#*also to clarify this isn't to make any assumptions about whether or not gender can be chosen. this is abt choosing to physically transitio

[cat-clawz]

Here's the catch: this is actually about trans kids going on hormones that affirm their genders. Well?

[onewomancitadel]

Do you think Cinder is or ever has been a slut? I'm curious because a lot of people seem to think she spent her life as a prostitute or something. I'm REALLY of tired of it. I don't know why people think this but they keep depicting her as someone who is loose about sex. She's a child. I doubt this girl has ever been naked in front of anybody given how insecure she is about being seen as weak and fragile.

Yeah, so if anybody read my previous response you can see why I was a bit grated. This is the same person - hi again anon.

I would really recommend that you not come in my inbox and unironically call Cinder Fall a slut. I know what other messages you've sent, and I've ignored them since they're about modern gender politics and women - my blog doesn't discuss that kind of thing and I would really prefer if you kept it to Knightfall alone without making it weird. This is where I talk about my favourite Byronic heroine and healer kissing, not... that stuff. I also should remind you I'm female.

However, as a learning experience I think it's worth mentioning that people typically conflate immorality with women with sex, and represent the moral decay of women through their sex lives. A female villain is naturally going to be perceived as a 'slut', or a 'seductress', especially if she's kind of got that femme fatale thing going on already. 'Looseness' about sex isn't bad unto itself, as well, just to clarify for the record, and your sex life doesn't translate to your moral life (so long as it's adult, consensual, etc. etc. etc.) and what matters is that you have your sense of self - and sex doesn't make you dirty either or irredeemable in any way. I just feel the need to say that lol. And if this is coming from things with a Christian atittude - well, go ask Mary Magdalene about her feelings.

So, whether or not I think these sorts of assumptions are in-character, it's worth considering there can definitely be misogyny rooted in these assumptions about her character - a bad woman is almost always a 'slut', and then you add in her backstory...

(And for the record - it's not shameful or morally shameful at all to be a prostitute, or a sex worker, or whatever term you're comfortable with - sex workers, for some reason, are considered responsible for social moral ills, when they're the last people to blame).

Also, Cinder isn't a child. I think in some ways her powerlessness and reliance on Salem (an evil step-mother) is symbolically child-like, but she is literally an adult - a woman - under a Dark Curse.

But given her actual character which is pained, dramatic, and angsty, and passionate - no, I don't assume sexual experience, and I've already discussed this topic before. That's in part because I really don't like the gross sexualisation of female villainesses, but the majority of the reason is that she would never allow herself to be vulnerable - I mean, just in terms of physical closeness I doubt it. I also heavily doubt that the show itself would ever touch on anything of a sexual nature in Cinder's backstory. It's inappropriate - so please consider the source text.

Of course these things are more up to headcanon than anything, but in terms of consistency of the femme fatale 'mask' vs. the Byronic heroine, I lean towards the latter as 'more her', and the Byronic hero is often untouched.

It's why Dark Fuck Prince Kylo Ren doesn't work, he's a simpering virgin who's never even kissed a girl and I adore him.

Anyway, anon, I don't have competely hard feelings towards you. If you understand where I'm coming from and apologise I'm sure we can sort this out, and for the record, up until this message I was just going to ignore the other ones you sent, and elect to answer the asks I consider to be on-topic for this blog.

And as a conclusion, whilst I consider my blog to be for talking about things I care about, not as a space where I discuss my real-life political opinions, I am happy for people to bring things up with me if I make a mistake or that type of thing, or if there's something I've said that's gone down poorly. On the other hand, I'd like this to be a fun space - not a debate space or anything like that - because I think that's the real beauty of a website like Tumblr.

Most of all I hope to make it a happy space where you can feel comfortable without having to be 'on' for online Internet angry politics. That stuff is exhausting.

So, I want people to be comfortable, and I hope that me answering these asks and touching on this stuff hasn't been distressing. I wouldn't call my blog a 'safe' space, but it is a sensible space, I suppose.

