#such as the 'think of the children!' for the ~case~ of trans people existing i sometimes notice that people...

[uncanny-tranny]

This might be a half-baked theory, but I wonder how much of the "think of the children!!" ideals that are almost... aimed at women rely on the idea of women as Forever Children.

What I notice is that a lot of these ideas of corruption in youth are feminized in a way that evokes motherhood, but I also notice that many people blur the lines between women or anybody forced into or expected to be women and children so that they are as one.

#politics #feminism #the idea of women being essentially children with the bodies of adult is something that's age-old #but i notice it still as something that's... subtler sometimes #such as the 'think of the children!' for the ~case~ of trans people existing i sometimes notice that people... #...subtly start including women in that 'think of the children!!!!!!!' line and it makes me wonder... #...if people see women and children as functionally the same... #again maybe this is half-baked or i think too much about this but. hm. yknow. #alright i guess... back to doing my crochet project and playing video games instead of studying 👍

[kiophen]

genuine question, do you think callout posts are inherently evil? like if someone's doing some weird shit and hiding it i think people would want to be warned about that at least. just try to discourage harassment as much as possible

The existence of a callout posts means that the targeted person will be harassed if enough people see it. There is no amount of "don't harass anyone mentioned in this doc/video" disclaimers that will prevent that. The post is now potentially a permanent record that anyone can cite for years into the future. You are now at the whims of unknown strangers to be banned from communities, kicked out of creative projects, or be blocked by friends, at any time with no warning. I would consider this to be harassment, but to people who don't know about how these things usually go down they would be seen as righteous whistle blowers.

No matter what you actually did, if your awkward interaction with someone was too sexual, or if you stated a shitty opinion about a complex topic, or if you misjudged someone's boundaries, or if you engaged with kink in a way that made someone outside the scene uncomfortable, you are now a predator. I have seen firsthand the game of telephone starting from "this person did/said something sexualized on an online platform where teenagers could have been present," to "acted creepy around teenagers," to "regularly sexually assaulted children," to "pedophile".

Callout posts do not actually stop the person from "doing weird shit". It depends on what you mean by "weird shit", but if you mean "secretly draws/engages with Bad Porn", which is what a lot of callout posts are about, I implore you to recognize that it is truly not your business to know every private action someone takes just because you follow them on social media. This applies to awkward interactions people have in private too. Sometimes it's patterns of abuse, but a lot of the time it's interpersonal drama that is not anyone else's business.

If by "weird shit" you mean that someone has demonstrated ongoing patterns of real emotional/financial/sexual/etc abuse, and it's something that cannot be handled by any other means (either privately or with legal action if relevant), then in those cases a callout post can potentially do more good than harm if it reaches the people that need to know about it.

The level of long-term mental anguish that a target can go through is absolutely no fucking joke. A callout post has the potential to be a gun to someone's head, especially if they're socially/mentally/physically disadvantaged to begin with, which conveniently describes the most likely people to be targeted with high profile callout posts. [This is because: 1.) Our communities are wayy more likely to self-police than the rest of the internet and 2.) there are groups such as kiwifarms that love when a trans girl does something they can suicide bait her with and they also love it when we infight, isolate, and attack each other.]

I don't think callout posts are inherently evil, but they do nothing to make the target not continue their unwanted behavior. The only good function a callout post can serve is to warn potential future victims. If there are no victims, no behavior that will DIRECTLY lead to someone being victimized, no scam being uncovered, no patterns of abuse being shared, then the only victim is the target of the callout post. Everyone else involved is just gawking at gossip and/or contributing to suicidal levels of anxiety to a stranger.

#ask #callout #call out #ive pretty much only been using tumblr for talking about abusive internet behavior #i use mastodon for my normal posting #it feels like everyone on fedi is already aware of all of this.. peaceful #*wearing a button that says Ask Me About The False 4lung Child Kidnapping Accusations!* #miles junk

[strangertheories]

It is my biggest pet peeve when (mostly) straight people try to make queer people feel guilty for shipping two same gender characters together or say it's problematic to ship them, so I've made a little list debunking their ideas. I'll be talking a lot about Byler but this also applies to Elmax, Ronance, Steddie and queer ships in general.

"Why can't people be friends anymore?" Why can't a guy and a girl be friends either? Why aren't you saying this about Chrissy and Eddie shippers? Unless the issue is that they're gay.

"You're assuming Will is gay based on stereotypes!" Of course, the horrible stereotype that gay guys like men but not women, how problematic of me.

"You're fetishizing children!" No one says this about M*leven shippers. The fact that you view a queer relationship as inherently sexual and adult is sexualising young people much more than shipping Will and Mike does.

"Men will be scared to be affectionate to their friends in real life in case people think that they're gay!" First of all, I doubt some straight guy is going to stop hanging out with his friend because some random person on the internet drew Steddie fanart. And second of all, why are we treating straight men's fear of being perceived as gay as a perfectly valid and normal fear? (I elaborate a bit on this point in the reblogs)

"Why is it okay to say Mike Wheeler is gay but not say Robin is straight? You're erasing his sexuality!" First of all, when did Mike say he's straight? Sure he said he loves Eleven (which I doubt he does anyways) but bi people exist. Plus, there are so many straight characters and ships out there. Straight people don't look up lists of shows with canonical queer representation or watch a show because it has a straight girl in it. Lesbians like myself look up to characters like Robin and they are meaningful to them. No straight person feels seen in their heterosexuality because of Mike Wheeler. The only exception in my opinion is when people headcanon straight characters who are dating trans people as bi like Tao from Heartstopper because that comes off as transphobic.

"They're too young to know that they're gay and you're forcing a sexuality on them." I've known I'm gay since I was eleven or twelve which is the age they are in S1. And yet again, why aren't you saying this about straight people! Everyone accepted that Dustin and Lucas liked Max in S2. Yet Will is too young to know who he likes... Interesting.

"Grown adults wanting two young boys to kiss each other is pretty weird." The issue with this is again the hypocrisy. Adult M*leven shippers don't get told this. Mike kissed Eleven in S1 and it was completely cute and non-sexual because they are children so of course it isn't sexual. Hell they even made out when they were 13 and no one complained. Why would that be any different if he kissed Mike instead of Will? Yet again, people view queer people as being inherently sexual but queer people get cute little crushes or want to kiss people sometimes too. It's not a sexual thing. It's the exact same as a straight person doing it.

Anyways that's my rant done. It just annoys me when half of their arguements saying why it's wrong to ship these characters are just masked homophobia, even if the person saying it doesn't realize. Feel free to add more to this in the reblogs, this is just what I've seen.

#stranger things #byler #byeler #will byers #mike wheeler #steddie #ronance #elmax #jargyle

[communistkenobi]

genuinely curious, if you think "it's a girl!" and "it's a boy!" categorisations are inherently oppressive, do you believe a world where gender isn't recognized in any meaningful way before the child has means to define it for themself to be the best alternative?

