I love this. If anything, I think the black and white sort of fits the mood and subject better than colors, just IMO.
Aww, darn, and I was hoping for little hockey sticks! J/k
Man, ever sin e you commented on Nathaniel I can’t stop seeing female body movements and gestures and facial expressions. Even the hair seems feminine now somehow. And I keep reading the voice as a snarky female voice. Gah thanks.
Although the eyes kept throwing me off from the start. They seemed heavy kidded and feminine even beforehand.
Heavy lidded. Thorne Smith used it as an adjective for sexy, sultry, slightly sleazy women, back in the 20s. The kind of woman you’d want to take to bed, but not necessarily take home to Mama.
lol man I don’t even care anymore. It was just amusing to figure out why those underlining thoughts had been nagging at me before. Like a revelation as to why. “Oh THAT’S why! Yeah, alright so I wasn’t just being crazy weird.”
Not really. Given all the stuff that Trans people go through, it’s only natural to be on guard and you were throwing around the word ‘female’ alot in regards to a male character. Just a little snippit for the future.
Didn’t call him a female. I just said after he pointed it out I’ve become aware of the feminine body language. The haircut makes a lot of sense to me now too, because it looks like bangs instead of a weird lumpy head.
And ad I said, the eyes always threw me for a loop because they looked very heavy lidded.
But I mean the arm crossing and hip things scream feminine body language to me because those are things I catch myself doing often. It’s really funny to me actually. Although I wonder if that’s a really subtle way of saying a leopard cannot change it’s spots on Dave’s part…
For the record, I’ve read your comments in this thread like 5 times now, and I don’t see any sort of transphobic undertone to your posts – so either I am just as dense as you are being accused of being or (more likely) someone is being just a wee bit reactionary and might need to take a step back.
So I wouldn’t worry about it, you seem good to go.
Also, I agree on the feminine mannerisms. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but I did get that sort of vibe too, and just didn’t know for sure why until you enumerated the signs and I realized that those same signs were triggering the back of my mind. It was just being a greedy snot and not letting my conscious mind in on the secret, heh.
I’m thinking you’re sort of right – not so much a case of the leopard not being able to change its spots as instead a case of they’re still in the early stages of transitioning so all the habits and mannerisms they picked up while growing up still kick in. So the better adage would be “old habits die hard”. 😉
Here’s the thing, it IS transphobic, but not intentionally, and I’m sure it was done without any offense intended and without knowledge of why it’s offensive. Go see explanation below by Timni and me.
Uh, no. By your own description it could NOT be transphobic. Phobic, by etymological definition, means it is a reactionary action taken out of fear. If they are unaware of the possible connotation and not intentionally forcing such a connotation, then it cannot, by definition, be transphobic.
Unintentionally ignorant (we are all ignorant about something, it’s a question of whether we are willing to learn) sure … but not transphobic.
Sorry, but I think it is a disservice to the term as well as those who are truly harmed by negative attitudes to lump the unintentionally ignorant with the deliberately offensive. It would be like saying “he murdered someone, but he didn’t mean to” … no, if they didn’t mean to, then it is manslaughter, not murder – murder requires intent or gross negligence.
You’re making a logical error known as “affirming the consequent”. Allow me to explain.
Basic Logic works like this:
P and Q are qualifiable statements.
1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore Q
There is a common logical error that looks like this:
1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. therefore P
My argument is this:
1. if a person gives birth to a child, that person is a woman
2. Nathanial gave birth to a child
3. Nathanial is a woman
Notice how the logic only goes in one direction (if mother -> therefore woman). It does not however invoke the opposite (if woman -> therefore mother). That’s where you’re making a logical mistake.
I haven’t devalued anyone. No one should be ever forced to accept a misogynistic paradigm so that someone else can feel satisfied about themselves, which is essentially what you’re trying to make me do.
I don’t know why you aren’t getting this… Caps and name-calling don’t contribute anything. It’s so juvenile and immature. If you have an issue with my argument, then please address that part of the argument and stop with the ad hominem attacks.
Yes you frigging are you stupid,sexist,transphobic piece of crap. You’re purposely misgendering Nathaniel like a terf and deeming him a woman because of BS reasons.
You’re literally considering him female because of bits you don’t see. Shizz that’s none of your business. And dear god are you awful.
They identify as man,they’re a man. They identify as nonbinary then they’re nonbinary. Also what do strangers genitals matter to you if you’re never going to see them? -_-
So… If I identify as African, then I’m african, even if I and all my known ancestors are Scandinavian? Can I identify as poor if I’m wealthy? At what point does “identifying” as something define what it is? And for that matter, what does it even mean to identify as a man of the definition of a man is someone who identifies as one? That’s circular logic.
No the character is NOT female. They were born with a femme body, but their GENDER is male. A persons sex is between the legs and does not define gender- gender is the mind, heart and soul of the person, and it’s no more a choice than who your parents are. I myself am Genderfluid – which if people don’t know means my gender identity tends to flip-flop – so it’s awesome seeing a Trans character that isn’t a negative stereotype. Good on you Dave!
Look, gender is not a mental thing, it’s a social construct. Someone may identify with muted colors, short hair and masculine names, but there’s nothing inherently male about those things. Only in the context of western society do we recognize them as male.
However, while gender is a social construct, sex is a biological reality, and sex is defined more or less entirely by the reproductive organs and physiology you were born with, which for Nathaniel is unambiguously female.
You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. We clearly don’t see eye to eye on this, so there’s no point in debating any further as we both likely won’t concede to either one of us. Blessed be, stranger.
Gender fluidity? Please move along. There are people out there that actually suffer from gender-disphoria, and you’re doing more harm than good for their efforts.
Oh my god shut up. First off, gender fluidity can involve dysphoria SPEAKING AS A DYSPHORIC GENDERFLUID PERSON! second, you cannot, i repeat CANNOT get on a high horse and tell someone that the way they identify, the people they are attracted to, the way they experience attraction, etc are HURTING “REAL” oppressed people. YOU ARE OPPRESSING PEOPLE BY SAYING THAT THEY ARE OPPRESSING PEOPLE BY EXISTING. And then there’s this. The person clearly didn’t want an internet argument to ensue, so they backed off and politely tried to end the conversation. You responded like a horrible person and gave them shit for EXISTING AND HAPPENING TO FEEL A CERTAIN WAY? Kindly fuck off the face of the earth.
Sorry, I believe in real, identifiable mental illnesses. Not made up fairytale otherkin nonsense.
Gender certainly isn’t black and white, but it’s also not constantly shifting around depending on someone’s mood.
I absolutely can make that claim. People like you are turning gender disphoria, a REAL mental condition, into a joke, with your head mates, 800 different daily genders, and -kin types.
Nobody is oppressing anyone here. This is an open forum for discussion. If you can’t handle that other people have ideas that are different from your own, maybe you should get off of the internet.
It’s not so much that I would say “flawed”. It just seemed like we were of differing opinions and I was trying to avoid getting into a debate where all I have to back me up is my own transgender-ness, stories from other Trans and cis people, etc. I’m sure there is scientific facts that could “explain” everything, but all I would have used to back myself up is personal experiences. Blessed be (even to those who think I’m full of manure of male cows).
