#and I’m not saying that people can’t use those other terms to refer to themselves if it helps them be positive of their circumstances

[wren-likethe-bird]

lil rant in the tags

[bisexualseraphim]

Really not sure why I’ve got so many 19 year olds in my notes going “LMAO KAMALA HARRIS IS NOT A LEFTIST WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON”

“Leftist” just means “someone with left-wing politics.” Which Kamala Harris overall has. It does not mean “person who prays nightly to a portrait of Stalin and has a prep bunker for overthrowing the government.”

Like I’m sorry to break it to you all but most people in the real world are not as far on the left as basically everyone on this website. I don’t know if being on here has skewed your views of the political spectrum or what but someone can very much be a leftist without openly advocating for all cops to be hung drawn and quartered in the streets.

So no, Kamala Harris is not a centrist just because she has some opinions which you or I may personally find pretty sour. And also saying “she’s not a leftist she’s a liberal” is redundant because in the modern United States liberalism is generally accepted as a left-wing ideology. There’s a reason people on the right love using “liberal” as an insult.*

(And because so many of you apparently love to put words in my mouth and invent things to get mad at, no, I’m not fucking saying I disagree with far left politics and agree with everything Kamala Harris believes. Have a good night)

*Okay, the people who can’t read have found another way to “um actually” me and seem to think I believe liberals are on the left just because those on the right use it as an insult. Um. No.

Essentially, the world “liberal” in the United States often means something different depending on who is using it. Conservatives think liberals are left-wing. Liberals themselves tend to think they’re left-wing. And those further on the left think liberals aren’t left-wing enough and believe they’re centre-right. It also depends on which type of liberalism is being referred to: there is classical liberalism, traditional liberalism, modern liberalism, social liberalism, neoliberalism, economic liberalism, conservative liberalism, etc. Modern and social liberals are, by definition, left-wing, whereas the others tend to fall closer to the centre or somewhere on the right. The one thing uniting all forms of liberalism is the belief in equality.

However, when discussing liberalism as a whole from a definitive standpoint, the form that is widely accepted to be the one that most are referring to when they talk about liberals in the United States today is modern liberalism, which focuses on equality, personal autonomy and social justice. Modern liberals advocate for access to education, welfare and healthcare, as well as voting rights, reproductive rights and rights for LGBTQ people. In terms of economics, beliefs can differ but since the Obama administration, modern liberals generally believe in higher taxes for the wealthy. Additionally, contrary to the beliefs of those further on the left, modern liberals see state and government as essentials to maintain both equality and order, and see it as the state’s obligation to make sure everyone in society has equal opportunities. Classical liberals, however, believe that although the state is necessary and should exist, it should still have minimal involvement and intervention in the individual’s private actions and beliefs of no harm is being done. This belief that some form of state should exist what makes a lot of leftists detest liberals, since those further on the left commonly reject state and government entirely as opposed to the idea of a state with regulation.

If you apply what I have just listed to Kamala Harris, then yes, she is indeed a liberal, and she is also left-wing. She may not be as far left as many would prefer, and may even hold some beliefs many here might associate more with the centre or the right, but overall she is still both liberal and left-wing regardless. Incidentally, she is recently being described in the media as “the most liberal US senator” (whether that’s true is a separate conversation), and this is in the context of her being the most left-wing.

You can argue whether she’s left-wing “enough”, but the reality is she is more left-wing than the vast majority of major US politicians in history, especially when taking into consideration that the Overton window has shifted to mean that basically anything that doesn’t abide by the GOP is seen as liberal/left by many. Some Republicans are now advocating for Kamala Harris, and that doesn’t suddenly mean it’s because she’s become a fascist; they have simply decided that Donald Trump is just way too far right for them, and they are willing to put differences aside and advocate for someone who promises to try to undo at least some of the damage he has done. (Some people on here could learn from that, ironically.)