I’m going to use a different abolitionist example to illustrate what I mean: when people advocate for abolishing the nuclear family, they are not saying “get rid of parental relationships” or “get rid of fathers.” They are identifying a specific social relation that is used as a building block of society and advocating for a world where it doesn’t exist, because its existence is the foundation of certain forms of oppression. The western social model where children are raised in private detached housing by a maximum of two parents (and realistically, mostly by their mother - a huge problem in itself!) who have complete control over their material, emotional, and social needs produces a fucking huge amount of adverse outcomes - abuse, trauma, dysfunction, poor health - the list is nearly infinite. And this family model also inherently reproduces class, race, and gender by virtue of the fact that children inherit those things from their parents and are forced to exist in those contexts. And even in individual cases where it doesn’t produce abuse, even if you have very good parents who are not abusive to you in any way, that social relationship is still oppressive, in the same way that having a cool boss doesn’t mean that wage labour is good. A society where children are not entirely dependent on one or two people for all of their needs, where they are free to form meaningful relationships with adults outside of strict categories of family, where children are not legally and socially treated like the property of their parents, where bloodline is not privileged as the dominant mode of intergenerational transfer of knowledge, culture, skill, wealth, etc, is a much better world!

“Gender abolition” is, I think, a poor term for a similar goal, and one that has a lot of reactionary baggage (baggage that is not coincidental - I think its imprecision as a term is useful for terf politics). Abolition of patriarchy is probably more precise - I am advocating for a world where gender is entirely non-coercive, where gender does not produce any oppressive social relations. You can engage in gender as a culture in the same way you can engage with different forms of art, in a way that is purely voluntary. This configuration does not prohibit the possibility of trans people; we would just exist in an entirely different form than the current western, medicalist, patriarchal, white supremacist context we are forced to navigate.

So yes, I think for gender to be truly emancipatory, it needs to be engaged with as a voluntary form of human culture, as a form of art that we do with ourselves and our bodies, and to do this we need to abolish sex distinctions on medical records, gender markers on state documents, gendered facilities, and many, many other things.

#asks #even old new york was once new amsterdam #hope that answers your question!

[homosexuhauls]

Can you imagine if a white lesbian public figure brutally murdered two trans women in an interracial relationship and their black son? The headlines, the think-pieces, op-eds...we would never hear the end of it. It would be blamed on lesbian communities as a whole and the transmisogyny and white supremacy we obviously perpetuate on a daily basis just by existing. Cotton ceiling discourse would be back with a vengeance. There would be rallies and vigils, there would be calls to "Stand by your trans", there would be "#LWithTheT" marches. There would be a community in mourning, full of fury and hurt and self-righteous rage at the nasty lesbian aggressors who clearly caused this anti-trans hate crime. There would be no room for nuance and all lesbians would be painted with the "evil cis white dykes want us dead" brush. All of this would be seen as a completely acceptable and understandable response to a brutal act of anti-trans violence by a lesbian perpetrator.

So where is the noise? Where is the clamouring? Where is the sound and fury, when a famous white trans activist murders an interracial lesbian couple and their black son? I don't expect (or want) it to spark a radfem revolution, but why is the silence around the Dana Rivers murder case so deafening? Why does no one in the so-called LGBTQ+ community care enough to loudly and proudly mourn and celebrate these women and their son? Charlotte, Patricia and Benny deserve to be remembered. They deserve our sound and fury. Even if it's difficult, even if the optics don't suit your world views, we cannot ignore some injustices and claim to fight against others. The cowardly LGBT+ media organisations and charities covering their eyes and pretending that this act of violence never happened, they will happily call on lesbians for solidarity this pride month, despite showing no solidarity for a lesbian family slaughtered by an apparent member of our own "community". How can we call this anything other than a cover-up, or at the very least, deliberate and contrived ignorance?

Patricia Wright. Charlotte Reed. Benny Toto Diambu-Wright. Their lives were stolen from them on November 11th 2016. I can find no obituarities, and minimal mainstream media coverage of their murders. For many years, it felt almost as if their suffering had been forgotten. It has taken six and a half years for their murderer to be convicted and sentenced to life without parole, a sentence which Rivers will spend in a women's prison. Is this justice, or a pale imitation of such? Either way, I hope this family may finally rest in peace and power, and that their loved ones may begin to move forwards.

Pat and Char, as they were known to friends and family, are survived by two children. Patricia worked as a school teacher and deaf interpreter for schools, while Charlotte worked in a salon known locally for being trans-inclusive. Patricia was also an artist and talented actor, having considered a career in performing arts after high school. Charlotte had previously been a member of an all-female motorcycle club, which Rivers was also involved in. Both Charlotte and Patricia were also former regular attendees of MichFest, a feminist music festival which was closed down in 2015, following years of protests by trans women including Dana Rivers. 19-year-old Benny had just graduated high school and, according to his brother, hoped to become a nurse.

A victim impact statement was read out by Richard Wright, Patricia's younger brother, during Rivers' sentencing. I can't find the full text but much of the statement can be found in the Berkeley Scanner article below. Wright describes the impact of finding out that his sister and her family had been "assassinated in their own home" and the traumatising experience of searching for important paperwork at the bloodied crime scene that was once their home. According to Richard, Dana Rivers "chose her [sic] entitlement and narcissism over basic human decency" and "chose violence, cruelty, sadism and entitlement — over and over and over again." This is in reference to the length of court proceedings due to Rivers' changing pleas, as well as the brutality of the crime itself, which was carried out using guns, knives and arson. According to the judge, the murders of Patricia, Charlotte and Benny were "the most depraved crime that I’ve handled in the criminal justice field in 33 years."

No one but Rivers is responsible for these heinous crime, but all of us are responsible for ensuring history is not forgotten, and that the stories of those taken from us continue to be told. And when we tell their stories, in sound and in fury, we must ensure they do not fall on deaf ears.

"They were real people, not collateral damage...They deserve to be seen."

- Richard Wright's victim impact statement

For more information, see below:

#dana rivers #lesbophobia #lesbian feminism #femicide #lgbtq #radfem safe

[intersectionalpraxis]

Yall, I know these are trolls, but I'm so tired of seeing this shit.

Have you seen the state of America? As one example. Reproductive rights are being attacked/are being scaled back entirely or, in many cases, have been eradicated, thus ending access to safe abortions for folks who need those services.

What about the trans and queer people being harassed and killed indiscriminately because of rampant cissexism/queerphobia/transphobia, or rape being called a 'hazard' of the job for women who serve in the US military. What about the white supremacists boldly storming Capitol Hill with zero consequences while Black people are being systematically lynched by cops...

Also, what about the many women are disrespected is MANY fields -especially in one's that are still male-dominated because of sexist bias and misogyny, like the gaming industry. Cultural misogyny exists everywhere.

I also see many western and european men get on social media DAILY via their platforms and podcasts with their shitty manosphere red pill bullshit and talk in length about how women belong in the home/are 'naturally' inferior or whose existences only mean something if we give birth and get married. Not to mention the endless slut shaming of women with 'high body counts.' Put on your thinking cap please.

Because using Islamophobic rhetoric to say Brown men rape their partners and that Palestine is inherently a misogynist country is beyond horrific and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Palestinian women, alongside the entirety of their communities, are one of the most educated people in the world. And in case your bigoted self has been glued to CNN, Palestinian women and children represent 70% of those genocided in Gaza in the past six months. And just as many Palestinian journalists have reported and activists/voices have spoken about -Palestinian men are the ones using their bare hands to search through rubble after IOF strikes, who are taking care of stray animals and are risking their lives to get to aid trucks to get food for their families. The one's, alongside their colleagues, comforting children who have been orphaned or permanently disabled/or severely injured because of bombings. I cannot believe I have to implore people to see Palestinian people's humanity because ya'll have been brainwashed by zionist approved propoganda in the West.

