#It can be essential for some ppl but not for all ppl..

[transandrogyne]

it is true that infantilization is a huge piece of how trans mascs are (mis)treated by society and is worth addressing for that reason, but the way it is currently discussed is inadequate and ironically only serves to reinforce this perception. when you are only capable of understanding transness via an essentialist lens (i.e., sex is innate and trans ppl are ultimately defined by our ASAB specifically), you are inevitably going to play into the same mechanism that causes that infantilization to begin with. so when you go on and on about how traumatized you were as a little girl, how trans women can never understand, or when you focus in on this strange concept that you are socially shunned for not medically transitioning or "passing" or whatever else, what you are doing is reaffirming over and over that trans men are nothing but traumatized women who are frozen in time and that we can never be anything but those battered and abused little girls -- that your experience is inseparable from that concept, that it is essentially that concept.

and that is literally what transphobes have been arguing ever since they became really aware of trans men. i remember seeing this blog post a decade or so ago from a TERF who insisted that brandon teena was just a traumatized lesbian emulating abuse he sustained as a child, and when i went to the comments i saw the exact same speculation about a mutual i had on tumblr at the time. when i came out to my family, my grandpa was initially accepting of it in the sense that i wasn't flat-out rejected, but his reasoning was that my father had abused & brainwashed me into thinking i was a man, only to be later disowned when i finally started hormones. and even 3 years later, this is STILL what my family thinks, and they won't use my name or pronouns or anything.

i am up against some significant issues as a trans adult. i am organizing people as my rights are under attack from my state attorney general and legislature, attacks that could easily threaten my ability to work in my field, and then i log on and see all these people online who insist that the real threat to trans men are fandom politics and DIY-ers and the icky evil yucky trans women who want people to stop being (trans)misogynistic. and when i talk about this, when i complain about how useless this is and how much it's setting back all trans people, this same group views ME as a threat! ppl often jump to call me a transmed or even a trans woman! so many assumptions made about me! it's incredible.

but this is really all to say that there's a certain online culture of trans mascs that very much self-infantilize because it makes it so much easier to avoid accountability, deflect criticism, and self-victimize. it also makes it easier to stew in your dysphoria and reject any autonomy. it turns any meaningful discussion about trans mascs and our experiences and how we fit into the broader social structures into a joke. we deserve better than that.

[entropy-sea-system]

Every time someone makes a comment about how inherently essential and vital friendship is, they owe aplatonics and nonfriending ppl $500

[perilegs]

i know astrology is fake but i'm not too keen on how a lot of people on this website seem to be clowning on it as a hobby a bit too hard. i swear the woman who thinks it's neat how she and her friends with the same sun sign are all similar isn't trying to say that you are who you are born as and there is nothing you can do to change it. it's a hobby. an interest. what happened to finding meaning and joy in the small things. does it affect you if someone enjoys tarot reading or crystals. does it make you upset someone has interests that they enjoy.

[binders-and-beanies]

Not being able to vote makes me extra sensitive to discussions of the election tbh like. People who don’t have to fight super hard to vote don’t see the value in it, *because* their vote isn’t suppressed. So I wish that people who do have that privilege would use it to help out those of us who can’t (both within and outside of the US). But instead eligible voters just yell at us for even *trying* unsuccessfully to vote blue. Like are you happy? Are you satisfied about marginalized people not getting to vote? What is the result you’re hoping for

[gibbearish]

anon im not gonna post that one, not bc of anything you said dw, im just not 100% sure if we are thinking of the same person bc i havent been paying attention if the posts i saw all came from the same op, and even tho there's no names in either of our things i still wouldnt feel comfortable spreading that w/o having seen it firsthand. that being said, in the event that we are: jesus fuck???

[skrunksthatwunk]

man why are there so many lesbian posts like omg i love butches/look how cool i am as a butch!!! MEN DNI. like. I've been banned from my own dykery wtf

[snekdood]

“manifestation” talk has spiritualized richness to the point where rich ppl think they can do anything and there wont be any consequences- i mean it was like that before but now they’ve made like. a religion out of it, which is making the situation so much worse.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

ideal scenario is that i like thinking about this like, essential short story adventure where winston and tuk hook up w/a couple [that bachelorette party] members, and as a foursome/quartet because they have these parallel stories of two pairs of friends who are like "sure i'd have sex with you if things aligned for that" and now are living that short story about expanding a dynamic & becoming closer friends for the end of it (of course billions only wrote winston as standing next to tuk next episode, instead of rian as he's often written to be standing with incl in a previous finale, to shove him out of the path of getting material and let taylor have confusing nonresolution w/rian based on this proximity and coincidence instead. but who can't say that that, And winston next not even trying to sit with tmc in the last finale appearance which at this point is probably for the best and instead again hanging out with tuk and then ben, isn't about having been closer for whatever all happened there in obtaining casual sex together)

