Reported by:

this is cirno

@duck @trickleyum

8
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It is!

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

@JoeBiden is this Cirno?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yes

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Cute

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Frick offf

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

N9

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I am bored with her.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Not my problem

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The argument is that while it's possible to argue for some entity in Tolkien's cosmos to be known to be "transgender" due to a corruption of their nature, whether or not their "transgenderness" is inherently a quality of their nature or a corruption of their nature is inscrutable to all but the entity themselves and possibly IlΓΊvatar, but that even if some other entity perceives it to be due to corruption, that per IlΓΊvatar (or this narrator's representations of the words of IlΓΊvatar, being the narration given by Pengolodh), that such is mere perception, and that ultimately all that which Men do translates to the completion and perfection of the work.

That Men (those of the race of Men) have a necessary inherent quality which redeems them and their actions, a part of their nature which they express (and which, in our parlance, no one can judge). Even the Creator refuses to condemn it - only celebrates it.

And IMNSHO Pengolodh (the narrator) is Tolkien's self-insert for the purpose of narration.

So "trans people don't exist / aren't valid" isn't an argument from axioms in the universe of Middle Earth. That's related to, but separate from, "here's a trans person in Middle Earth", which to my knowledge isn't in evidence. I want to be argued away from that / be proven wrong.


I wrote the analysis because using Tolkien's Middle Earth to say "Tolkien says trans rights" is using his cosmos as an allegory, which he alternately declaims and claims (the "it's not an allegory to WWII" claim and the "It's the story of Christianity in an alternate universe" claim - both detailed elsewhere). So it's a viable avenue of argumentation - if he's going to deconstruct and then orthogonalise the precepts of Christianity into an alternate history, then we can deconstruct and orthogonalise the precepts of that cosmogony back to ours.

Snapshots:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Cirno is fattening herself up so she can relate to Fatchouli and learn a new spell card

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

cirno image

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

stinky

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm not a fricking weeb, i don't get these "this is cirno" posts

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.