#feminist #social justice #free palestine #palestine #free gaza #gaza is a feminist issue #gaza under siege #gaza strip #gaza genocide #end the occupation #ceasefire permanently #tw rape #tw lynching #tw islamophobia #islamophobia #zionist occupation #us imperialism #united states

[doubleca5t]

Why are you so concerned with sexualizing minors, especially K-3rd graders? Nothing of what you posted is true. I think it's sad that you're so upset about not being able to indoctrinate innocent that you don't even realize you've just made yourself a pedophile.

Teaching children:

A) if someone touches them inappropriately or without their consent that this is wrong and they should tell someone

B) how to tell if an adult might be trying to gain their trust for the wrong reasons

C) that gay people exist

D) that trans people exist

Does not require explaining the specifics of sex to children or even like... telling them what sex is more broadly. Conservatives just think this is the case because for A&B they don't actually *want* children to know that they're being groomed (gee I wonder why) and because for C&D they cannot conceptualize gay and trans people as anything other than sexual deviants. They think two dudes fucking is gross and a woman with a dick is gross and that is the extent of their real, genuine opinions on gay and trans people. This allows them to argue that both are somehow inherently sexual - because that is the only framing THEY can view LGBT people through.

[mysebacielblog]

Ciel is Trans Theory

I Need to point this out because. I have a hunch that Ciel is Trans, and fingers crossed I’m right. Honestly, I could be completely off base and this could be as close as Ancient Aliens is to History.

This might be an overreach but here is my case for it, as best as I can:

* Based on previous events and Chapters, Yana has shown that She Likes Playing on the concept of Gender from the Very First Arc. From the Very beginning we are introduced to a woman who is Jack the Ripper, challenging the male murder stereotype on its head, and her lover, a gender ambiguous (Later Confirmed Canonically!!) Trans Reaper Lady. Both unite from their desire, and hatred for the prostitutes who beg for abortions at her clinic. There are Already wombs being ripped out of women and we’ve just started.

* The Fact that Ciel is Dressed extremely effeminately not only for the period, even for EGL clothing standards might point to something as well. But when forced to wear a dress for the sake of a mission, he loses his mind. Although it could be a tween’s worst nightmare, how Madame Red laments to Ciel when dressing him as a girl that she always wanted a daughter feels like something.

* Ciel is always referred to as beautiful, which is not wrong for the period, but there are less masculine terms that people refer to him as.

* Yana herself says that she Over Masculinizes Ciel. Which is an interesting take for his effeminate nature of dress Vs masculine personality?

* Another hot take is that Yana Specifically has instructed in certain live action and anime for the voice actor to be a woman. I’ve seen a lot of talk on this particular conversation but none highlighting this as a clue on our Ciel’s Identity??? How??

* Mey Rin is also have been hidden as a boy with her previous life as a sniper, so this also shows that this is not out of the question either. The same reveal has happened with Doll.

* Ciel does not let anyone get close to his body. This is obviously because traumatic stress behaviors, however, similar flinching could allude to a different reason entirely.

* Our Lad introduces himself as the “Earl Ciel Phantomhive” Earl almost being apart of his first name. He’s already changed his name to hide his past. But Why?

* Let’s pretend that Ciel was in fact, born a boy at birth. If his brother and parents died, even if he was considered a “Spare Child”, (remember the British Phrase an Heir and a Spare). He would still be a legitimate hier due to his brother being unable to claim inheritance (because of his death) and pass on something to him. Even if another family member became a guardian and inherited a majority to raise our ciel, he would still be entitled to Something, and (might) even become Earl. This would Not be the case if Ciel was born a girl.

* Two Cultural similarities Japanese Manga and the Victorian period have in common are the troupe of “women disguising themselves as men”. I put this in quotes because, as Ciel described it, “the old him died in his cage,” pointing to metaphorical metamorphosis, and not simply a disguise for convient’s sake. Although it was common for (transgender men, queer cis women and/or Cis women) to take on a male position / pseudonym in order to establish a title, or a job position (typically in writing, this continued until the 1960’s). Now add on the popular manga/anime that were important in playing with perceptions of gender during Black Butler’s Debut (think Ouran High school host club), and there’s something there.

* The Fact that no one mourned Ciel’s Death was unfortunate, but a critical plot point of the story. Up until now, no one even acknowledged Our Ciel had ever Existed. Not a name, not “twins” nothing. Even though our Lad was an ill child, no one had even acknowledged he was there to begin with. Women and children were rarely recognized in Victorian culture, let alone a “Woman Child”. This culture was challenged somewhat through literature in the early ‘30’s with works from Jane Austen, ‘47 with Charlotte Brontë (who went by a pseudonym) and Lewis Carol’s Alice and the Looking Glass at the end of the century. (introducing a Girl Protag!! Gracious!). As sad as it may be, no one would really mourn an terminally ill girl compared to her family’s murder, unless having accomplished something amazing. It would be seen unfortunately as a lifted burden, and ultimately one less dowery or added expense. The fact that no one even bothered to notice our Ciel’s death or even the toll it might have on his twin is evident enough.

* The most Damning evidence I have for this theory is Lizzy’s reaction to figuring out “Ciel” was not the real “Ciel”. The immediate turn against Ciel. Why wouldn’t she even hear him out? What could have possibly turned her away like that, without a doubt in her mind, even if she had met with the Real Ciel? The fact that her reaction was not confusion but rather an extreme turn against him, she did not even think one minute to give Our Ciel a chance. And the only possible reason (combined with the fact that he was lying about not being his brother) is that if he was Not Cis. Not only would that mean that she was with the sick weaker sibling not heir to the Phantomhive legacy, but Ciel Could never conceive a family with Elizabeth, nor marry her like she would have wanted. And even if she married him, they would never be able to have children of their own (a really big obsession with British Aristocracy- modern day source: royals). All of her dreams would be shattered. And that shattering would bring her to turn instantly.

* The fact that everyone automatically assumed our ciel was real ciel, just based on saying so. Why?

* The fact that sick girls were often dressed like male counterparts to strengthen them during this era, as well as androgynous clothing for children being in fashion (because of less washing headaches and hand-me-downs)

* A smaller, minor detail is how Sebastian says “When lies become truth”. This is pointing towards both their façades but an interesting quote none the less on transitioning.

* I’m pointing to his teeny shoes with the high heels. It’s not that they’re effeminate women’s shoes that are iffy for the period, (which let’s be clear, they are) but. Look at him. Trying his best to be tall adult man. I’m pointing at his shoes.

* I might be missing a lot. Tell me if I am.

Reasons For Why I Am Extremely Wrong:

*Tanaka and Vincent referring to Our Ciel with he/him pronouns, (although I’m not sure on the original Japanese translation on chapter 131)

#black butler analysis #black butler theories #slaps Ciel’s Head #this bad boy can fit so many queer coding #I’m not writing this because I’m nb #But I’m not Not saying I’m writing this because I’m nb #i wrote this at 2am #please be gentle #Pepe Silvia board

[narrator-navigator-storyteller]

Y'know, this might be me talking out of my ass, it's like midnight, but I keep seeing this whole thing where radfems are so afraid to acknowledge that intersex people can be women. Like, even outside of their transphobia, especially their transmisogyny, they just have this idea that intersex = not woman. And I think I've figured out what brand of intersexism this is.