Anyway TLDR Kamala Harris is a liberal and that isn’t a bad thing when you consider the fact she follows the most left-wing form of liberalism and the normalisation of fascist ideals in the US means that a liberal government remains ideal for social progression. Also yes some things she said at the DNC and in the CNN interview gave me the ick but she’s still worlds above Donald Trump and you still need to vote for her to keep that genocidal maniac white supremacist far away from the White House. I’m going back to bed now

[blossoms-phan]

Hi! I am a X escapee relatively recent Dan & Phil returnee who loves your posts, you seem so reasonable. I have just been given what felt like a 90 min presentation detailing how my innocent assumption that Dan and Phil were anything other than platonic housemates was incorrect and offensive.

The lecture i was given included every reference that highlighted, amongst other things: their "obvious" separate bedrooms, bathrooms, towels, angles of items shown in bedrooms, closets, mentions of wanting to go out and meet other men, lack of real concern (X words, not mine) at each others medical emergencies and every use of bro and friend that they have said post hiatus. It was very detailed, they were very insistent and I was very apologetic. I decided to flee the X hostility and head back to tumblr, but here everyone appears to think they are together. So now I am confused and don't want to offend a whole new group of people.

I think what set the X people off was i said "partner" as I was under the, I now know, incorrect impression that they went public years ago. Oops. Don't trust the internet is what I have learned from this. I thought all this drama would have died out long ago, but I assume this is a topic to stay far away from still? Thanks

hi anon! first of all, thank you for saying that (still can’t believe I’ve garnered enough attention on here that people specifically like my posts!), I really appreciate it. second of all imma be so real with you I am a person that still primarily refers to “X” as twitter bc I refuse to get with the times so this greatly confused me until I realized there was only one possible platform with those kind of people you could be talking about. i’m sorry you endured that exhausting sounding lecture and welcome you to phannie tumblr with open arms 🫶

i am here to gently reassure you that you can take what dnp say and do and show and form your own opinions about it, don’t let anyone tell you you’re right or wrong for drawing conclusions or making assumptions. however I will also be so bold and tell you why that individual is so blatantly wrong and maybe clear some of your confusion.

first of all, i think dnp would refer to themselves as anything but "platonic housemates." it all comes back to this but i dare someone to look me in the eyes and be so fr when saying that just because they've never stated in words "we're dating/boyfriends/partners etc" the simple fact that they share a mortgage on a "forever home" together, (according to them) spend literally all their time together, are partners in work/life/play (vacations), share families (dan being uncle to phil's niece) implies anything other than them being life partners. i'd also like to draw attention back to possibly the most blatantly open statement either of them has made about the nature of their relationship, in dan's video titled "basically i'm gay" where he describes them as "actual soulmates" and more. there are lots of people who have been discussing/answering posts about the concept of a "hard launch" recently which i could direct you to and i am of the mind that there's nothing wrong with conceptualizing the idea of a hard launch or them being more open to sharing details of their romantic relationship to an extent, but BIG is the most profound public statement of the nature of their relationship and, in my humble opinion, "the" hard launch as dan QUITE LITERALLY says "more than just romantic" and goes on to say he and phil are private people and that that's all he will say of it for now (keep in mind it's been 5 years since this statement- still relevant but minds can change, specifically theirs in terms of what they feel more comfortable and open sharing in a post-comeback world)

now moving on to the "references" you mentioned. again, highlighting literally any of this as "proof" that they are just friends or whatever is utterly ridiculous but i'll still go through it for funsies. i'd like to challenge this person that claims they have "obvious" seperate bedrooms by saying... what is so obvious about it?? dnp are highly aware that whatever they share with us will be analyzed or viewed under a microscope, so obviously they've carefully chosen which parts of the phouse to show us and they're not going to be like oh yeah this is OUR bedroom where we sleep TOGETHER every night. now i'm aware that yes, the "black" bedroom with dan's closet is more obviously a dan room that has been claimed as "his" bedroom. can't find it to link rn but they have posted a photo of the shelf of that room and while it is mostly dan stuff on the shelves, there was also a photo of phil's family and some of phil's books and items on the shelves. storage? sure, but if someone wants to claim that makes it so obviously dan's room then i can say that having phil's stuff in there could also point to them sharing the space. the room that phil films amazingphil videos in has been called a guest room/bed by them both, and in terms of rooms we've seen that just leaves the green room. imho everything points towards this being another guest room/possibly a room for family specifically to stay when they come- iirc nothing has been said to claim this as phil's room other than the fact that there is a painting by his dad and he occasionally films in there. i'm not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of their sleeping arrangements, but i think for two adults that own a huge house together and spend a lot of time together and have a lot of their own things it's perfectly reasonable to have "separate" bedrooms, multiple bathrooms/their own towels (?? i don't get this one i assume they're referring to the part of the golden pig video but like. obviously they have their own towels wtf lmao) and utter those things more on camera and then sleep together/share spaces in their own time.