Ok, I am saddened by the hostility in this thread. Also very sorry I didn’t spot it earlier.
Andalusian, you ask for facts. Sexual development and identity is an area I studied for years. I can, if you really want, provide you with reference material.
Sexuality is a very complex thing. Even in those species that reproduce via spawning (eg. Most species of fish), there are important, and sometimes intricate, behavior patterns leading up to spawning.
In humans, recent efforts have simplified representation of our complex sexuality into a handful of trends and factors:
– clinical Sex
– identified Gender
– Relationship Preferance
ALL THREE of the points are represented on scales; even human clinical sex has dozens of (oft-times unacknowledged) discrete and scaled variations. Commonly available information on intersexed formations is simplified; it truelly is much more varied than most want to admit.
The development of these three points are influenced to varying degrees by;
Biology
The mind
Society
The environment
(I cut out a chunk here, already very long post)
The critical point in this discussion comes back to something you said;
“However, while gender is a social construct, sex is a biological reality, and sex is defined more or less entirely by the reproductive organs and physiology”
This is true, but we very rarely discuss people in terms of clinical sex; an the vast majority of conversation, we refer to people in a /social context/. In social context, it is polite to acknowledge the effort people go through to present their socially constructed and informed Gender Identity, rather than their clinical sex.
So, as creatures that exist and function in a mostly social context, I, and many others, ask that you refer to characters and people by their preferred gender, rather than their clinical sex.
Please.
I think I see where the commenter is coming from. Say if the character was real (I am clearly aware that Nathaniel isnt real), and they told you that they are Trans male and you say “ooooohh, you know. I see the feminine actions like with your hips” the person will, and rightfully so, be offended by that. The person is aware of that and is trying to change; pointing that out is showing a weakness that can’t ben changed (at the moment anyway). So yeah, I see how that was UNINTENTIONALLY but still a bit transphobic. Please try not to be offended when someone corrects you… no one is perfect when it comes to things they don’t completely identify to.
You got it in one, dude.
If a person is trans, they don’t WANT to be seen as their former gender but as the gender they IDENTIFY as, so pointing out aspects of their old gender would be distressing and disrespectful, regardless of “factuality”.
One possible technique in the process of transition is to treat the old self as a separate person and in fact deny they exist, for ex. “Dan Smith does not exist and never has. I am Jessica Smith.” To the transgender person, they NEVER WERE a (insert old gender here), they ALWAYS WERE a (new gender) on the inside all along, and to point out otherwise is an insult to them as a person.
This does make pointing out old-gender aspects (unintentionally, but still very) transphobic. You may *notice* these things – *that’s* not transphobic, as long as you KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
Sorry for wordy/Gender101.
Yes, but this is not an actual person Sparks talked to, it is a fictional character in a story being told by visual methods Sparks talked about. Sparks didn’t talk to Nathaniel himself, just said “oh yeah, I can now see the female body on the male person” It wouldn’t be polite to make this comment to a trans person, but it’s still the truth, and the trans person knows it and wants to change it. The way I see it, Sparks’ comment was just on the visual aspect of the story: ‘yep, feminine characteristics of the wrong identity still there, the art shows them’. There wasn’t any hatred, fear, or denial in there, so I fail to see how you can label it ‘transphobic’. At most, you can say it wasn’t nice, in the same way that if I say ‘that man has a glass eye and, oh, yeah I figured out which one it is’ is not nice, but also not racism against people with glass eyes.
When are cisgendered people going to learn that YOU don’t define what is or isn’t transphobic. WE DO. What he said was absolutely wrong and I called him on it.
I’m following this conversation, and I find myself wondering if Spark’s statement really deserves to be labeled as “phobic”.
I don’t know other perspectives, but to me a -phobe is someone acting with aggressive and invasive intent aiming to cause harm and strife. I don’t really see that here; I see a comment that has caused offense, but without directed malice.
I’m afraid I don’t really see why the comment needs to be labeled so negatively.
No, it’s because he’s reading the word “transphobic” as a word which contains the word “trans” and the word “phobic” – rather than having the background to interpret it as “a confusing-to-the-uneducated way of saying ‘bigotry, including dismissiveness, against trans people’ while linguistically implying something different” – and thus being confused by the lack of overt *fear*.
Granted, this isn’t an insurmountable obstacle – after all, people aren’t normally confused about the fact that “disasters” aren’t actually caused by “evil stars”…
You’re right Dave – that’s technically what the suffix -phobe means. But here we see a failing of the English language – because we don’t have a word or suffix to accurately describe the related but different notion that a comment or notion is ignorant/a misunderstanding without being intentionally aggressive, we use “phobe/ic” instead, and it is the commonly-accepted proper modern usage in this case, even though it really shouldn’t be.
I’d personally advocate for, for example, trans-ignorant. If someone knows of a more obscure word or suffix that would do well in its place, I’d love to know.
And for what it’s worth, I am trying to call Sparks et al on their *ignorance* but this whole time have believed in their non-offensive intention. I hope nothing I said has appeared to be an attack, I never meant it as such; I only use the word “transphobic” for reasons stated just now, that it is sadly the word to use.
(And also for the record being ignorant still doesn’t excuse an offensive comment – but the response to said comment should change, from anger to education. In fact, the first response *always* should be education, regardless.)
Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve flubbed a “Subjective Useage vs Objective Definition” scenario. So it’s used interchangeably for both “acts of attack” and “acts of unintended harm through lack of knowledge”?
I have to agree with Dave on this.
Maybe you need to research what the suffix -phobic means.
And I honestly don’t understand how commenting to a third person on a trans male person’s feminine characteristics is ANY WAY worse than commenting on a cis male person’s feminine characteristics. A cis male person may still have wide hips and HATE it. Commenting on that to his face will be rude and insensitive, but will it also be cis-phobic? This is ridiculus.
Being transphobic doesn’t mean hurting trans people outright. It’s misgendering,saying bullshit like “there’s only two genders”,denying them a name they prefer and outright asking what their genitals are like.
Doesn’t have to be as black and white as slur slinging.
What you are describing is basically refusing to accept the trans person’s gender identity – like I said, denial.
Sparkles did NONE of the above. S/he just said ‘oh yeah, I can now see the feminine body of the male person’. If I was the creator of this comic, I would take it as a compliment: that I managed to portray successfully a very sensitive situation through visual means.
You don’t have to be so upset about this. It doesn’t have to be black and white, but by definition it IS very strong negative attitude towards trans-. Simple curiosity, attempts of understanding the whole thing and speculation are not transphobic. Besides, Nathaniel might be super cool with some feminine aspects of his body, like the breasts, and STILL think of himself as a man: believing that all cis AND trans men SHOULD be totally manly is as insensitive as believing that all trans men should behave as women. And that is why I see Sparkles’ comment as a simple observation and NOTHING more.
Well, the commenting system has not allowed me to reply to your last comment, but I can reply to you here.
No one has treated you badly, no one made demands of you, and yet you have been quite ironic in a comment thread attempting to discuss and understand a sensitive matter. I am not interested in continuing this dialogue with you any further, have a nice day.
And for your information, I do not think I am cis.