The parts of conservative society radfems love, specifically the bioessentialism, are the same parts that hate the idea of intersex people not only existing, but being mixed in with 'normal' people. With women, or those perceived as women, that pretty much means that we are entirely boiled down to the fact that we have a uterus. Hell, radfems even love using the term 'wombyn', and uterus imagery has become synonymous with feminism.

As such, these people, when they hear 'intersex', do not think of them as being capable of having a uterus. If you have a uterus, or have ever had a uterus, you are a woman. And so when conditions like NCAH, PCOS, and other non-obvious-at-birth conditions are referred to as intersex, this scares them, because people with these conditions can, in some cases, still have children. These disorders being intersex would mean that they cannot filter intersex women out into another sector of society by possession of a uterus, or ability to have children.

This hits people from two sides. On one side, you have the obvious, more widely acknowledged (within queer and specifically trans spaces) issue, which is that not everyone with a uterus is a woman, and not every woman has a uterus. This is, and still remains, an incredibly important point to combat transmisogyny; we cannot let feminism boil down to bioessentialism.

But on the other hand, these radfems are also being absolute idiots, even by their own standards, because they're alienating so-called 'true women'. Using myself as an example, I was born with perfectly normal AFAB anatomy. However, excessively high cortisol levels paired with insulin-resistance related hyperandrogenism made me develop a mixed puberty, and multiple doctors have agreed that my chance of having a normally-functioning uterus is shot. And let me tell you, there is fucking grief when you want to fight for women's rights, and do still consider yourself to partially be a woman, and the imagery around you is all surrounding something you can not have.

These people are scared because with non-obvious-at-birth intersex conditions, they cannot immediately recognize us and make us conform. By the time we're aware of our condition, we will have opinions on how to treat it. And so they try to take away what little community we have by saying we're not really intersex, and that these are normal conditions (especially those sentiments are targeted at female-related conditions like NCAH and PCOS), while simultaneously making their spaces incompatible with us.

I don't know, I got a bit ranty, but I'm getting really sick of being told that I'm "just like every woman" when I have not been allowed to be a woman since I was in 5th grade.

#intersex #intersexism #edited because midnight wording is Fucked

[roadhogsbigbelly]

she did NOT say that fictional csa is fine though, that’s the thing that everyone is very expressly telling you. and IM not defending ““people who jack off to fictional children”” either, where the fuck are you getting that, do you just say this shit to every trans woman you see? you can’t argue by putting shit in people’s mouths. the “standards” you are describing are the same standards that the people you’re smearing agree with. im not saying its all or nothing at all, you just can’t take anything we’re saying seriously

when you read "stopping being mean to sex freaks who like ageplay and incest shipping" why do you think that suddenly stops at loliporn or fictional csa when that's part of the package? do you think "ageplay and incest shipping" only applied to game and thrones fanfiction and mild "daddy" play? like of course those posts saying "don't be say you love sex freaks if you don't include ALL sex freaks" is also including fictional csa, like fucking cailou porn or whatever. because the posts those are response to are like "stop being mean about people with weird fetishes that make you uncomfortable! (except fictional csa fuck you you can die)" if she's not supporting fictional csa great, but why did she reblog the fucking post than?

and again the fact that i criticized her has nothing to do with her being a trans woman, that didn't even cross my mind, and i've criticized cis men, cis women, trans men, non binary people and people of all genders and sexuality that have been dismissive of concerns over this shit. i've criticized cis women on twitter for publicly posting their weird underaged boy rape fantaties and i got accused of "hating women's fantasies", i've also critcized other cis gay men for drawing actual "toddlercon" and got accused of being a "pick me" gay, and other variations of "stop criticizing grown adults for what they do in private even if they post in publicly actually oops"

i don't actually care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, but the only reason people on tumblr make posts about how "you should stop being mean to people about their age play, incest porn" is because most people don't actually keep it private actually, or else other people wouldn't be seeing it and complain about it. like if you go into someone's dms or a locked private space to "out them" for being into scooby doo or even some actually more harmful fantasy than that's still kind of gross and intruding and they shouldn't do that, but if said person is doing it in a PUBLIC FORUM than yeah they're not above criticism because it's their own "private fantasies" when it's clearly not.

(and before you take words out of my mouth i am not inherently against public displays of sexuality or even kink, i don't think a child seeing a man in a pup mask and harness is going to tramatize them, i think they'll be fine, and in general i think try to hide the fact "sex" like. exists from children does not nothing to deter grooming and kind of causes it in some cases. i've seen people insisting that people who don't lock their nsfw twitter accounts of adults have regular but explicit sex that they're are personally grooming children who might have to figure out porn exists, and i think that's an unhealthy attitude to have. my point is more that the entire argument that noone can criticize or have a negative opinion on "ageplay" or "incest kink" because "it only exists between two private consenting adults" is just. not true.)

[ananke-xiii]

My ranking of SPN seasons (based only on their PLOT) pt. 3

In my previous posts (here and here) I've covered the following:

15: Season 14

14: Season 15

13: Season 7

12: Season 3

11: Season 6

10: Season 13

9: Season 12

8: Season 1

7: Season 10

Let's continue!

6. Season 9: The plot for this season runs on parallel tracks: on one hand we have the consequences of the spell that Metatron cast at the end of season 8 (ie: angels have fallen, chaos ensues); on the other hand, we have the heroes' quest, finding and killing Abbadon. These 2 parallel plots find their meeting point in the Mark of Cain: frustrated because he's unable to kill Abbadon AND because of his serious fallout with Sam, Dean gives in and accepts the curse. His choice will have immense consequences on the heaven-related plot: it will be revealed that Castiel, who was working to settle things out in heaven, will give up everything to save Dean. Plot-wise, this was a good season. Once again, I felt that the death of a secondary character (Kevin Tran, RIP my poor baby boy), was done for emotional sake and to aggravate the heroes' fallout. It felt unnecessary, cruel and, frankly, not well thought-out (but the writers have already made the same mistake with Bobby and will make it again with Charlie SO at this point I think that they know what they are doing, I simply don't agree with their writing choices). All in all, the season was quite good, it did its job. Can't complain.

5. Season 2: This season expands on the season 1 plot, so basically we are still dealing with the heroes' personal vendetta against the Yellow Eyes demon who killed their mother. However, this time we are presented with more allies and enemies, the Winchesters' backstory gets more complicated and we start to guess that there's more at stake for the two brothers. It's not just payback anymore: the plot starts to thicken and we glimpes that higher powers were pulling the strings all along. Mary Winchester's death was destined. It's a strong season that starts with John's death and almost ends with Sam's death but not quite: the last episode is able to keep us interested for what's to come as we find out that Dean has made a demon deal to save his brother. I didn't like some "minutiae", like the whole thing about other humans being infected with demon blood at 6 months old as a "back-up" plan in case Sam was not the One. Sorry but when Destiny enters the chat you either go all-in or not, there are no back-up plans. Also, it turns out that Sam is not exactly The One since he gets killed by the other guy whose name I forgot. Soooo, you know... this doesn't sound solid, you can tell that the whole thing is there to 1) fill in episodes; 2) give writers some space in case things don't go as planned. I don't know, I was kinda bummed about it, yeah.

