Today in "Oh FFS REALLY???!!!"

So people on Tumblr and Twitter are all in a tizzy complaining that Fox is Ablest because Ryan Reynolds' version of Deadpool won't be schizophrenic.

There are 3 problems with this that make me want to smack people for derailing far more important conversations with a misplaced whinefest that actually has NO ablesm to protest.

1) The ACTUAL announcement from Fox was simply that Deadpool would not be having conversations with his colour-coded word balloons as in the comics. Which makes sense, because it's an action movie, and making the audience do that much reading to keep up will just ruin the pacing of the film. They did NOT announce, as the angry folks claim "Oh yeah Deadpool will be crazy in our film but not THAT crazy haw haw haw". They ONLY said they will not use a particular comic book aesthetic that simply would not translate well to film.

2) It has not once, EVER in the comics been said that Deadpool actually suffers legitimately FROM Schizophrenia. He's been CALLED Schizo as an insult, (which frankly is WAY more Ablest than anything people are having fits about), but Marvel has NEVER ONCE claimed that Wade Wilson was Schizophrenic, nor has he in any comic claimed it of himself. His insanity has always been explained as a side effect of the excessively painful process that made him basically immortal.

3) It would be far more offensive if the comics HAD claimed he was Schizophrenic, because I KNOW people with schizophrenia and, once again kids, SCHIZOPHRENIA DOES NOT ACTUALLY WORK THAT WAY! While most, not all but most Schizophrenics do hear voices when unmedicated, but they are not clear, distinct recurring voices with a clear distinct personality like the voices portrayed by the word balloons in Deadpool's comic appearance. THAT would be Dissociative Identity Disorder. Schizophrenic voices are generally described as a cacophonic jumble of indistinct white noise, like a crowd having multiple conversations around you and you're unable to make out any one distinct conversation. It would be far more ablest and insensitive TO call Deadpool a Schizophrenic than to say he isn't.

There is SO much ACTUAL Ablesm in the media you Tumblr/Twitter folks could be calling out, let alone all the racism and transphobia and POC's being murdered by cops. PLEASE stop Grampa Simpsoning like this over an issue YOU MADE UP IN YOUR OWN HEADS.

The Deadpool movie is NOT being Ablest by supposedly not portraying Wade as Schizo. YOU are Ablest for insisting he MUST be.

Dear Trans Exclusionary Lesbians

Just so we're clear; if you're a cis woman who identifies as a lesbian and you refuse to even consider dating a trans woman solely because of her genital configuration? Solely because you'll only fuck other women if they have a vagina? Who will happily tell yourselves that trans man you're fucking is just a really butch dyke and not a man?

Congratulations! You are not actually a lesbian! You are a vagina fetishist!

"Lesbian" means "woman who is sexually attracted to/romantically interested in other women". Trans women are women. Trans men are men. If you claim to be a lesbian but you are willing to date/fuck trans men while absolutely refusing to do so with trans women, you are not a real lesbian. If you care more about a pussy being in your face than about the fact that you're dating a man who happens to have one, you are not a lesbian. If you were hot for that cute chick at the bar until she said she had a penis, YOU ARE NOT A FUCKING LESBIAN. You are a fetishist obsessed with vaginas and you have ZERO clue what lesbian love truly is. 

A lesbian loves women. Period. That is literally what being a lesbian mean.

You're not a lesbian. You're a hetero porn cliche.

Let's make a point here shall we?

Assuming you identify as a lesbian, look at these two pictures and tell me which one you're more likely to want to date, fuck, or maybe even marry someday.

  If you said the woman on the left without any hesitation? HUZZAH!!! You are, thus far, a healthy normal lesbian.

HOWEVER! 

Let's ask again, this time let's ask that same question, except now we'll point out that, duh, both of these people are trans, and you have no way of knowing what you might find in their underwear. Or let's go a step further, and assume that both of these people are pre or non-op. The woman has a penis and the man has a vagina. She's still the same woman you were attracted to just a minute ago, and he's still the man that you didn't even give a second thought to before you knew what was in their pants.

Are you still more likely to date the woman? Do you care more about who a person is than how a tiny section of their flesh is arranged? Congratulations! You ARE a real lesbian!

But... if your answer changed? If you decided you'd rather fuck the guy with the beard than the beautiful woman? You're not really a lesbian. You care more about body parts than people. YOU ARE TRANSPHOBIC, no matter what you tell yourself to the contrary. No matter what intellectual hoops you jump through to justify your skewed shallow preference.

And you really need to ask yourself WHY your preference is so focused on body parts instead of the person who owns them.

But the bottom line is that if your dating criteria puts the contents of someone's underwear above all else on your list of criteria, you're not a lesbian, and you need to take a good long look in the mirror.