“When are cisgendered people going to learn that YOU don’t define what is or isn’t transphobic. WE DO”
When will you learn that people don’t have to be trans to know the English language and apply deductive reasoning to determine if something fits the criteria to have a word in the language I had mastered at college level before the age of 12 applied to it?
Also, when will you learn that this “you don’t live my life you can never understand me?!?!” attitude will alienate every single one of the people with whom you are obviously trying to develop a rapport with?
Or is your only goal here to start an argument so you somehow feel better about yourself? If that’s the case, then yes … you are being a troll, exactly as someone called you out for being.
Though, by your own logic, you cannot yourself say whether or not you are a troll … unless you are one, right? Careful with that answer …
While you are at it, I think you should consider how many assumptions you are making about who amongst us in here is actually cisgendered. 😉
Just like it’s possible to be racist, homophobic, or sexist towards a character, it’s possible to be transphobic. There doesn’t need to be hatred, fear, or denial to make something fall under that category, nor does there have to be any malice or harm intended – which I’m sure Sparks wasn’t intending :). Sometimes the things we say or do are just unintentionally problematic, and it’s in our best interests to politely acknowledge that and move on.
I don’t think Sparks’ observations were particularly malicious, and yes, the fact that Nathaniel is fictional is indeed important, but that doesn’t negate the transphobic element of them. Does it make the comment less harmful, since they’re not directed at a real person? Obviously, yes. Does that entirely absolve the comment of transphobia? No, not at all, and that’s worth pointing out, if only for you to learn from it.
No one should come at Sparks with pitchforks for this – and it doesn’t look like anyone has, as the Selkie community’s mostly been respectful and mindful of others – but should people be called out on their unintentionally transphobic comments? Yup. It’s nothing personal. Just roll with it.
Well, allow me to disagree about the meaning of the word transphobic. The suffic -phobic comes from the greek word phobos (φόβος) which means fear.
Stong negative feelings. Not simple rudeness on a sensitive matter. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobic
Unless the word ‘transphobic’ rebeled from its etymological rules and decided to have an altered meaning, I cannot see Sparkles’ comment being ‘transphobic’ in any way.
As I noted above, no one actually thinks it’s incorrect to call something a “disaster” unless it was caused by an evil star.
It’s one thing to note that this is a term which is confusing on a straightforward reading; it’s another to condesplain to people who *are* familiar with it about what it must ACTUALLY mean.
With the difference of ‘disaster’ having an ancient origin of thousants of years of existence through which its meaning changed, and ‘transphobia’ not existing 200 years ago.
Nonetheless I DID research on the word ‘transphobia’ before commenting, and it was what I expected it to be. It seems our resources are different. If people around the world are taught differently about what ‘transphobia’ is, then the matter is linguistic.
That was not even English. I can’t even begin to decipher what you’re saying.
Being trans does not make you the end-all be-all of what is or is not transphobic.
I’m Jewish. I don’t get to run around and accuse non-Jews of being anti-Semitic whenever I feel like it and hide behind my identity as a defense against any sort of criticism.
I am now starting to take offense, Lady. I am cis and married to my soulmate, who is a transwoman. And I hope I know what I’m talking about when I talk about LGBTQIA issues, because otherwise I’d be doing a disservice to my wife and many trans friends. I may not have lived the full trans experience, but I have been studying this for years and been in the community even longer and gotten a personal education from my wife who ought to know; I met her while she was still transitioning and have on many occasions witnessed my wife’s bullying and alienation and personal/emotional trials.
I get a sense from your comments that you have suffered a lot personally, or know people who have. That probably explains your extremely hostile and jumpy attitude on your comments to this strip. While I honor your experiences and opinions, they do not justify such hostility and calling others “trash” and making such generalizations about cis folks. We aren’t all ignorant fucks/the enemy.
Gaben: instead of calling words you don’t understand “not even English”, use your darn Google-fu, or a dictionary.
Yes because you’re married to someone who is trans means you know everything about transphobia. Yes I have to be utterly kind and sweet and not angry to “teach” others. -_-
“Just because you’re trans doesn’t mean you know about the bullshit,lies and horribleness that cisgendered people do to you. You have no idea how short your lives are or how homeless and abused. No idea at all.”…..that’s what you just said translates into.
What I said was that you, personally, are not the end all be all of what is and is not oppression. You, personally, do not get to decide what is and what is not transphobic.
“Uh yes I do. You do not because you’re cisgendered. ”
Wow. First you say cisgendered people have no idea about those who are trans. But then you assert that because you are trans you know EVERYTHING about the cisgendered.
Do you actually read what you type, or are you just winging it? Do I even need to point out the critical flaw in that logic?
Wow, getting told off twice, reminds me of how how I’m often given overly long explanations, at least he doesn’t just map to conclusions and knows there could be any number of explanations.
P.S. Dave I noticed you started commenting on a webcomic I read, was it Tripp or Skin-horse?
Actually, about that… XD
You’re not quite seeing things! – it was originally a hat but a minor character design change happened after he only appeared for a few strips. Dave commented as such in his notes when the change from hat to color manifested – it was done to draw more similarities between Nathaniel and his child (the kid in the room with Selkie during the PTA meeting).
Uuhhhh no, it was never intended to be a hat. His hair is just darker at the base than along the outer tips. What I did was add some breaks in the line to make it look more hair-like; prior to that the bowl cut on both their hair was a single unbroken spherical line. I made a change to make it look less hat-LIKE, but it was never intended to BE a hat.
Expect Todd hasn’t done anything wrong, no favorism or conspiracy is taking place. So if they did report and investigate this they’d find… absolutely nothing out of order. I’d say go ahead and have fun with the witch hunt.
Yep. Nate Senior doesn’t know that Todd and Mina have a history, he only sees what happened. It’s not quite AS bad as Nate Senior thinks it is (the two of them have a history of affection towards each other that mitigates Todd’s behavior somewhat), but it IS bad: Todd did not have consent and could have jeopardized Mina’s job with his actions.
To clarify what others above me in this thread have stated:
As Jim stated, technically, kissing someone without permission is technically sexual assault. It probably wouldn’t be pursued in a court of law, no, but it certainly affects Todd’s credibility, and is morally reprehensible.
And as Nyzer stated: in the U.S. at least (where this story is set), a parent dating their child’s own teacher is unethical and would result in at minimum reassignment, and at worst firing and disciplinary action. So yes, this is jeopardizing Mina’s job if their crush manifested into something more and was then discovered.
Nope. He simply went papa bear on Todd—and for good reason. This guy’s kid is probably picked on, too (or he’s at least worried about it) and everything that could possibly change for the better may be jeopardized by Todd’s indiscretion.
It is actually an ethical issue in the United States, and one very likely to be acted upon with disciplinary action from the school administration/district.
Yeah how can teachers possibly get any work done with all that AFFECTION in their lives? They need to be cold and alone and, if possible, beaten regularly.
…your comments above leave me surprised you’d need it pointed out to you that the fact that there’s a backlash against something doesn’t mean the backlashers are RIGHT.