and they can have perpendicular stories of also just having some nice chats and enjoying other interactions together such that maybe it's just fun for this one night of crossing paths, maybe anyone stays in touch at all, who even knows, if winston or tuk are dating anyone it's probably only going to come up again in how they were last dumped for being too much effort for how unepic they are, so godspeed to offscreen unmentioned dating. but just friendly acquaintanceship, or again this one-time spontaneously crossed paths night's acquaintanceship, is also a lot of fun. and why not imagine that winston "he's not allowed to not feel self-loathing or, by doing basic things like talking or initiating Or oppositng anything, Not operating as though he's too low in a social hierarchy here to be allowed thusly" type of material where his spontaneity, vivacity to bon vivantocity, self-assurance that is apparently arrogance/aggression to every who thinks he ought to be self-effacing instead, etc, is actually just a social success in other less wretched non-work situations, and his personality is taken as a contribution to the proceedings even before anyone takes up his proffered contribution of himself as a potential sexual partner. and lending confidence to tuk as like one person who won't, at any given time, go into hostile mode with him or even like take up the position of issuing this criticism, which is an inherently elevated (over tuk) one when it's a unilateral thing. such that tuk's personality can be a potential contribution as well. and winston and tuk's Friendship Developing Moments can be happening then, too, b/c Maybe they've hung out outside work on their own aleady, but also maybe they've never really been interacting with a larger group outside work, such that that group is less likely to include some people, or entirely people, who will suddenly go sicko mode on either or both of them. and then meanwhile, who knows anything abt this bachelorette party, could be already a cohesive friend group who all see each other all the time, or people who see each other more infrequently meeting up on this trip, or a mix; could be fun and chill or something so scheduled/demanding it's kind of like a work trip, or fluctuate....and of course zero info abt the individuals such that imagining anything abt them is entire OC territory, and i'm bad at that, or at coming up with stories, so not exactly a lot of details here from me but godspeed if two of them unlock another tier of friendship here b/c like parallel to winston and tuk, they're like hmm okay so we're mutually down re: potentially having a foursome here, and spending some time away from the larger group

(or of course the scenario that tuk and winston can also have that moment but just as putting "and/or: a threesome?" as an option, and that tips the scales for someone who might've otherwise felt more indecisive like "hmmmm casual convenient hookup, or spending more time out & about like this / whatever other activity...." but then is like oho Well, if it's a threesome, i'll seize that opportunity, sure....such that then maybe afterwards [winston and tuk hanging out together] happens sooner, if the third member feels more third wheel about things lol, since now they'd be the only two who already know each other. like ooh who knows, round n+1 in the aftermath just one on one (and/or i mean, maybe another thing the third party's still around for, re: further casual sex opportunities that don't just fall into your lap every day), and/or talk, watch tron together, go back out on the town even. where the conclusion of this truly is the essence of "it Is easy to imagine that winston and tuk are real Genuine Friends for the implicit further offscreen time spent together outside work / interactions between them here. and fun" and with that flair of "and give that a juxtaposed parallel in it being the same for a couple bachelorette attendees, why not, good for them"

[gregmarriage]

chronic pain can go die in a hole x

[roseband]

guys guys guys guys.... GUYS 

nys re-enrolled all essential plan ppl until nov 2023 im SO HAPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bonestrouslingbones]

stretch is fun because most of the time he looks pretty normal and also like the sleepiest guy in the world but then he takes off his hoodie and suddenly becomes goth and then is also wearing a necklace made with his brother's dust and its like oh okay nvm

[simsfromupthere]

SOPHIE 4EVER 💜

semi edited wip cause i still plan on taking better screenshots but still love this “test” one, yes this is meant to be* the eternal beautiful queen SOPHIE 🤍💿. *(“meant to be” as in hopefully i did her justice)

[scarletanpan]

Saw someone trying to claim there is no chemical imbalance when it comes to depression and I was so baffled I had to track down the article, read the entire study its based off of, and then read all the other studies it links to and just as I expected. The headline is bullshit and the article is misrepresenting the information.

(Okay I wrote way too much I'm tossing it under this read more)

First of all the study itself is a meta-analysis of studies conducted in the past few decades, excluding studies involving depression with children, depression associated with physical conditions, or specific subtypes. And from that, it concludes that a lot of the studies conducted suffer from small sample size or inconsistency, and lack strong empirical evidence that points to a singular cause.

Which makes sense, depression manifests in so many ways that one of the studies found 1304 different profiles to group symptoms into. And the root cause of depression is something we have yet to identify as a whole, we still don't fully know how serotonin receptors even function due to the lack of research, and its actively difficult to determine the effectiveness of antidepressants due to the amount of outside factors that affect a person.