4. Season 5: This might sound controversial but... I didn't exactly like season 5's ending. I know that, according to the majority of articles I've read, this is considered THE perfect SPN season but.. you know, it doesn't cut it for me. The plot is very good, though, so here's why it's still high on my own personal ranking. Once we've established that Sam and Dean are the destiny's children (LOL) and that their own existence was predestined, we are now left with the big IF. A sort of "will-they-won't-they". Will Dean say YES to Michael and become his vessel? Will Sam say YES to Lucifer? I like it, this is good and the plot is well-developed throughout the whole 20+ episodes. BUT, here's the BIG but. I hated, HATED, the "Adam becomes Michael's vessel so that Dean can safely say no and the plot can still go as planned" expedient. I truly hate this kind of things with a passion. First thing first, I detest writers when they introduce "disposable" characters such as Adam (and many others in the show, tbh). This is my own personal pet peeve so I can understand why other people are not as bothered by this as I am. Aside from that, as I've said before, once you introduce DESTINY in the plot you cannot have back-up plans. If you do, the whole concept is weakened and, as a refult, the plot feels cheap. We had established that Dean and Dean only could be Michael's vessel. However, SURPRISE! Adam, being his half-brother, can be a vessel, too! Yu-hoo, Apocalipse can still happen even if Dean says NO! Ma'am, please. No. It's also very sexist since it implies the father's blood is the predominant factor in this whole charade (Adam is John's Winchester third ((maybe, who really knows at this point??) son). This is a big NO for me. Since it's an intrinsic part of the plot I can't walk away from this.

#supernatural meta #spn meta #spn #supernatural #dean winchester #sam winchester #spn season 5 #spn season 9 #spn season 2 #destiel #castiel #ranking #tv series #tv shows

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Joseph Figliolia

Published: Feb 1, 2024

More people are identifying as transgender and seeking medical care for gender dysphoria than ever before. Between 2018 and 2022, gender-dysphoria diagnoses increased considerably in every state in the U.S. except for South Dakota, according to Definitive Healthcare. Children’s share of dysphoria diagnoses rose from 17.5 percent to 20.4 percent in that same period. A JAMA paper noted a threefold increase in “gender-affirming” surgeries between 2016 and 2019.

The story that the “gender-affirming” camp tells itself about these developments is equal parts illuminating and frustrating. Proponents typically claim that transgender people, as we understand them today, have always existed, and that more people identify as trans because the public has become more aware and accepting of transgender identities. In other words, these activists believe that apparent increases in the trans-identifying population are not really increases at all; they merely reflect that the language, tools, and cultural climate are now in place to gauge more accurately the trans population’s size.

In a recent reported piece for The Hill, for example, Russ Toomey, a transgender professor at the University of Arizona, claimed that the alleged rise of transgender young people “is not an increase . . . we are seeing the numbers of people disclosing nonbinary and trans identity on a survey because we are asking people in more inclusive ways about their gender.” Shoshana Goldberg of the Human Rights Campaign similarly argued, “It is not that there are more people. It is that there are more people who are open and who are out. . . . The reality is that when you talk to the average person on the street, they are going to be more accepting and more affirming than they have ever been.” Of course, this observation cannot be reconciled with the pro-affirming camp’s claim that half of U.S. states are “anti-trans” and create a hostile environment for trans-identifying minors. Moreover, it seems unlikely that these explanations can solely account for the sheer size and scope of the increase in referrals over the last decade. For example, England’s Gender Identity Development Service saw a twentyfold increase in referrals for dysphoria between 2011 and 2021.

The pro-affirming side is willing to grant that social and cultural forces contribute to the documented rise in trans identification, but only in a narrow way. They allow that greater cultural visibility and acceptance leads to more people being comfortable sharing their “real” identities—but they won’t entertain the possibility that greater cultural visibility and acceptance has created cases of gender dysphoria and trans identification.

When confronted with statistical reality, this thinking yields absurd conclusions. A Williams Institute study from 2021, for example, noted the presence of 1.2 million “nonbinary” people in the United States, 75 percent of whom were below age 30. According to the pro-affirming camp, nonbinary people have always existed. But why are young people more likely than older people to adopt this identity? Why are nonbinary identities more common among girls and young women, specifically? And why didn’t this phenomenon seem to exist 30 years ago?

“You can’t identify as something if you don’t know what the word is,” counters Kay Simon, a professor who studies “queer” youth and their families. “From a very young age,” he adds, “I kind of realized I was gay . . . at the time, I probably could have told you that I felt different about my gender, but I didn’t have a word for it.”

Simon is right that discovering new terminology can sometimes help people describe elements of reality that they couldn’t previously describe. But language, and culture more broadly, can also create new social realities.

Certain material facts—our embodiment as sexed beings is one—exist independent of our cultural discourse about them. When you move beyond these natural phenomena and into the social realm, however, nature and culture can become hard to disentangle. Gender dysphoria, as a psychiatric condition, might have biological roots and in that sense be a biological phenomenon, though researchers have yet to confirm this. The idea that a person who has gender dysphoria is a different sex, however, and must be treated with hormones and surgeries is another claim altogether. It assumes that a person’s mind is the only thing that counts toward whether the individual is male or female (or something else). This is a cultural argument, not a discovery of natural fact.

Consider how our understanding of sex-reassignment surgeries has evolved. For most of the twentieth century, an adult who had surgical genital modifications would have been described as “transsexual,” not “transgender.” The popular scientific understanding of this person’s situation would be that he was suffering from a mental-health disorder and was opting to live socially as the opposite sex. Significantly, however, neither the scientific nor cultural understandings of this person’s situation would have included a metaphysical belief that the person really was the opposite sex (or another sex entirely). No shared cultural understanding existed that a male undergoing a procedure to create an artificial vagina was somehow already a female even before the procedure, though the concept of gender identity had been introduced.  

In the older paradigm, the language of sex reassignment suggests that sex can be changed through surgery. Filtered through the prism of the gender-affirming paradigm, though, sex reassignment is a misnomer, since the procedure simply confirms the patient’s true “sex” as reflected by his or her gender identity. Of course, a third possibility is that it is impossible to change sex, and that these procedures are simply cosmetic.

As the philosopher Tomas Bogardus pointed out in Quillette, our language used to maintain a sex-gender distinction that acknowledged sexual dimorphism. “Sex” referred to being biologically male or female, while “gender” stood in for qualities that we associate with the sexes —like wearing makeup for girls or playing sports for boys—that are not intrinsic, definitionally, to being male or female. These gender qualities are mostly “socially constructed,” though they may be biologically predisposed. Notably, gender was also used by feminists as a synonym for sex, while gender identity was used by sexologists to refer to a person’s perception of being male or female. “Queer theorists” would later argue that the entire sex-gender distinction was artificial and that both categories were socially constructed. In this way, the terms “man” and “woman” also came to be associated with gender, suggesting that a man or woman was a social role or position that one occupied.

According to Bogardus, the flaw in what he calls the social-role view of gender is that not every person who wants to be recognized socially as a man or woman is perceived as one. To rectify this, the social-role view of gender morphed into the self-identification view. In the process, the sex-gender distinction collapsed, and the survivor was gender, not sex. In this brave new world, men who identify as women are female, and women who identify as men are male.

Gender-identity theory, then, is a strange amalgam of ideas. The theory asserts that we are imbued with an innate gendered essence, but it defines that essence by time- and culture-bound masculine and feminine stereotypes. It divorces our sex from biology, and redefines it by how we dress, behave, and express ourselves.