[bi-kisses]

I was going through your discourse shortcut and noticed an issue. In your trans brain section, all the links are about whether sexed brains exist, whether trans brains are different than their natal sex, but your accompanying paragraph is all about proprioception. it's the jump i honestly struggle with most regarding all this. my opinion as of yet isn't really decided. i've noticed all sides make really big assumptions. in this case, it's that the differences in the brain then translate to a dysphoric feeling that can only be solved through transition. but that assumes 1. the differences in the brain are the reasons dysphoria developed rather than dysphoria causing those differences to develop 2. those differences affecting proprioception, despite rarely being in the part of the brain associated with that 3. that these are permanent (that kind of goes with #1— the brain changes w depression, 4 example) 4. that all people with this type of brain develop trans identity and seek medical transition (the sample is taken from trans people rather than from people with ___ brain type, it's a self fulfilling sample) 5. i've also just noticed studies tend to poorly control for hrt and sexuality 6. that all people with this brain type will benefit from transition

i was wondering your reasoning behind making those assumptions because i think they're certainly not insignificant and i think it's what i struggle with most when weighing the degree of this. because those questions all have a great impact on the permanence and absoluteness of this, which is the main thing you (general) use this as evidence of in the first place.

i believe sex affects the brains and all that, that's not what this is about. it's more about the assumptions people interpreting the studies and those doing the studies are making, as well as the methods and whether the sampling is truly representative. i know it's impossible to have a perfect study— i have all these questions because i'm going into a non human biology field and they just drill us on tearing apart this kind of thing all the time, no matter how much evidence there is (like climate change lol).

I'll talk about these as the numbered list followed by the other points, these are all good questions!

1. If the dysphoria causes the differences, I'd have to wonder what causes the dysphoria. In either case, the fact of the matter is that people with gender dysphoria have atypical neurology, and thats important because it shows there is a biological basis to what they're experiencing. We don't have (or really need) all the answers in that case and I've wondered the same myself a number of times.

2. This one is interesting because proprioception isn't centralized to one area of the brain, and mostly has to do with electrical nerve communications. I actually don't posit that the studies in the trans brain section have much to do with that part of the brain, they're more showing that there is a hormonally-influenced difference with the brain as a whole with or without HRT (I'll talk more about that later)

3. I think the kicker here for me is we've observed these neurological traits in young adults, middle aged trans people, and in the brains of deceased trans people. Take that how you will.

4. Oh I agree with you here, that if we only examine people who are trans and not those who solely have gender dysphoria, we haven't isolated gender dysphoria as a factor. But several studies linked in the spreadsheet I reference actually are gender dysphoria-specific and don't require any level of trans identification; just the dysphoria diagnosis. That being said, there are people who have gender dysphoria but choose not to transition for whatever reason and technically speaking (from a medical standpoint) they're trans as they possess the necessary attributes of transsexualism, but socially they aren't and that's their business. Kind of an aside there.

5. Some do, yes, but again I have posts that actually point to specific studies which do control for those things and mirror results of the more ambiguously-controlled ones.

6. See above, I don't think using the word "benefit" alone is enough to explain why transition is often the best method of treating GD. It can be beneficial to the dysphoria, but not the person as a whole due to a slew of other factors. And sometimes the fact that the changes are artificial don't help with the dysphoria in the first place. So I wouldn't say it's always the best option or always beneficial (I don't think I've ever said that but it is a common assumption)

So now on to why I harp on about proprioception so much; it's sort of explained in the shortcut, but I'll clarify specifically.

A big thing with trans people is phantom limb syndrome. Trans women not experiencing it after vaginoplasty, trans men experiencing it before phalloplasty, as the two biggest examples. We know for a fact that the brain often wires itself to expect certain characteristics, as shown with born-amputees still feeling PLS even though they never possessed the limb in the first place. It's a logical conclusion, with this information, that the reason one would feel at odds with their body has to do with the part of their mind that actually has to work with the layout of said body.

I won't lie and say I can prove this with a bunch of studies or anything, but I do believe this because it's what I've been told by neurologists (I've spoken to the people who run trans research personally in the past) and also what they themselves conclude with the information we're given.

I don't personally think it's a huge stretch but I understand the hesitance to share my confidence and I won't criticise or judge you for that.

So why use those studies if I don't even really think they play a role in gender dysphoria, you may wonder, and the truth is I don't really find that it matters. Whether or not we know the how and the why, we do know that for decades and decades trans men and women have consistently had these traits, with or without HRT and/or full transition. My resources more prove that there's no denying the biological nature of being trans, that to pretend it's some new phenomenon coming from ROGD or buying into dysmorphia too hard is ignorant at best. All the proprioceptive stuff is sort of the most likely theory we have but it's not the be-all-end-all for what makes someone trans. I'm excited to see what studies in the future reveal about all this, and as those who love science well know, happy to be proven wrong should it be the case.