once again, dan and phil know what they're doing. they are in control of what they show and share. calling each other "bro" and "friend" is an intentional choice and very much second nature at this point after doing it on camera for years. also it's not wrong or implies that they aren't romantic- i am of the opinion that they are friends first and they know that too. however, in a post-hiatus/comeback world, it almost feels pointed at this point. like a joke. a wink wink, nudge nudge, look-to-camera "we know you know" thing that they're keeping going just because they can.

in terms of the "going out and meeting other men" bit i assume they refer to jokes made by dan in the wad era? again, i'm not going to dive deep into this but dan is a comedian and post-coming out, wad and those other shows were the first time in his life he was able to be openly, unapologetically gay and himself and i think he was allowed to make a few grindr jokes for the fun of it. if dan values privacy in terms of his personal life, i highly doubt he would go around telling everyone he was hooking up with dudes- these are jokes plain and simple. but if you're interested @freckliedan has a wonderful post about dnp and the concept of monogamy/them sleeping with other people that i don't entirely disagree with and that is worded much better than i ever could so. i'd also like to talk to this person bc in what fucking world have they EVER shown a "lack of concern" at each others medical emergencies????? this is possibly the most baffling claim out of all of these to me. dan could not have made it more clear how scared/worried/traumatized he was by phil literally almost dying recently, and there have been more instances than i can count of him just being there for phil during all of his more recent health issues/scares. if this is referring to the eye incident, again i'm not going to pretend i know all the ins and outs of their relationship bc i don't- we know what they tell us. literally everything about this they said in a joking way, i don't know why people got their panties in a bunch- phil sending dan alone doesn't mean he doesn't care about him or anything, i honestly don't think he wouldn't have been much help going and i think they both kind of knew this, they were just playing it up to be a funny anecdote because they're entertainers. it's what they do. they've been making stories out of their lives for 15 years.

this is getting far too long and rambley as i don't know how to rein in my yapping when responding to asks but. i promise you're fine. discussing their relationship isn't "drama" or some forbidden thing, it happens on here a lot actually. except you will find most people on here use critical thinking and what dan and phil knowingly share with us, as adults with brains, to draw conclusions about their relationship based on everything from the way they look at each other to the little ways they tell us they care about and love each other bc they do. and that's not something they shy from now. come join us! don't let people tell you you're wrong for thinking they're partners bc in the nicest way possible, they literally are (if you want to sugarcoat it and say life partners instead of romantic go ahead bc they've literally described themselves as companions through life which is a more poetic way of saying partners imo) and respectfully anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial at this point

[bleue-flora]

Okay I know I said I wasn’t going to talk about discduo anymore, and I meant it. I did. But then I saw the clip of cc!Tommy [post] talking about them and a few people saying how clingy duo didn’t know that they hurt c!Dream, and how c!Dream was just this unreasonable psychopath who drove c!Tommy to want to kill himself… and well I just feel like I can’t stand by while Dream gets slandered after I was being nice to c!Tommy.

So... that brings us here, where to the best of my memory and ability, I’d like to look at c!Tommy as being part of the Antisocial Personality Disorder spectrum. Because here’s the thing, I’ve seen people refer to him as some golden boy, who’s caring and has a good heart, but I’m gonna just be honest, I just don’t see it. From what I can tell, we accuse c!Dream of having no empathy, but I don’t think I’ve really seen c!Tommy show any.

Now granted, I’m definitely no psychologist or whatever, and in the real world diagnosing these disorders is a very intense and extensive process. Especially because there is no true way to know whether an individual has empathy or not since we can’t exactly read their minds or feelings. So we really only have their behavior to study. Having said all that though, here’s why I actually think c!Tommy is perhaps the “psychopath” or since that term is no longer medically used, has Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) in which psychopathy is sometimes considered a subtype of.