Why the hate for Nathaniel here? He came to a reasonable conclusion and actually gave Todd a chance to explain himself. Nathaniel then accepted that this may indeed not be what it looks like but warned Todd that at the very least the way this looks could screw things up for a LOT of people. The warning is coming on strong, and Nathaniel is clearly in a bad mood, but that’s understandable. And truthfully, if Mina hadn’t looked angry at Todd earlier, the whole thing would have looked worse. Now it’s Todd overstepping his bounds, but if Mina was happy about the kiss it would have been a teacher and parent ganging up to mess up the principal.
I don’t condemn Todd for kissing Mina, since we the readers know she’s been flirting with him. Todd being in a good mood overwhelmed his common sense and he’s paying for it. But, really, Todd, same advice to you we’ve been giving Mina – wait until Selkie’s out of her class!
Yes, Nathaniel IS coming on strong. Frankly I’d say it’s entirely warranted. Todd is being (and I”m being very generous here) a massive idiot and is in dire need of a reality check. He crossed a line he should not have and has put a lot of people in a very awkward position.
Mina, for example, would be entirely justified in pressing charges if she wanted, but it seems evident at this point that she’s not really willing to do that (if only for Selkie’s sake). I suspect in the coming comics Mina and Todd are going to have a conversation that’s going to end with Mina saying “I will do my best to watch over my students and make sure the Ashton situation gets handled–but I don’t want to talk to you or see you again.”
“Hell”‘s minor compared to the stuff you usually picto-censor, and this is also an entirely serious situation rather than one calling for comedy that would be lent by the picto-censor.
*thumbs-up for your creative choice here*
I seem to have forgotten to mention the part where the original draft had Nathaniel saying the F-Word instead of Hell. Would probably make more sense if I mentioned that. XD To the edit button!
I also think Nathaniel’s being fair here, being stern with Todd but *also* giving Todd a chance if he does the right thing I.e. cease and desist. All Todd has to do is stop, fair deal I say.
(This is regardless of Mina’s involvement – like her friend in the coffee shop said, she should watch out too – of course thus doesn’t merit Todd overstepping boundaries.)
She did seem to like him actually – up until the coffee shop and the kiss. But consent is consent, Todd… you have it, or you don’t. And if you don’t, you fail. And flirting is not “indirect consent”. (She did mildly flirt.)
I’m not sure what the rules are in this school’s district but from what I understand about this matter in general teacher/parent romantic relationships are usually permitted so long as the student isn’t getting special treatment (exactly what Nathaniel asked abut). Kind of sucks, his reasoning does. “Your daughter isn’t getting straight A’s? Could be doing better? Ok, I guess that means nothing untoward is going on.” As near as I can tell a parent having a relationship with a teacher in and of itself is really nothing important and teacher’s don’t have to tell other parents a damned thing about their sex lives. Sure, the supposedly secretive nature of their relationship that doesn’t exist yet would be a matter of concern but not enough to justify action by the school board.
The problem is that it *could* lead to favoritism. (Just one case of it indeed happening is enough to prove that it is a GRAVE DANGER.) That is justification enough for disciplinary action and/or investigation.
America 101: we are lawsuit-happy, or any variation thereof.
I’m siding with Todd’s decision, even if it was poorly conceived and executed. And that Nathaniel should mind his own business, not be a buttinski.
I work in an office–a *government* office–where there are sensitive materials, where we make decisions daily that are in “kids’ best interests”. And several of us are (and were) married couples, in multiples levels of the hierarchy, including those who are in positions of superiority/authority over others in the office (i.e., management). And we function and work just fine together, not letting outside issues dominate the work environment.
Case in point, my wife and I work together, we make no bones about the fact that after ten years we’re still in love with each other, and we still are two of the highest producers in the office.
So, as invested as I am in the storyline and characters, Nathaniel is telling Todd that he shouldn’t pursue happiness because it MAY cause problems. Problems for whom? Nathaniel? He may choose to put off living a happy life, but there’s no reason Todd should, even if what happened didn’t work.
Thank you all for the education about gender sensitivity, etymology, biology and communication gaps. However, at the risk of looking like an offending moron, I’m just wondering what’s up with the matching tan hats (two-toned hair?) of both parent and child. Does Nathaniel have a “mini-me” in his son? I’m not judging – my sister’s daughter is the spitting image of and her mini-me by mutual choice.
I love this. If anything, I think the black and white sort of fits the mood and subject better than colors, just IMO.
Aww, darn, and I was hoping for little hockey sticks! J/k
Man, ever sin e you commented on Nathaniel I can’t stop seeing female body movements and gestures and facial expressions. Even the hair seems feminine now somehow. And I keep reading the voice as a snarky female voice. Gah thanks.
Although the eyes kept throwing me off from the start. They seemed heavy kidded and feminine even beforehand.
Pardon me, I meant heavy lidded. Is that even a word? Auto correct says no.
Heavy lidded. Thorne Smith used it as an adjective for sexy, sultry, slightly sleazy women, back in the 20s. The kind of woman you’d want to take to bed, but not necessarily take home to Mama.
lol man I don’t even care anymore. It was just amusing to figure out why those underlining thoughts had been nagging at me before. Like a revelation as to why. “Oh THAT’S why! Yeah, alright so I wasn’t just being crazy weird.”
That’s a wee bit transphobic. -_-
How is that transphobic at all? He said nothing even slightly negative towards trans people.
Hahahahaha not even remotely. Although it’s pretty offensive that you insinuated that.
Not really. Given all the stuff that Trans people go through, it’s only natural to be on guard and you were throwing around the word ‘female’ alot in regards to a male character. Just a little snippit for the future.
Didn’t call him a female. I just said after he pointed it out I’ve become aware of the feminine body language. The haircut makes a lot of sense to me now too, because it looks like bangs instead of a weird lumpy head.
And ad I said, the eyes always threw me for a loop because they looked very heavy lidded.
But I mean the arm crossing and hip things scream feminine body language to me because those are things I catch myself doing often. It’s really funny to me actually. Although I wonder if that’s a really subtle way of saying a leopard cannot change it’s spots on Dave’s part…
Not an intended message. Also, I’m a bit unclear on how crossing arms is feminine body language. I’ve drawn Todd crossing his arms before.
Ah sorry, I mean the crossing of arms paired with one hip jutting forward. I should have been more clear.
For the record, I’ve read your comments in this thread like 5 times now, and I don’t see any sort of transphobic undertone to your posts – so either I am just as dense as you are being accused of being or (more likely) someone is being just a wee bit reactionary and might need to take a step back.
So I wouldn’t worry about it, you seem good to go.
Also, I agree on the feminine mannerisms. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but I did get that sort of vibe too, and just didn’t know for sure why until you enumerated the signs and I realized that those same signs were triggering the back of my mind. It was just being a greedy snot and not letting my conscious mind in on the secret, heh.
I’m thinking you’re sort of right – not so much a case of the leopard not being able to change its spots as instead a case of they’re still in the early stages of transitioning so all the habits and mannerisms they picked up while growing up still kick in. So the better adage would be “old habits die hard”. 😉
Here’s the thing, it IS transphobic, but not intentionally, and I’m sure it was done without any offense intended and without knowledge of why it’s offensive. Go see explanation below by Timni and me.
Uh, no. By your own description it could NOT be transphobic. Phobic, by etymological definition, means it is a reactionary action taken out of fear. If they are unaware of the possible connotation and not intentionally forcing such a connotation, then it cannot, by definition, be transphobic.