[sagebodisattva]

The EXTERNALISTS

Alright, so as most of you are probably already aware, due to hearing it repeatedly used in words spoken, that I've employed a descriptive term, "the externalists", quite a few times here in my video expositions, and it has apparently left many of you wondering:

“Sage, just what exactly is an externalist? Please clarify this terminology and it's etymological implications. Who and what is an externalist?”

Yes indeed. A good question. And I will surely deliver upon the behest of this request.

So many of you, for such a long time now, have always assumed that are an innumerable amount of ideological positions in this existence. The insinuation from the many different appearances perceived with the perceptual sense organs seems to indicate that there is a massive network of contrasting theories, a ubiquitous plethora of very advanced complex systems of thought. Which philosophy is the closest to being in accord with the truth? What branch of science is the most accurate model of the physical existence? Which theological teaching best describes reality, and the reason for it's production? What mathematical equation represents the universe with the utmost detailed precision? These are pquestions that have been in the forefront of the minds of existential explorers for thousands of years. Wrestling with ideas like: What group should one join? Which oath should one take? What knowledge should one study? Which beliefs should one embrace? For many explorers, these inquiries can often take a lifetime, with the expiration of the mortal creature coming long before any conclusive answer can be reached. Or, as is more commonly the case with the majority of our mentally sedentary masses, one strict belief is latched on to early in life, and then blindly and stubbornly clung to, for the duration of the lifespan. Either way, our subject goes to the grave without ever having received a restorative rejuvenation and the subsequent qualitative abundance that comes with finally being able to get an elusive sip of the rare precious truth. The reason why, of which, are due to the configurations of a delusional conditioning, that eventually transmutes into a default faulty mindset, the direct result of an existential outlook that assumes an incorrect contextualization of reality. This is what I have often referred to as the externalization conditioning... and it's reach extends across almost ALL schools of thought in philosophy, science, religion, politics, or any other kind of ideological belief system, in the entire spectrum of the subjective human existence.

So, with this in mind, any and all individuals who have set up camp on this specious foundational assumption, will inevitably be completely off the mark with reality. Just like when you are buttoning up your shirt in the morning, and you fasten that first button in the wrong hole, as long as that first button is wrong, every other subsequent button will also be wrong. The only way you are gonna rectify this error is by going back and getting that first button right. Much the same could be said about the current description of reality: for so long as we are trying to grapple with the meaning of existence with the incorrect premise, that reality is an objective medium independent of the mind; we will never find a way to the truth. This is what ties up explorers and wastes inordinate amounts of their time, as they often spend their whole lifetimes sifting through a multitude of ideas and concepts, unaware that, any, every and all of them, will not be the truth.

“But Sage, that isn't fair! How can you assert that your view is the truth and that every one else's view is a lie?”

Well, perhaps that would be unfair if it were true, but it isn't. And not because it's my opinion, but rather because what I'm alluding to is true irregardless of any individual's opinion. You see, this isn't about anyone's view, or opinion, or the subjective snapshot of an ego, this is about what's found to be true across ALL of consciousness, despite whether an ego believes it or not. Like, you can believe that there's no such thing as the sun all you want, but no matter how hard you hold that belief, or how strongly your opinion, or view, reinforces this belief, it doesn't make it any more credible as a truth. Understanding the nature of reality has to do with increasing clarity of awareness, not through parsing knowledge, phenomena, and world inventory in the correct manner or right sequence. And this is why I say that the truth comes even before the subject, as any subject is part of the illusion, despite seemingly occupying a situated position as a point of view that resides in a head, and peaks out from a set of eyeballs onto a separated external world. Despite this, this isn't your location, as even the concept of a location is yet another construct of the dream.

And speaking of the dream, we can pose this question to the phantasmagorical realm as well; upon awakening, and reflecting back on the dream, were you the persona? Were you in a world? Where were these items? What was the actual location of the imaginative reference point?