And yes, while I am more than aware that I clearly have dsmp favorites and therefore am biased, I have to say when I was rewatching lore I didn’t expect to come to this conclusion, but something about this scene specifically in the finale bothered me.

[clip] Dream: “Why are you–why are you trying to—ruin everything all the time?” Tommy: “Cuz that was just me having fun with my friends, Dream, but I didn’t–I didn’t…” Dream: “Ah-you just stealing my shit and a—griefing my friends’ houses and breaking shit?” Tommy: “I just didn’t realize how much that hurt you.”

Because c!Tommy essentially just straight up admits to enjoying harming others. In fact, is so clueless he doesn’t grasp that killing and breaking and stealing and griefing hurts people. And like how can you possibly tell me that someone at the age of 18 years old can be so oblivious to other people’s suffering. Because he sure didn’t like it when people griefed or trapped his house, stole from him, and killed him, but somehow didn’t know that other people also didn’t like that. I mean, there’s just no way someone can be that clueless, I don’t care how old they are, even children know better than to just push their friend down the stairs because it’s funny. 

Like I don't think this is just the behavior of some flawed teenager, but of someone with a lack of empathy or ASPD, which the National Library of Medicine says this about, “Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive and enduring pattern of disregarding and violating the rights of others, typically emerging in childhood or early adolescence and persisting throughout an individual's life. This disorder significantly impacts interpersonal and occupational functioning, often leading to profound impairments in overall quality of life. Individuals with antisocial personality disorder frequently engage in criminal behavior and struggle to learn from the negative consequences of their actions” [source], And I don’t know about you, but doesn’t that sound like c!Tommy? Even further the Millon Theory has this to say about Antisocial (ADAntis) individuals, “Prone to lessened emotional resonance and a marked lack of empathy, those individuals evidencing ADAntis patterns actively seek out what they feel is their entitlement. ADAntis individuals often feel slighted by their circumstances and believe they must take in order to receive. They are impulsive by nature and uncaring about any damage they may inflict on others or themselves” [source].

In other words, someone who does and takes without thinking of others as if they are entitled to it. A great example of this is c!Tommy just up and killing c!Purpled for no reason and stealing c!Tubbo’s resources before they battle c!Dream again for the discs, where c!Tubbo notes that c!Tommy has a ‘shit moral compass’ [clip]. There is also the stream I love to bring up of c!Tommy stealing from c!Tubbo, killing his bee and then burning his house, and not giving anything but a half assed apology of 'I didn’t mean to burn your house down that much’ and ‘I didn’t mean to kill your bee I was just giving him a high five’ [post] and that’s how he treats his best friend, one he drags into war after war. c!Tommy more than once highlights how pain is real in the dsmp whether a non-canonical death or a punch and yet shows no regard for holding back hurting others, whether that's burning c!Techno [clip] or throwing a harming potion at him when he’s found in the basement [clip], lighting c!Dream on fire with a bucket of lava on the first day of Exile [clip & clip], killing c!Alyssa just cuz she’s there and a woman [clip], stabbing c!Dream as he fills in a creeper hole in c!Tommy's yard no less [clip], how bout just dragging c!Tubbo into wars to risk his life and experience pain over some replaceable discs… etc just as some examples off the top of my head I've have seen recently. 

I mean he doesn’t seem to care about others. When c!Tubbo needs help, where’s c!Tommy, like when he goes after c!Sam after he killed his husband and kidnapped his son he teams up with all the people who have killed him. Where the freak is c!Tommy - the one he fought so many wars with. Heck in the finale, c!Tubbo charges into what might be certain death, even after disagreeing with c!Tommy and reasoning that maybe they shouldn’t kill c!Dream [clip]. Oh and then of course, I've talked about his behavior towards c!Punz in the beginning too, of him helping clingy duo and then c!Tommy plotting to stab him the next minute [post]. 

