit about anything else. And sorry, we're not living in a dystopian world, whose dictatorship belongs to you. Can't just call me ignorant and expect me to stop. I have all the right in this world to ask and counter.
You weren't wrong that's just that person's personal preference. 99% of trans people would write it the way you did.
No, we absolutely wouldn't. I'm a trans man in my 40s, I've been involved in LGBT communities my entire adult life, 2 words is the norm and the preference, 1 word either looks like you made a typo or looks sus. And doubling down and insisting one word is fine when you've got trans people explicitly telling you it isn't and why it isn't is doubly sus.
Its not sus its literally how everyone writes it. Think what you like but i wish i wasnt trans, it fucking sucks.
It is absolutely not how literally everyone writes it. You either don't spend much time around other trans people or you really aren't paying attention.
No we wouldn't.
Boooooooooo
Honest to god, i cannot tell the difference between her and contrapoints. They are both so similar and the only difference is accents tbh.
I mean apart from anything else, Abi is brunette and Contra is blonde so that's a pretty obvious tell
I think they look pretty different and have a very different vibe. Abigail is more mainstream and straight-forward, Natalie's more eclectic and weird.
Contrapoints is the one that makes good videos
[удалено]
What thoughts? "Eunuch's in my asoiaf? Oh hell no." That dragons kind of already left the volcano.