Unintentionally ignorant (we are all ignorant about something, it’s a question of whether we are willing to learn) sure … but not transphobic.
Sorry, but I think it is a disservice to the term as well as those who are truly harmed by negative attitudes to lump the unintentionally ignorant with the deliberately offensive. It would be like saying “he murdered someone, but he didn’t mean to” … no, if they didn’t mean to, then it is manslaughter, not murder – murder requires intent or gross negligence.
Same concept applies here.
But the character is female, otherwise there’s be no transitioning.
The character’s name is Nathaniel. That’s a dude, bruh. Don’t misgender them.
She gave birth to a kid. That’s something that women and only women can do. Refusing to acknowledge that is misogynistic.
Transmen have uterus along with some nonbinary folks. What you’re saying is absolutely transphobic bullshit.
I would rather be “transphobic” than misogynistic, since apparently I have to pick.
Obviously you don’t understand that not all women HAVE A UTERUS. Your being transmisogynistic on top of being transphobic.
And apparently your a terf. Wow.
I’m a what?
A small portion of women don’t have uteri, but the woman in this comic does (or, at the very least did) so I don’t see how that’s relevant.
“Trans exclusive radical feminist” which you definitely are. You’re getting awfully sexist to believe baby making is how we define women. It isn’t.
Not even all women with uterus can have babies. But yes. Let’s define women by bits we won’t see unless we get intimate with them.
Your transphobic,sexist and you should be ashamed.
You’re making a logical error known as “affirming the consequent”. Allow me to explain.
Basic Logic works like this:
P and Q are qualifiable statements.
1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore Q
There is a common logical error that looks like this:
1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. therefore P
My argument is this:
1. if a person gives birth to a child, that person is a woman
2. Nathanial gave birth to a child
3. Nathanial is a woman
Notice how the logic only goes in one direction (if mother -> therefore woman). It does not however invoke the opposite (if woman -> therefore mother). That’s where you’re making a logical mistake.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
NATHANIEL IS A TRANSMAN. NOT A WOMAN. YOU ARE SO FUCKING TRANSPHOBIC AND TRANSMISOGYNISTIC IT ISN’T FUNNY.
Using caps and calling me names doesn’t change anything, and it certainly doesn’t negate the structure of basic logic.
You’re so fucking wrong. Nathaniel is a man. You are so fucking transphobic and disgusting.
Oy. I don’t identify as a “terf,” therefore I am not one
You certainly ACT,SPEAK AND DEVALUE TRANSPEOPLE LIKE ONE.
I haven’t devalued anyone. No one should be ever forced to accept a misogynistic paradigm so that someone else can feel satisfied about themselves, which is essentially what you’re trying to make me do.
I don’t know why you aren’t getting this… Caps and name-calling don’t contribute anything. It’s so juvenile and immature. If you have an issue with my argument, then please address that part of the argument and stop with the ad hominem attacks.
Yes you frigging are you stupid,sexist,transphobic piece of crap. You’re purposely misgendering Nathaniel like a terf and deeming him a woman because of BS reasons.
You’re literally considering him female because of bits you don’t see. Shizz that’s none of your business. And dear god are you awful.
Gender identity is not the same as anatomical-physiological sex. This is pretty “The Cow Says Moo” frankly.
This is transphobia quite frankly.
They identify as man,they’re a man. They identify as nonbinary then they’re nonbinary. Also what do strangers genitals matter to you if you’re never going to see them? -_-
So… If I identify as African, then I’m african, even if I and all my known ancestors are Scandinavian? Can I identify as poor if I’m wealthy? At what point does “identifying” as something define what it is? And for that matter, what does it even mean to identify as a man of the definition of a man is someone who identifies as one? That’s circular logic.
Yes because that’s soooo the same thing. -_-
False equivalency much?
NATHANIEL ISN’T A WOMAN. HE’S A TRANSMAN A MAN. YOU’RE SO FUCKING TRANSPHOBIC,SEXIST AND TRANSMISOGYNISTIC.
No the character is NOT female. They were born with a femme body, but their GENDER is male. A persons sex is between the legs and does not define gender- gender is the mind, heart and soul of the person, and it’s no more a choice than who your parents are. I myself am Genderfluid – which if people don’t know means my gender identity tends to flip-flop – so it’s awesome seeing a Trans character that isn’t a negative stereotype. Good on you Dave!
Look, gender is not a mental thing, it’s a social construct. Someone may identify with muted colors, short hair and masculine names, but there’s nothing inherently male about those things. Only in the context of western society do we recognize them as male.
However, while gender is a social construct, sex is a biological reality, and sex is defined more or less entirely by the reproductive organs and physiology you were born with, which for Nathaniel is unambiguously female.
You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. We clearly don’t see eye to eye on this, so there’s no point in debating any further as we both likely won’t concede to either one of us. Blessed be, stranger.
Gender fluidity? Please move along. There are people out there that actually suffer from gender-disphoria, and you’re doing more harm than good for their efforts.
Oh my god shut up. First off, gender fluidity can involve dysphoria SPEAKING AS A DYSPHORIC GENDERFLUID PERSON! second, you cannot, i repeat CANNOT get on a high horse and tell someone that the way they identify, the people they are attracted to, the way they experience attraction, etc are HURTING “REAL” oppressed people. YOU ARE OPPRESSING PEOPLE BY SAYING THAT THEY ARE OPPRESSING PEOPLE BY EXISTING. And then there’s this. The person clearly didn’t want an internet argument to ensue, so they backed off and politely tried to end the conversation. You responded like a horrible person and gave them shit for EXISTING AND HAPPENING TO FEEL A CERTAIN WAY? Kindly fuck off the face of the earth.
Sorry, I believe in real, identifiable mental illnesses. Not made up fairytale otherkin nonsense.
Gender certainly isn’t black and white, but it’s also not constantly shifting around depending on someone’s mood.
I absolutely can make that claim. People like you are turning gender disphoria, a REAL mental condition, into a joke, with your head mates, 800 different daily genders, and -kin types.
Nobody is oppressing anyone here. This is an open forum for discussion. If you can’t handle that other people have ideas that are different from your own, maybe you should get off of the internet.
I’m not asking you to agree with me, but if you think my reasoning is flawed I’d like to know why.
It’s not so much that I would say “flawed”. It just seemed like we were of differing opinions and I was trying to avoid getting into a debate where all I have to back me up is my own transgender-ness, stories from other Trans and cis people, etc. I’m sure there is scientific facts that could “explain” everything, but all I would have used to back myself up is personal experiences. Blessed be (even to those who think I’m full of manure of male cows).
Ah. Yeah, for better or worse emotions don’t constitute logical arguments. I’m glad you understand that.
Ok, I am saddened by the hostility in this thread. Also very sorry I didn’t spot it earlier.
Andalusian, you ask for facts. Sexual development and identity is an area I studied for years. I can, if you really want, provide you with reference material.
Sexuality is a very complex thing. Even in those species that reproduce via spawning (eg. Most species of fish), there are important, and sometimes intricate, behavior patterns leading up to spawning.