Even the “queer theorists,” often credited with developing gender ideology, arguably would not understand its current incarnation. For the godmother of queer theory, Judith Butler, sex is subsumed under gender, and gender exists only as a performance made intelligible through repetition. The notion that there is a “real” gender—or gender identity—behind the performance is not only false but is the very idea that queer theory aims to challenge. Those who borrow Butler’s jargon and concepts to argue that all humans have an innate gender identity, and that this innate identity needs social and medical “affirmation,” seem scarcely aware of—or concerned with—the deep contradiction in their position.

Whether social scientists admit it or not, gender discourse has consequences. As the writer and researcher Eliza Mondegreen recently pointed out, growth in trans identification is not just fueled by interpreting various kinds of distress as gender dysphoria. Trans identification can come first, followed by the experience of gender dysphoria.

Imagine a shy, sensitive boy who likes to cook and draw, and is uninterested in sports and rough-and-tumble play. In a different time, this would be unremarkable. But now, ubiquitous cultural messaging suggests that this boy’s personality and preferences are evidence that he is a girl and always has been. The boy’s self-understanding is made increasingly unstable, and his sense of self is increasingly dependent on the opinion of others. Do I sound enough like a girl? Do I look enough like one? Do others see me as the girl I know I am inside? He becomes increasingly distressed about the reality of his male body and the ever-growing chasm between it and true female embodiment. Alternatively, a part of him may understand that he is in fact male, and yet this reality is routinely denied by the gender-affirming people in his orbit. Either way, he develops gender dysphoria.

Ironically, what some activists call “gender liberation” arguably reinforces the same pressures to conform. For example, the Gender Liberation Resource Center describes liberation as “people understand[ing] themselves free of pressures to conform or limit who they can be based on their assigned sex.” “Gender liberation” in this sense may free us from the limits imposed on us by our “assigned sex,” but significantly, it imposes new limits, pressures to conform, and understandings of who we can be based on personality, preferences, and gender expression. What the activist camp fails to grasp is that in practice they encourage the same rigid adherence to social norms, and intolerance of nonconformity, that their supposedly liberatory project rejects. Where some see liberation, others see a rainbow-colored cage.

==

Regarding:

The notion that there is a “real” gender—or gender identity—behind the performance is not only false but is the very idea that queer theory aims to challenge.

This is what Judith Butler has to say:

In this sense, gender is in no way a stable identity or locus of agency from which various acts proceede; rather, it is an identity tenuously constituted in time -an identity instituted through a stylized repetition of acts. Further, gender is instituted through the stylization of the body and, hence, must be understood as the mundane way in which bodily gestures, movements, and enactments of various kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self. This formulation moves the conception of gender off the ground of a substantial model of identity to one that requires a conception of a constituted social temporality. Significantly, if gender is instituted through acts which are internally discontinuous, then the appearance of substance is precisely that, a constructed identity, a performative accomplishment which the mundane social audience, including the actors themselves, come to believe and to perform in the mode of belief. If the ground of gender identity is the stylized repetition of acts through time, and not a seemingly seamless identity, then the possibilities of gender transformation are to be found in the arbitrary relation between such acts, in the possibility of a different sort of repeating, in the breaking or subversive repetition of that style. -- Judith Butler, "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory"

#Joseph Figliolia #gender ideology #queer theory #stereotypes #gender stereotypes #feminist theory #self ID #self identiifcation #social constructivism #religion is a mental illness

[i-is-surrounded-by-idjits]

Things that annoy me about assuming the gender identification and sexuality of historic people:

1. Gender roles designated how you were respected. Queens, for example, were traditionally consorts of Kings, so for a queen to be respected, they had to be assertive and appear 'masculine'... this does not necessarily make them trans (think business woman in the 80s breaking social norms by wearing trousers to get respect in the office). Elizabeth I & Hatshepsut are both victims of these assumption, when really they were trying to gain power in a male dominated society. Maybe they were not cis, but there is no way of knowing, so I try not to assume.

2. Friendship is a form of love. Just because two persons of the same sex exchanged compassionate letters does not mean they were in love... or perhaps they were, but homosexuality is not the only alternative to heterosexuality. Pan, Poly, & Bi have always existed (just look at Greek mythology) - don't assume a guy was unhappily married because they once had a male lover, maybe they are bisexual, or Polyamorous? Bi erasure is a big issue (and by extension Poly and Pan too). Freddie Murcury was bisexual, but everyone just remembers gay.

3. Asexuality is ignored. If a historic person of power refused to marry, it is often assumed they were homosexual & thus could not marry who they pleased in most cases... but what if they did not have sexual desires? Stop assuming everyone wants to have sex or get married or have children. Also, some people are romantic, and if they fail to meet "the one" then they also might refuse marriage. My favourite (albeit fictional) example of Ace in ancient times is Hyppolytus - the play is a tragedy, but he is DEFINITELY asexual.

4. One's sexuality and gender identification is really no one's business unless you want people to know. So stop trying to "out" people who died a few centuries ago! If they wanted to express their gender/sexuality, then they likely left something to tell you. If they didn't, then it's really none of our business.

#history #sexuality #gender #out of the closet #bisexual #ace #asexual #homosexual #cisgender #hetrosexual #genderfluid #trans #transgender #polysexual #pansexual

[chaos-in-one]

Saw this and it is genuinely one of the worst "DID red flags/DID faker signs" type post I've seen in a while and a few of these genuinely pissed me off so let's unpack these one by one!

!!! Long post !!!

Active in the Fandom of popular gaming youtubers

If it's a large Fandom, it's going to attract more fans. Which also means more disabled people will be in it. Including people with DID.

Certain youtubers yes it could be a red flag to be a fan of them. Isn't related to the person's DID though, it's about them choosing to support a shitty person.

VERY vocal about their diagnosises, think their experiences are the only valid ones and thus everyone else is faking but them

This one I do actually agree with! It absolutely is a red flag to use your diagnosis and how you experience your disorder to put down others!

Literally will not shut up about it

You are probably looking at an account made specifically to be open about DID. Because believe it or not, outside comparatively very small circles on the internet, DID is highly stigmatized. It is hard to find acceptance in real life, so some people go online to look for spaces they can talk about what they can't in the real world. Saying it is a negative thing actively hurts people with DID, because it says that them having spaces to freely exist is bad.

Active in fake claiming communitites

... you haven't been on r/systemscringe very long, have you?

Uses r/plural and related subs

Same point as the 3rd one: DID is highly stigmatized and people with DID are allowed to look for places they can talk about their experiences with DID.

Posts in those subreddits things like "am I faking?" Or "my alters disappeared when school started?"

The first one is actually a rather common thought for a lot of people with DID! For most people with the disorder, it is meant to be covert. Your brain doesn't want you to know you have it because it is trying to protect you from what caused it. So when you do recognize you have the disorder, it is going to try to push you back into denial because it doesn't want you to know you have it.

The second one, while how it is worded certainly could be a red flag as alters don't just disappear, alters seeming to be gone during stressful situations is also actually really common! The entire point of the disorder is to protect a traumatized child from their trauma and future trauma as best as it can. And by extention, it tends to see certain intense emotions as a warning sign, and will lock a particular alter in control to protect as much of the mind as it can from potential trauma.

Minor

It is a childhood trauma based disorder. Every person with DID was a minor with DID at some point.

Typing Quirks

Typing quirks should never have been associated together in the first place. Typing quirks are not a DID thing, or a system thing at all.

I do agree that if they don't have a translation it is a red flag though, it makes it difficult to impossible for multiple groups of disabled people to access.

Pastel or kidcore aesthetic

An aesthetic is not related to DID. At all. Two completely separate things. The only time either of these are a red flag is if the person is using the aesthetic to sexualize things related to children.