The article also links another article saying antidepressants have no effect on quality of life, and when you read the study, they evaluate results by looking through a database that surveys a subsample of the population for two years from 2005-2016. It says that the health-related quality of life wasn't significantly higher for the ppl on meds versus the ppl off meds after a one year follow up, but actively suggested that the reason was due to a lack of additional support in the form of therapy and counseling. So, another misrepresentation of the information.

They also say antidepressants might be no better than placebo, but then you check that study and it's specifically about the efficacy of medication on children/adolescents. First of all its another analysis of information from medical resource websites, where it claims that fluoxetine notably performed better than the rest in effectiveness and tolerability. The study concludes that fluoxetine is likely one of the most effective medications for children, and that the rest do not offer a clear advantage. But that's all it claims. Not that it doesn't work.

I'm not sure if Psychology Today understands this, but the majority of studies linked are performed under very certain criteria, typically excluding abnormal, treatment-resistant, and compound types of depression. I understand this is necessary to create a controlled study, but this is not reflective of the majority of the population, not enough to make these sorts of claims.

It also talks about how antidepressants have been historically ineffective, which isn't wrong. The earliest medications caused many adverse side effects and only aided some of the people using them, but once again this is because even now we don't fully know how depression affects the brain. Beyond the meta-analysis which was posted in 2022, multiple of the linked studies are at least a decade old.

I'm just baffled at this being taken at face value, because if antidepressants didn't work... why the fuck would we have them? If serotonin doesn't have any link to depression, then why are SSRIs the most common form of medication? Of course even with that medication doesn't work on everyone, but we just aren't at that level of understanding yet. All this proved to me is that depression is a widely varied illness that presents differently depending on the person, and likely has various causes within the brain.

But to headline an article claiming antidepressants don't work and there is no chemical imbalance is just wrong. I'm all for acknowledging that SSRIs aren't the perfect solution to depression, or that we don't know how it works, but I can't accept making these sweeping claims. Especially because for a good amount of people out there, medication is still highly stigmatized. I've been told multiple times about the dangers of getting 'hooked on' antidepressants, a surprising amount of people fully believe that.

And sorry one more thing, with how inconclusive all the studies linked are, the article uses very clear language to suggest they aren't effective at all. Such as, 'Many people take antidepressants believing their depression has a biochemical cause. Research does not support this belief,' and 'There is no convincing evidence that depression is caused by serotonin abnormalities.' Would that not make the average reader think antidepressants are bullshit? Obviously you're supposed to read deeper but those are the first lines you see. You can't say 'research does not support this belief,' when the issue is that we just don't have enough research period.

In fact, I'd argue a little narrative is being spun here, based on the way its structured. I won't get too deep into it but the article talks about the way prozac was introduced in the 80s, and how the APA and pharmaceutical industry pushed it. It notes how this seemed like the perfect solution to depression and pharma companies could make a buck, but then later on studies show they aren't effective, and then it goes through all the misrepresented studies linked. Maybe I'm reaching but it feels like perfect fodder for any conspiracy theorist who thinks big pharma is trying to sedate the masses or something. Not saying I trust pharmaceutical companies because absolutely not, but it feels like the article is trying to hint that antidepressants aren't the solution at all, which once again is dangerous rhetoric that hurts already vulnerable people who need genuine help. Anyways I just hate everything about this article, 0/10. Learn to read the studies you're linking before you link em, bozo

[mywillbedone]

please please tag or at the very least label in your posts specific types of animals

tagging an otherwise unlabeled photo of a whip scorpion with 'arachnophobia' or the like does me absolutely Nothing because i won't block that/similar tags as it's way too vague and i LIKE seeing posts about most arachnids. its like labeling a picture of a bear as 'mammal' vague.

broad labels do nothing to prevent me seeing images of spindly legged horrors that will incite more dreams of plagues of harvestmen and 20ft legspan maneating monster creatures

[snekdood]

the problem with vaush’s anti theist argument is he assumes that people just blindly follow whatever a book or religious leader tells us the gods want rather than ever thinking on our own also he’s heavily relying on an argument that religious ppl think their gods word isn’t anything you can go against ever so if they tell you to rape and murder people then its fine to do so but like.... i really dont think any religious person is like this?????? i dont even think rapey serial killer religious people are like this??? like religion is always a front or a justification for their actions i dont think they genuinely believe god came down and told them it was fine i think they know they twisted what they heard/read to their benefit. the problem is with manipulative ppl who are able to take leadership of some sort over a group of people and twist the narrative to their benefit for whatever they’re gathering for, which can obviously happen in literally any kind of setting

[nomaishuttle]

ive got a hyoooooge grocery order in my cart just waiting 4 my next check