And he struggles so hard to separate the value of items over the living [clip], seen no clearer than his struggle multiple times with putting the discs over c!Tubbo. And as I talked about when looking at c!Quackity at some point, people without empathy can love but it’s more like loving chocolate where they can enjoy it but there is no consideration for a candy bar’s well-being or feelings - people are more so just there to be used than cared about, and isn’t that what he does with c!Tubbo? With c!Techno? With c!Dream? Using them as a weapon and for their resources and then tossing them aside. Certainly not having their back when they need it, something c!Techno highlights pretty well in his speech about being a person [clip].

Perhaps our biggest clue should be how revolved his character arc is about understanding the value of items and how people are more important, as he finally in the finale gives up his discs for Tubbo’s life…

I don’t know maybe I’m wrong, but all I’m saying is I have yet to see a scene that really shows c!Tommy as caring or empathic, instead I see more so the telltale signs and behavior of someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder… who’s the psychopath now? *mic drop*

[heterophobicdyke]

do you think bi women who only date women could use femme/butch? i’ve read that it was used by bisexuals since it was developed before the communities separated. i’m totally fine with lesbian being an exclusionary label though it wasn’t in the past, because words evolve and meanings change. but i’m not sure that should mean bi women don’t get to use terms they historically have? i already feel like since the label bisexual wasn’t used/widespreadt for a long time, bi women who participated in the lesbian community in the past get forgotten/ignored. i do however realize queer people tend to do a lot of history revisionism, so i wanted to hear your opinion on it.

ps. obviously if someone dates/seeks men they shouldn’t call yourself any of those terms.

I’m sorry but I am so so so tired of people making up that “all SSA women used to use lesbian.” No they didn’t. I even reached out to multiple lesbian historians and literally everybody said they have heard this shit before but nobody backs it up with meaningful proof.

There are fakers of every label, of course. But what bisexuals refer to when they say “lesbian used to be for bisexuals and lesbians” is because many more lesbians (female homosexuals!) were married or in longterm relationships with men before coming out because they literally had no other choice. Bisexuals take that to mean the lesbians are just stealing every SSA woman from history, rather than understanding why lesbians entered those relationships without desiring men at all.

You know where most bisexuals were back in the day? In desired relationships with the opposite-sex. Like today. But even more often back then, for reasons I hope are obvious. Same-sex relationships were even more dangerous to be in, which means less OSA women are going to risk it all on a SSA relationship because they’re capable of finding comfort within the heteronormative expectation. They’re able to find accepted love.

The true revisionism is this anonymous ask. “Lesbian” as a term to be identified with really only took off in the 1960s (but it is first documented in the late 1800s - around the same time “bisexual” was first documented). The word lesbian and the word bisexual gained popularity within a decade of each other, in the 1960s/1970s. And previously to that, in the 50s, lesbians mainly called themselves homophiles or gay. “Lesbian” became a way to carve out our own terminology seperate from gay men, during a period filled with so much frustration towards their misogyny within the gay rights/homophile movement that we turned to radical feminism - only to find so much homophobia. So if what you mean by it being a shared term is when bisexuals appropriated lesbianism by calling themselves “political lesbians,” literally using the ‘political’ because they KNEW they weren’t actual lesbians, then here’s a friendly reminder that homophobic pockets of OSA women appropriating lesbianism does not mean that the term was for all SSA women.

There are still bisexuals who believe everything lesbian, include butch/femme, should be for bisexuals (especially female-leaners), because nobody erases bisexuality like bisexuals. Bisexuals need to socialise and build community more with fellow bisexuals because y’all can’t keep complaining about the world seeing things as straight or gay when we are literally begging you to admit your bisexuality and stop hiding behind homosexual terminology. Nobody thinks of bisexual when they hear butch/femme. You would be willingly using terms people associate with lesbians, as a male-attracted woman. And while I’m sure the odd bisexual woman used those terms in the 1930s-1950s, most of you were in desired marriages with men safe from accusations of perversion.

How many bisexuals would have been in butch/femme working class dyke bars in the 50s? Come on. It’s like saying bisexuals should be able to reclaim “dyke” because they may have had it shouted at them before. What about GNC straight women? Should they, too, get to call themselves “dyke” because a man might shout it at them from a car window? I hate how downplayed it is that bisexuals tend to focus their attention on men. It’s not their fault because male/female relationships are normalised and it genuinely is hard being gay or gay-passing. But you can always go back to men and you usually do. So dabbling with lesbian terminology is not on. Create your own terms.