A similar question could also be posed to images on a projection screen when we are watching a film. Look! We are seeing personas walking around in different settings, different characters with seemingly different narratives, involved in a plot line, wow! But what is the origin of these items? Are answers about the truth of this projection going to be found by investigating the details of the movie plot? If not, then where should one be focusing their query? What is the root qualia seated behind and manifesting through, the projection lens oft referred to as the third eye? What is it that is no where to be seen but uses a visual sense organ to facilitate a seeing of all visions seen? What is the identical unmanifested source of all manifested consciousness? If you can answer these, you will have arrived at the core of the free and clear; the room making nothingness that is completely formless but nevertheless produces all form; the fundamental essence of the one true empty self, that is without any appearance, nor can be labeled as any THING. Sometimes referenced as total awareness, it is a pure potentiality: the primary agency. That, which is not a that, nor is an is, nor an isn't. When this unknowable uncertainty has been revealed through a removal of the blanket of ignorance, it can then be clearly seen and known firsthand, that, what we call reality, is inseparably interconnected with the pure light of the truth.

This is the truth. And this truth is eternal and infinite, which means that it has no distinctions, has no limits, has no position, and has no divisions. And, as such, there certainly can be no such thing as anything considered as external to itself. The truth of this is simple, but only seems confusing and hard to grasp due to being considered from a delusional position; aka the false assumptive premise. When this is understood, then it becomes evident that there isn't any need to make any distinctions between all of the many various ideological camps that are all supposedly clashing against each other in a quest for the truth. They are all false, and hence can be streamlined accordingly. Clarity makes it obvious that, despite the presence of a myriad of different camps with a myriad of different flags, there is really only one group, albeit unorganized and at odds with itself, that stands in opposition to the truth; and this group can be called: The EXTERNALISTS. Their differences don't matter, because they all approach reality with the same pervasive erroneous assumption... that a so called objective reality exists independently of the pure mind; that somehow locations and identities within a sensory data feed are somehow in isolated arrangements within the whole of the sensory data feed. This fragmented conception is then called reality, and hence taken as reality, in opposition to the lost understanding that reality is the pure mind itself, and is in no way separated, divided or compartmentalized from any of it's projected imaginings.

So it doesn't really matter if you are dealing with a theist, an atheist, an agnostic or a pantheist. It doesn't matter if you are opposed by the arguments of a liberal, a conservative, a moderate, or a independent. It makes no difference if it's conspiracy theory, chaos theory, string theory, or parallel universe theory. And it's irrelevant if you are arguing with a philosopher, a theologian, a scientist, or a mathematician. In the end, they are all externalists.. and need not be distinguished from each other by any other such additional qualities. Indeed, to get wrapped up in the specifics of their arguments is to be successfully distracted and diverted away from the truth. So, you need not worry about any of those specifics, because they all have their foundations upon the fallacious assumptive conditioning of objectivity.

But what about god and heaven? Externalist.

Big Bang and Evolution? Externalist.

Race, gender, or sexuality? Externalist.

Flat earth, illuminati, UFOs, or the Mandela effect? Externalist.

All around you. Everywhere you look. Everyone is an externalist.

And yet; but why is any of this at all important? It's understandable that you might not think as such. After all, your whole life, all you've come to know and accept as a norm, has been a choice between lies. So, when this is the case, it's not that far of a stretch for one to consider that what anyone happens to choose as a belief, is trivial, for it really is an irrelevant choice, for no matter what one chooses to believe, it will be a lie, and hence, while not an uncommon occurrence, will still be a consequence of enormous impact, despite the importance of this escaping the consciousness of the egoic identity. When all you have to choose from are lies, your choices really don't mean squat. But when it comes to choosing between the truth and a lie, the magnitude of the choice is of crucial significance.

It's like that first top hole on the button down shirt again. The consequence of this one transaction is of paramount importance, as it will decide much of everything that inevitably will follow. And the implications of what this will really ultimately decide is of even double critical primacy; as it will come to be a choice between clarity or delusion; responsibility or servitude; power or acquiescence. For, with the externalization conditioning, responsibility for the whole of reality is attributed to something else, outside of yourself. And so it doesn't really matter whether that attribution is to a god, or to external materials with emergent properties, the responsibility is somewhere else, and hence, power is also assigned elsewhere as a result.

See, you didn't know that was part of the deal, did you? Yeah, they deliberately left this one in the small print. A slight little imperceptible detail of enormous gravity, glossed over in naive oversight. Yeah. In case you didn't know. If you don't take personal responsibility for all of reality, the power will go to the illusion. Hey, that's just the way it is. It's right there in front of you to seize, and all you have to do is reach out and take hold of it, but if you won't do it, then it'll just simply be assigned elsewhere. No biggie. Don't worry. There's absolutely no problem with continuing to sustain dominance over you.