In humans, recent efforts have simplified representation of our complex sexuality into a handful of trends and factors:
– clinical Sex
– identified Gender
– Relationship Preferance
ALL THREE of the points are represented on scales; even human clinical sex has dozens of (oft-times unacknowledged) discrete and scaled variations. Commonly available information on intersexed formations is simplified; it truelly is much more varied than most want to admit.
The development of these three points are influenced to varying degrees by;
Biology
The mind
Society
The environment
(I cut out a chunk here, already very long post)
The critical point in this discussion comes back to something you said;
“However, while gender is a social construct, sex is a biological reality, and sex is defined more or less entirely by the reproductive organs and physiology”
This is true, but we very rarely discuss people in terms of clinical sex; an the vast majority of conversation, we refer to people in a /social context/. In social context, it is polite to acknowledge the effort people go through to present their socially constructed and informed Gender Identity, rather than their clinical sex.
So, as creatures that exist and function in a mostly social context, I, and many others, ask that you refer to characters and people by their preferred gender, rather than their clinical sex.
Please.
I think I see where the commenter is coming from. Say if the character was real (I am clearly aware that Nathaniel isnt real), and they told you that they are Trans male and you say “ooooohh, you know. I see the feminine actions like with your hips” the person will, and rightfully so, be offended by that. The person is aware of that and is trying to change; pointing that out is showing a weakness that can’t ben changed (at the moment anyway). So yeah, I see how that was UNINTENTIONALLY but still a bit transphobic. Please try not to be offended when someone corrects you… no one is perfect when it comes to things they don’t completely identify to.
You got it in one, dude.
If a person is trans, they don’t WANT to be seen as their former gender but as the gender they IDENTIFY as, so pointing out aspects of their old gender would be distressing and disrespectful, regardless of “factuality”.
One possible technique in the process of transition is to treat the old self as a separate person and in fact deny they exist, for ex. “Dan Smith does not exist and never has. I am Jessica Smith.” To the transgender person, they NEVER WERE a (insert old gender here), they ALWAYS WERE a (new gender) on the inside all along, and to point out otherwise is an insult to them as a person.
This does make pointing out old-gender aspects (unintentionally, but still very) transphobic. You may *notice* these things – *that’s* not transphobic, as long as you KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
Sorry for wordy/Gender101.
Yes, but this is not an actual person Sparks talked to, it is a fictional character in a story being told by visual methods Sparks talked about. Sparks didn’t talk to Nathaniel himself, just said “oh yeah, I can now see the female body on the male person” It wouldn’t be polite to make this comment to a trans person, but it’s still the truth, and the trans person knows it and wants to change it. The way I see it, Sparks’ comment was just on the visual aspect of the story: ‘yep, feminine characteristics of the wrong identity still there, the art shows them’. There wasn’t any hatred, fear, or denial in there, so I fail to see how you can label it ‘transphobic’. At most, you can say it wasn’t nice, in the same way that if I say ‘that man has a glass eye and, oh, yeah I figured out which one it is’ is not nice, but also not racism against people with glass eyes.
When are cisgendered people going to learn that YOU don’t define what is or isn’t transphobic. WE DO. What he said was absolutely wrong and I called him on it.
Seriously. -_-
I’m following this conversation, and I find myself wondering if Spark’s statement really deserves to be labeled as “phobic”.
I don’t know other perspectives, but to me a -phobe is someone acting with aggressive and invasive intent aiming to cause harm and strife. I don’t really see that here; I see a comment that has caused offense, but without directed malice.
I’m afraid I don’t really see why the comment needs to be labeled so negatively.
Maybe it’s because you’re not trans? -_-
No, it’s because he’s reading the word “transphobic” as a word which contains the word “trans” and the word “phobic” – rather than having the background to interpret it as “a confusing-to-the-uneducated way of saying ‘bigotry, including dismissiveness, against trans people’ while linguistically implying something different” – and thus being confused by the lack of overt *fear*.
Granted, this isn’t an insurmountable obstacle – after all, people aren’t normally confused about the fact that “disasters” aren’t actually caused by “evil stars”…
You’re right Dave – that’s technically what the suffix -phobe means. But here we see a failing of the English language – because we don’t have a word or suffix to accurately describe the related but different notion that a comment or notion is ignorant/a misunderstanding without being intentionally aggressive, we use “phobe/ic” instead, and it is the commonly-accepted proper modern usage in this case, even though it really shouldn’t be.
I’d personally advocate for, for example, trans-ignorant. If someone knows of a more obscure word or suffix that would do well in its place, I’d love to know.
And for what it’s worth, I am trying to call Sparks et al on their *ignorance* but this whole time have believed in their non-offensive intention. I hope nothing I said has appeared to be an attack, I never meant it as such; I only use the word “transphobic” for reasons stated just now, that it is sadly the word to use.
(And also for the record being ignorant still doesn’t excuse an offensive comment – but the response to said comment should change, from anger to education. In fact, the first response *always* should be education, regardless.)
That can be a tall order.
Like I said – English language fail.
Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve flubbed a “Subjective Useage vs Objective Definition” scenario. So it’s used interchangeably for both “acts of attack” and “acts of unintended harm through lack of knowledge”?
As it stands, yes. Not that that’s how it should be though -_-
I have to agree with Dave on this.
Maybe you need to research what the suffix -phobic means.
And I honestly don’t understand how commenting to a third person on a trans male person’s feminine characteristics is ANY WAY worse than commenting on a cis male person’s feminine characteristics. A cis male person may still have wide hips and HATE it. Commenting on that to his face will be rude and insensitive, but will it also be cis-phobic? This is ridiculus.
Being transphobic doesn’t mean hurting trans people outright. It’s misgendering,saying bullshit like “there’s only two genders”,denying them a name they prefer and outright asking what their genitals are like.
Doesn’t have to be as black and white as slur slinging.
What you are describing is basically refusing to accept the trans person’s gender identity – like I said, denial.
Sparkles did NONE of the above. S/he just said ‘oh yeah, I can now see the feminine body of the male person’. If I was the creator of this comic, I would take it as a compliment: that I managed to portray successfully a very sensitive situation through visual means.
You don’t have to be so upset about this. It doesn’t have to be black and white, but by definition it IS very strong negative attitude towards trans-. Simple curiosity, attempts of understanding the whole thing and speculation are not transphobic. Besides, Nathaniel might be super cool with some feminine aspects of his body, like the breasts, and STILL think of himself as a man: believing that all cis AND trans men SHOULD be totally manly is as insensitive as believing that all trans men should behave as women. And that is why I see Sparkles’ comment as a simple observation and NOTHING more.
“Stop being angry about how you’re treated and clam up because I am cisgendered and know everything about transphobia”. -_-
Well, the commenting system has not allowed me to reply to your last comment, but I can reply to you here.
No one has treated you badly, no one made demands of you, and yet you have been quite ironic in a comment thread attempting to discuss and understand a sensitive matter. I am not interested in continuing this dialogue with you any further, have a nice day.
And for your information, I do not think I am cis.
Ignore her, Glass. She’s trolling.
Because I don’t agree with your truscum bullcrap,I’m trolling? Wow.
“When are cisgendered people going to learn that YOU don’t define what is or isn’t transphobic. WE DO”
When will you learn that people don’t have to be trans to know the English language and apply deductive reasoning to determine if something fits the criteria to have a word in the language I had mastered at college level before the age of 12 applied to it?