Medically recognized

Literally all this means is that a medical professional has agreed that you might have the disorder. Almost everyone now diagnosed at one point was medically recognized, because diagnosis is a process, not a single event.

Makes picrews of their alters

This is literally just like anyone else making a picrew of themselves. Someone making a little character of what they look like (or want to look like in some cases), is not a red flag. It is not uniquely wrong with someone with a specific disorder does this.

Ftm or nonbinary

.... do I even need to spell out how calling being trans a red flag is transphobic?

A-spec

Again, do I really need to spell out how calling someone's orientation a red flag is bigoted....

Dyed hair

See the point on kidcore & Pastel aesthetic: someone's style choices aren't related to any disorder.

Looks like they would microwave their hampster for tik tok clout

Based on physical appearance? No that's not a red flag, because physical appearance is not an actual indicator of what a person is like. Based on personality? Yeah it is a little concerning if that's what you get out of how someone acts.

Furry or furry adjacent

For the last time. People's style choices are not related to their disorder.

Likes east Asian media

Depends. If they're not Asian and like it to an almost obsessive or fetishistic degree, yeah, big red flag. If they're not fetishistic about it or literally Asian themselves? No. People are allowed to like media from other cultures.

I genuinely cannot read most of the next point so I'm not going to try to answer that for now

List of triggers never ends

Personally I think publicly listing triggers in general is a very bad idea, especially for people with disorders that could make them more vulnerable already. So I do for the most part agree with this point.

Probs mentions pro-shippers somewhere

If it's to tell them to stay away/not interact/etc. No. Again, not related to DID, and also a reasonable boundary to have. If it's in support of proshippers, still not DID related, but yeah definitely a red flag in my book.

Fujoshi

If you actually mean non mlm or nblm who fetishize mlm then yeah, that is a red flag. If you mean anyone who liked any mlm ship ever... yeah no. People are allowed to like gay ships. Gatekeeping who can like a ship based on the genders of the characters ends up just othering us.

Username contains words like system/collective/etc

Again, it is probably an account about DID specifically. Not necessarily a red flag for the reasons previously stated.

Uses we to refer to themselves

A lot of people with DID consider alters to be someone else, not themselves. So they see all of them as a group. It's grammatically correct to refer to a group using 'we' instead of 'I'.

"Diagnosed" by their therapist

In a lot of cases, yes. Most therapists cannot diagnose. Certain therapists who are also things like trauma specialists are licensed to, however. It just isn't very common.

Endogenic

I am going to stay out of this one for the most part, as no matter what I answer it will most likely drag me into an argument that detracts from the point of this post. However I do think it is a red flag to claim DID itself can be non traumagenic, it has been proven time and time again to be caused by trauma.

Wants to be an oppressed minority soooo bad

You know, on any topic, I always hated this point. Because nine times out of ten, the person doesn't actually WANT to be an oppressed minority. They just want their struggles as an actual minority to stop being dismissed.

Usually claims other "popular" disorders/illnesses too (Autism/NPD/BPD/POTS/hEDS)

I have a few points for this one.

One, a lot of disorders do actually make it more likely to develop trauma based disorders. Disorders like autism can lower the trauma threshold and make it more likely that dissociation is how the person copes. And disorders, especially physical disabilities, can cause trauma in and of themselves!

Two, these disorders can all be comorbid. Trauma disorders have high comorbidity rates with certain physical disabilities because the stress that caused those trauma disorders puts tangible, physical stress on your body and it's limits. And trauma disorders also have a very high comorbidity rate with other trauma disorders. It's pretty common to have more than one.

Three, NPD most definitely is not a "popular" disorder. Neither is BPD, in my opinion, although the amount of acceptance for it is higher than with NPD. NPD is quite literally one of the most heavily stigmatized disorders. There are articles after articles, entire forums and communities and more, built around calling people with NPD abusers. You look up NPD and you can find page after page after page telling how to spot a narcissist, how to psychologically damage a narcissist, how to hurt one. It is not by any means a "popular" disorder to have.

System of mostly introjects

Current generations literally have the highest amount of access to fictional media in all of recorded history. And when there is more access to fiction, more people will use it to cope. When more people use it to cope, it becomes more common for it to influence how people are. And DID is a disorder highly influenced and tailored by the specific individuals situation.

New alters always appearing

Again, another situation of a person's experiences being misinterpreted: a lot of the time "new" alters aren't actually new. Many alters are hidden from the person for days, weeks, months or even years before they are discovered. And sometimes they don't even realize how long they have been there, because they had no communication with any other alters. Having a poor perception of time is a very common symptom in most dissociative disorders.

Has tik tok

Someone with DID having a social media is not any more a red flag than someone without DID having it. The two are not related.

Has recordings of themselves "switching"

I do personally find this uncomfortable. Especially since, for a lot of people with DID, or OSDD, switching is often completely uncontrollable. A lot of the times it also is uncomfortable or even painful or stress inducing. I can understand how this could be a red flag, although it is not impossible for it to actually happen, especially if someone else is the one filming.

Neopronouns

Points to the previous point about how saying someone's transness is a red flag is transphobic

"Stims"

This one is a grey area. If they are romanticizing them, fetishizing them, treating them like they're cute, spreading misinfo, etc. Then yes. Just showing or talking about stimming in general though? No. That is an actual thing people do, especially people with disorders like ADHD and autism. Calling a symptom associated with disorders a red flag by itself is ableist and harmful to people with those disorders.

Will do literally anything but show their diagnostic paperwork to "prove" they aren't faking

Diagnostic papers are quite literally private medical information. Depending on how they are formated (differs from company to company), they also could include other private information that sharing online could put you in danger. Depending, showing these could literally get a person doxxed. Them keeping themselves safe online is not a red flag, and it is a red flag to demand someone risk their safety to prove their disability to you. Even employers are legally not allowed to demand this information in most cases.

If you don't like them you're ableist and/or homophobic

If said because someone doesn't like them as a person and as a serious thing, then yes. If said because the reason the person didn't like them was because of their orientation or disorder, or as a joke, then no.

Their "therapy" goal is to live in harmony with their alters, instead of reintegration

The thing you are trying to talk about actually has a name! It is called functional multiplicity. And it actually is not "not integrating", it still is a form of integration. Just like final fusion, the goal is to lower dissociative barriers and heal from childhood trauma over time. The only difference is the alters "fusing" or becoming one with one another, is not part of the treatment plan. Functional multiplicity is not the opposite of integration, it is a form of integration in and of itself. People with that goal still want to heal. They just don't feel that final fusion would benefit them. Both are goals approved by many actual professionals.

"Getting a diagnosis would put me at a disadvantage in xyz" (it won't)

Again, this is a grey area and highly depends on the individuals living situation and where they are.

If they are spreading misinformation, like the idea that employers in the U.S. all get to see your diagnosis (again, quite literally illegal for them to try to force you to give them that), then yes, red flag!

However there are certain things that in some places in the world, a DID diagnosis can make harder to access. For instance, it can be harder to get a driver's license in some places.

Additionally, depending on who the person is living with, it could be actively unsafe for them to be diagnosed. Again, in real life, DID is highly stigmatized.