Also, when will you learn that this “you don’t live my life you can never understand me?!?!” attitude will alienate every single one of the people with whom you are obviously trying to develop a rapport with?
Or is your only goal here to start an argument so you somehow feel better about yourself? If that’s the case, then yes … you are being a troll, exactly as someone called you out for being.
Though, by your own logic, you cannot yourself say whether or not you are a troll … unless you are one, right? Careful with that answer …
While you are at it, I think you should consider how many assumptions you are making about who amongst us in here is actually cisgendered. 😉
Yeah no. Your spouting bullshit. -_-
Just like it’s possible to be racist, homophobic, or sexist towards a character, it’s possible to be transphobic. There doesn’t need to be hatred, fear, or denial to make something fall under that category, nor does there have to be any malice or harm intended – which I’m sure Sparks wasn’t intending :). Sometimes the things we say or do are just unintentionally problematic, and it’s in our best interests to politely acknowledge that and move on.
I don’t think Sparks’ observations were particularly malicious, and yes, the fact that Nathaniel is fictional is indeed important, but that doesn’t negate the transphobic element of them. Does it make the comment less harmful, since they’re not directed at a real person? Obviously, yes. Does that entirely absolve the comment of transphobia? No, not at all, and that’s worth pointing out, if only for you to learn from it.
No one should come at Sparks with pitchforks for this – and it doesn’t look like anyone has, as the Selkie community’s mostly been respectful and mindful of others – but should people be called out on their unintentionally transphobic comments? Yup. It’s nothing personal. Just roll with it.
Well, allow me to disagree about the meaning of the word transphobic. The suffic -phobic comes from the greek word phobos (φόβος) which means fear.
Stong negative feelings. Not simple rudeness on a sensitive matter.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobic
Unless the word ‘transphobic’ rebeled from its etymological rules and decided to have an altered meaning, I cannot see Sparkles’ comment being ‘transphobic’ in any way.
As I noted above, no one actually thinks it’s incorrect to call something a “disaster” unless it was caused by an evil star.
It’s one thing to note that this is a term which is confusing on a straightforward reading; it’s another to condesplain to people who *are* familiar with it about what it must ACTUALLY mean.
With the difference of ‘disaster’ having an ancient origin of thousants of years of existence through which its meaning changed, and ‘transphobia’ not existing 200 years ago.
Nonetheless I DID research on the word ‘transphobia’ before commenting, and it was what I expected it to be. It seems our resources are different. If people around the world are taught differently about what ‘transphobia’ is, then the matter is linguistic.
:/ Yes. Tell the nonbinary person about that you read a TRANSMAN with a “female voice” and act “feminine” what is or is not transphobic. -_- Yes.
That was not even English. I can’t even begin to decipher what you’re saying.
Being trans does not make you the end-all be-all of what is or is not transphobic.
I’m Jewish. I don’t get to run around and accuse non-Jews of being anti-Semitic whenever I feel like it and hide behind my identity as a defense against any sort of criticism.
Grow up.
Being Cisgendered doesn’t mean you know ANYTHING about transphobia or what it means to be trans. You literally are transphobic trash.
I am now starting to take offense, Lady. I am cis and married to my soulmate, who is a transwoman. And I hope I know what I’m talking about when I talk about LGBTQIA issues, because otherwise I’d be doing a disservice to my wife and many trans friends. I may not have lived the full trans experience, but I have been studying this for years and been in the community even longer and gotten a personal education from my wife who ought to know; I met her while she was still transitioning and have on many occasions witnessed my wife’s bullying and alienation and personal/emotional trials.
I get a sense from your comments that you have suffered a lot personally, or know people who have. That probably explains your extremely hostile and jumpy attitude on your comments to this strip. While I honor your experiences and opinions, they do not justify such hostility and calling others “trash” and making such generalizations about cis folks. We aren’t all ignorant fucks/the enemy.
Gaben: instead of calling words you don’t understand “not even English”, use your darn Google-fu, or a dictionary.
We all need to calm down and grow up here.
Yes because you’re married to someone who is trans means you know everything about transphobia. Yes I have to be utterly kind and sweet and not angry to “teach” others. -_-
Ok, now you’re just trolling.
So you think I’m trolling because I’m using words you don’t understand and calling you out on bullcrap?
Seriously? Wow.
Yep.
That’s not how trolling works. -_-
“Just because you’re trans doesn’t mean you know about the bullshit,lies and horribleness that cisgendered people do to you. You have no idea how short your lives are or how homeless and abused. No idea at all.”…..that’s what you just said translates into.
That’s not even remotely close to what I said.
What I said was that you, personally, are not the end all be all of what is and is not oppression. You, personally, do not get to decide what is and what is not transphobic.
I’m offended ≠That’s offensive
Uh yes I do. You do not because you’re cisgendered.
You don’t decide what’s sexist or racist unless you’re a woman or a PoC. So as a cisgendered person you don’t decide what is or is not transphobic.
Seriously. Stop.
“Uh yes I do. You do not because you’re cisgendered. ”
Wow. First you say cisgendered people have no idea about those who are trans. But then you assert that because you are trans you know EVERYTHING about the cisgendered.
Do you actually read what you type, or are you just winging it? Do I even need to point out the critical flaw in that logic?
Do white people decide what is or isn’t racist? No.
Do men decide what is or isn’t sexist? No.
You literally do not have a say in what is transphobic if you’re cisgendered. Because you will never experience it. -_-
Wow, getting told off twice, reminds me of how how I’m often given overly long explanations, at least he doesn’t just map to conclusions and knows there could be any number of explanations.
P.S. Dave I noticed you started commenting on a webcomic I read, was it Tripp or Skin-horse?
I’ve been dropping a bit more comments than usual on Skin Horse the past couple days, yeah. I don’t know Tripp, though.
Nathaniel’s hair is messing with me. I’ve never seen hair two different shades of brown in that manner so the top part looks like a hat.
Actually, about that… XD
You’re not quite seeing things! – it was originally a hat but a minor character design change happened after he only appeared for a few strips. Dave commented as such in his notes when the change from hat to color manifested – it was done to draw more similarities between Nathaniel and his child (the kid in the room with Selkie during the PTA meeting).
Uuhhhh no, it was never intended to be a hat. His hair is just darker at the base than along the outer tips. What I did was add some breaks in the line to make it look more hair-like; prior to that the bowl cut on both their hair was a single unbroken spherical line. I made a change to make it look less hat-LIKE, but it was never intended to BE a hat.
Oh, sorry. I thought it was originally supposed to be a trucker’s hat or something. Guess I misread that bit ^^;
Well hopefully this will settle Todd down somewhat in regards to Mina.
Yup Todd, you done f*#@ked up son.
Yep… Todd, you dun goof’d.
Expect Todd hasn’t done anything wrong, no favorism or conspiracy is taking place. So if they did report and investigate this they’d find… absolutely nothing out of order. I’d say go ahead and have fun with the witch hunt.
No, he’s done nothing wrong, except sexually assaulted a woman and jeopardized his position with the PTA. Nope, nothing wrong at all.
You. You give me hope for Humanity~
Yep. Nate Senior doesn’t know that Todd and Mina have a history, he only sees what happened. It’s not quite AS bad as Nate Senior thinks it is (the two of them have a history of affection towards each other that mitigates Todd’s behavior somewhat), but it IS bad: Todd did not have consent and could have jeopardized Mina’s job with his actions.
To clarify what others above me in this thread have stated:
As Jim stated, technically, kissing someone without permission is technically sexual assault. It probably wouldn’t be pursued in a court of law, no, but it certainly affects Todd’s credibility, and is morally reprehensible.
And as Nyzer stated: in the U.S. at least (where this story is set), a parent dating their child’s own teacher is unethical and would result in at minimum reassignment, and at worst firing and disciplinary action. So yes, this is jeopardizing Mina’s job if their crush manifested into something more and was then discovered.
*and by “without permission” I also mean “without consent”. Emphasis on CONSENT.
I find it odd that a pre or post-op transgender would tell a man not to put lipstick on his face anymore. lol
It’s a situation where the parent/chair in the PTA trumps most other roles in Nathaniel’s life.
Given the situation, Nathaniel is entirely justified.
And that is different from a cis man or woman saying the same thing, because…?
I get the joke, but it was in entirely bad taste plz to not do again.
Nicely done. No overboard threats, just wanting to keep things simple.
So this guy is being a dick just to be a dick. Alright.
Nope. He simply went papa bear on Todd—and for good reason. This guy’s kid is probably picked on, too (or he’s at least worried about it) and everything that could possibly change for the better may be jeopardized by Todd’s indiscretion.
I don’t think having a relationship with a teacher is anything against any rules… I think he needs to mind his own damn business.
It is actually an ethical issue in the United States, and one very likely to be acted upon with disciplinary action from the school administration/district.
Really? That’s kind of messed up. What gives them the right to interfere with people’s private lives?
Yeah how can teachers possibly get any work done with all that AFFECTION in their lives? They need to be cold and alone and, if possible, beaten regularly.
It’s considered unprofessional and favoritism. No one is saying that teachers can’t date but dating parents of students is a big “no-no”.
Maybe I was being a little too sarcastic but you seem to have missed the point.
Or you’re not caring about the backlash that would happen if someone other than Nathaniel saw.
…your comments above leave me surprised you’d need it pointed out to you that the fact that there’s a backlash against something doesn’t mean the backlashers are RIGHT.
Shut up Nathaniel!
He’s telling him to not do something unprofessional. He’s right to do this.
Why the hate for Nathaniel here? He came to a reasonable conclusion and actually gave Todd a chance to explain himself. Nathaniel then accepted that this may indeed not be what it looks like but warned Todd that at the very least the way this looks could screw things up for a LOT of people. The warning is coming on strong, and Nathaniel is clearly in a bad mood, but that’s understandable. And truthfully, if Mina hadn’t looked angry at Todd earlier, the whole thing would have looked worse. Now it’s Todd overstepping his bounds, but if Mina was happy about the kiss it would have been a teacher and parent ganging up to mess up the principal.
I don’t condemn Todd for kissing Mina, since we the readers know she’s been flirting with him. Todd being in a good mood overwhelmed his common sense and he’s paying for it. But, really, Todd, same advice to you we’ve been giving Mina – wait until Selkie’s out of her class!
Yes, Nathaniel IS coming on strong. Frankly I’d say it’s entirely warranted. Todd is being (and I”m being very generous here) a massive idiot and is in dire need of a reality check. He crossed a line he should not have and has put a lot of people in a very awkward position.
Mina, for example, would be entirely justified in pressing charges if she wanted, but it seems evident at this point that she’s not really willing to do that (if only for Selkie’s sake). I suspect in the coming comics Mina and Todd are going to have a conversation that’s going to end with Mina saying “I will do my best to watch over my students and make sure the Ashton situation gets handled–but I don’t want to talk to you or see you again.”
“Hell”‘s minor compared to the stuff you usually picto-censor, and this is also an entirely serious situation rather than one calling for comedy that would be lent by the picto-censor.
*thumbs-up for your creative choice here*
I seem to have forgotten to mention the part where the original draft had Nathaniel saying the F-Word instead of Hell. Would probably make more sense if I mentioned that. XD To the edit button!
The not-time-for-comedy still stands tho 🙂
Ok. Nathaniel has a good point. Hopefully Todd will take his advice.
I also think Nathaniel’s being fair here, being stern with Todd but *also* giving Todd a chance if he does the right thing I.e. cease and desist. All Todd has to do is stop, fair deal I say.
(This is regardless of Mina’s involvement – like her friend in the coffee shop said, she should watch out too – of course thus doesn’t merit Todd overstepping boundaries.)
Mina doesn’t seem interested in the way Todd does though.
She did seem to like him actually – up until the coffee shop and the kiss. But consent is consent, Todd… you have it, or you don’t. And if you don’t, you fail. And flirting is not “indirect consent”. (She did mildly flirt.)
I’m not sure what the rules are in this school’s district but from what I understand about this matter in general teacher/parent romantic relationships are usually permitted so long as the student isn’t getting special treatment (exactly what Nathaniel asked abut). Kind of sucks, his reasoning does. “Your daughter isn’t getting straight A’s? Could be doing better? Ok, I guess that means nothing untoward is going on.” As near as I can tell a parent having a relationship with a teacher in and of itself is really nothing important and teacher’s don’t have to tell other parents a damned thing about their sex lives. Sure, the supposedly secretive nature of their relationship that doesn’t exist yet would be a matter of concern but not enough to justify action by the school board.
Teachers aren’t allowed to date student’s parents. Because usually it leads to favoritism and that’s wrong.
The problem is that it *could* lead to favoritism. (Just one case of it indeed happening is enough to prove that it is a GRAVE DANGER.) That is justification enough for disciplinary action and/or investigation.
America 101: we are lawsuit-happy, or any variation thereof.
I’m siding with Todd’s decision, even if it was poorly conceived and executed. And that Nathaniel should mind his own business, not be a buttinski.
I work in an office–a *government* office–where there are sensitive materials, where we make decisions daily that are in “kids’ best interests”. And several of us are (and were) married couples, in multiples levels of the hierarchy, including those who are in positions of superiority/authority over others in the office (i.e., management). And we function and work just fine together, not letting outside issues dominate the work environment.
Case in point, my wife and I work together, we make no bones about the fact that after ten years we’re still in love with each other, and we still are two of the highest producers in the office.
So, as invested as I am in the storyline and characters, Nathaniel is telling Todd that he shouldn’t pursue happiness because it MAY cause problems. Problems for whom? Nathaniel? He may choose to put off living a happy life, but there’s no reason Todd should, even if what happened didn’t work.
He didn’t have Mina’s consent to kiss her. Not just the fact she’s his daughter’s teacher,he didn’t ask. Todd was wrong for that.
Thank you all for the education about gender sensitivity, etymology, biology and communication gaps. However, at the risk of looking like an offending moron, I’m just wondering what’s up with the matching tan hats (two-toned hair?) of both parent and child. Does Nathaniel have a “mini-me” in his son? I’m not judging – my sister’s daughter is the spitting image of and her mini-me by mutual choice.