Advocates for self dx

It really depends on how this is gone about. If they are encouraging people to do things like take quizzes or saying "if you do x you have DID" then yes this is a red flag! However, encouraging people to do actual research into the disorder is a good thing! People realizing they have symptoms of something can majorly help them! So can educated self dx, in some cases. It can help them access spaces with resources for people with symptoms like theirs, it can help them learn ways to cope with their symptoms specific to that disorder, it can help them know what to tell their psychiatrist they suspect is going on, and a lot more!

Alters are fully fleshed out characters

Honestly this is another one that rather pissed me off. Alters are not "characters". People with DID are not fictional. These are actual people. As for them being more "fleshed out"... that's part of the point. Again, these are real people. They are going to be complex. Yeah it's rare for ALL alters to be that complex, but the existence of any alters or even multiple alters who are is not a red flag. Distinctly different alters is quite literally one of the symptoms that sets DID apart from other dissociative disorders, like OSDD-1.

Sign offs with alter names

Someone with DID trying to decrease confusion for themselves and those around them is not a red flag by itself. It is literally to help themselves. It is a lot easier to deal with memory barriers if you can look and see something physical telling you what happened and who did it.

Headspace "maps"

Again, this is usually done to help with memory barriers. For a lot of people, DID or not, physically making something to show you what is going on in your head makes it easier to understand for you. Trying to help yourself deal with a damaging symptom of your disorder by giving yourself something to lay it all out is not a bad thing.

Well that was All! Hope that makes sense and cleared some things up.

And before anyone tries to use this to say I'm faking DID: I do not have DID.

#syscourse #fakeclaiming #r/systemscringe #long post #debunking #debunks #misinformation

[kobold-that-bites-people]

it’s pride month, so i’m gonna take the opportunity to talk about something relatively serious for once.

if you have even half an opportunity, it is really important to actually mention queer stuff around other people. especially children. i’m not saying you have to personally educate everyone you meet, most people ain’t got time for that. but i am saying that there is a social avoidance of discussing even queer stuff as a topic in a lot of spaces.

let me give an example irl of what i mean. i’m trans. very openly so. and frankly, i could not have been more obviously trans when i was younger if i had tried. when i was a child in primary school, and we’d be divided into boys and girls for yard games, it was once phrased as “if you’d rather be a boy go on this side” and similar for the other. i of course, went over to the girls side, and was interrogated about why i could possibly want that. did anyone say that was even possible? mention the existence of trans people? no. nothing. similar events happened countless times through my life. i eventually figured out i liked guys towards middle and high school, and was quite openly gay. i remember so many people in that period who i’d complain to about how desperately i wished i was a girl, that i wasn’t a gay guy. did any of them mention the existence of trans people? no, of course not. even among queer people, they’d often give me a look when i’d talk about wishing i was a girl, that i didn’t have a gender, that i just hated being a guy, as if they knew something i didn’t. but did they say anything? no of course not.

and on and on it went, until one day i encountered the idea of being trans. the word trans. at a work diversity seminar of all things. i left the place yearning desperately more than anything in life that i was trans so i could transition. because that sounded like everything i had ever wanted. and i told people as such. but did they say anything? clarify that being trans wasn’t some obvious thing you were born with and would automatically know? no of course not.

eventually i did figure it out. after 23 years and meeting openly trans people online. but if literally anyone had brought up the possibility that i could be trans, when i was 5? 6? i would have leaped on it in a heartbeat.

and all that dancing around words, of refusing to discuss queer things around me for... no clear reason i know of. it didn’t help me. the extra time to think about it didn’t help without the words or concepts to even talk about what i was feeling.

what it did accomplish, was leave me with an entire experience of puberty, watching my body transform into something i desperately wished i could escape. it left me with countless scars as i carved at everywhere the body hair came in. scars on my chest, that felt wrong and empty and hard. it left me with a sharp pain in my heart every time a family member called me “handsome” or “manly”.

and when one day i eventually did find out. and came out as trans. and started talking about wanting different pronouns and for people to stop threatening to cut my hair while i slept, suddenly there was a change. everyone in my family suddenly wanted to introduce me to trans close friends of theirs. suddenly wanted to be supportive and help. wanted to introduce me to all the trans people they knew.

but i’ve seen both sides. i’ve seen how that entire concept was carefully avoided until i was part of it.

please, don’t be like that. talk about these things. especially around children, but also around your peers. even the openly queer or gay ones. not all of us have had that opportunity to learn these things. i went through school in the southern us with an abstinence only sex ed class. my “talk” with my folks was my granddad one day saying unprompted that condoms are important and i should carry them “just in case”. even interacting online, it took years before i found circles that talked about these things.

tl;dr please talk about queer subjects. not everyone knows what a therian is, or what trans is, they might not even know about being bi or poly, all of those words need to be learned. and avoiding them unless someone already is openly such, only causes more harm.

#kobold thoughts #serious #mention of self harm

[kittyit]

Most online left x right debate are so devoid of nuances, to the point of being boring. Unfortunately, messing up the reality of what both ideologies support is very dangerous, it has real life consequences.

Speaking specially about women who think we have to allying with conservatives “to protect women, girls and children”, I have news for you: right-wingers don't give a single damn about women, girls and children. Some will try to counter this statement with “b-but the left...” and let me say this: as a socialist black radical feminist, I have felt lost many times in left spaces due to the blatantly misogyny/homophobia and also the tokenization of racism that is often assumed as “racism is taken more seriously than misogyny/homophobia” which isn't true in slightest but I have never thought that the right was the solution. Not because right = essentially bad and left = essentially good, if it was true, the blatantly misogyny, homophobia and racism in leftist spaces wouldn't hit so hard as it does, however they have an essential difference: right-wingers want to perpetuate a world full of inequality across class, race, sex, sexuality, nation, etc because they benefit from this social structure. The leftist goal, however is dismantling all the exploitation and oppression.

They're radically different, even though in the practice we see people advocating against things that oppress them, while wanting to keep things that benefit them. This is why I get upset with how brocialists talk passionately about how cruel is to take advantage of the lack of choice of economic vulnerable people but supporting the whole sex trade with the stupidest neoliberal rhetoric, it's because their class analysis is filled with male supremacist lengths and we should defy that, not supporting people who are already powerful and are not only using you feeling lost and hopeless in a fake agreement in positions that aren't even the same. The case is: it isn't socialism that is incompatible with feminism, it's sexism/homophobia/racism that is incompatible with socialism.

The root of conservative opposition to queer, trans and non-binary is purely homophobia and misogyny. Homosexuality is a threat to the male supremacist capitalism, since this system exist to control women's presumed reproductive capacity in order to get more workers who will keep the current system alive to the next generation of the oppressors.

They see trans people and queers as freakers and this treatment is reserved to feminists(even the male-centric ones), lesbians, gay men and bi people too. Why do y'all think conservative men react to our complaining about the misogyny of TRAs with a total mockery “We told you it would happen. It's all because you feminists wanted to destroy the natural order”. The “natural order” means the misogyny and homophobia feminists have been standing against since day one because it's the reason why we oppose to queer theory in the first place. Not because of hatred, not because we're “exclusionary” but because queer theory and practice are antifeminist, since they ignore/dismiss and in some aspects even support the existence of female oppression and fighting it is the solely reason why feminism exist.

And in all this mess, what is often forgotten is how queer theory and the classic right-wing sexism have a lot of more in common than radical feminism will ever be. Radical feminism can also crashes with queer theory in some points (surprise girlies!!!) and it still doesn't mean we all are the same.

i hope you'll make a blog and write some essays like this :)

#right collusion