[leonawriter]

If you think about it, the Yaldabaoth Deal Ending of the base game is basically Akira’s version of Maruki’s reality.

No one has to worry about anything, because god [Akira] solves all of their problems for them. While Maruki adjusts reality through cognition, Joker, under the name of the Phantom Thieves (regardless of whether the others are still around or if they’re still locked up in the Velvet Prison), continues to change hearts.

But while it’s the ultimate end of Akira’s saviour complex, playing into the darker side of his wanting to save and reform the world practically single-handedly, and how he can summon what’s basically a demon, it also goes against his principles as someone who’s been going through the Fool’s Journey, growing and learning past himself.

If this had been anything like the previous two entries, this would have been the turning point where the Fool Arcana undergoes some sort of transformation, and after this point reuniting with the Phantom Thieves would unlock Judgement, but Judgement was already taken up by Sae for the sake of framing the story up until the end of November.

So, effectively, it’s out of character (sorry to those who like it!) for the True Ending, just as the Accomplice route in P4G is OOC for Yu’s true ending.

I use those terms because some thoughts came to mind on seeing it referred to as the ending where he “saves all his friends but two, Akechi and Mona” and then talking about how it affects Morgana, as the incarnation of humanity’s hope (Morgana isn’t seen in that ending at all).

The way it relates to Morgana is - to me - simple and straightforward, because in a reality where everyone is relying on a higher power, and they’ve all given up free will and the ability to choose for themselves, the idea of “hope” (which Morgana embodies) is no longer needed. He... likely disappears the same way the Thieves do before Yaldabaoth’s deal is offered.

Akechi, though, is more down to interpretation, but I think it’s like this-

Akechi’s entire purpose in the plot up until this point has been to be the antithesis of what the Phantom Thieves represent. He goes on TV and says to the world “The Phantom Thieves are wrong for forcing someone’s mind into a shape they prefer, and effectively brainwashing them.” 

During the events of the game, many of targets - not all but many - are beyond the reach of the law, and there’s literally no other way for the victims to gain justice other than through “sacrilegious acts” for the sake of their own justice. And yeah, I’m implying Akira has at least some understanding that Changes of Heart aren’t things good, decent people do. But just as Arsène says, he’s willing to get his hands dirty.

Left unchecked, the Phantom Thieves can let things go to their heads, as we see prior to the Okumura arc, and it’s only by having someone who stands against them, that they’re balanced out, and that we can reach January. We SEE how Akechi fights against Maruki, and everything he stands for. 

So with that in mind, where IS Akechi in the Deal ending?

In my eyes, either he’s dead (possible, especially if you didn’t max his confidant in time, or if you go with “he was resurrected with the power of gay when reality got fixed in February”), or... he’s left in disgust, because Akira has become the very thing that Akechi hates the most. Someone who brainwashes people, who forces others’ hearts into a shape he prefers, and who takes away their control and free will.

It’s easy to imagine that the Yaldabaoth deal where, in spite of Akechi being the god of control’s original choice, and is the one where Akira works with Yaldabaoth, is actually one of two ways you can effectively reverse Akechi’s Confidant. One would be by taking Maruki’s deal (he even says “the deal’s off” when he leaves) and another would be here, because what is “confidant” other than “one you can trust in confidence,” and how can you call a person that if you can’t trust them anymore?

[blackfeathersflurry]

Hey, hope you don’t mind me sending in another letter with in such short time, as I understand your time is valued for other letters than mine.

When up brought up the term “pseudo-Messiah” when speaking on parasocial ideation and obsession to escape daily life, it made me think about the context you used it in. Messiahs are preserved as saviours or liberators in religious contexts. Your obsession with Jenova, or your mother as you say, you express as impacting you as more negative than positive. But really you can’t blame yourself, everyone always tries to find someone to lean on for support and guidance, parents usually filling that slot most of the time. It’s hard to find someone who can fill that if your parental guardians aren’t the ones you want to follow in their footsteps. This also follows in with parasocial relationships, as when people get obsessed with someone—fictional or not— that when said person does try to break out of said obsession, it can be hard sometimes. Obviously you need to trust your own gut sometimes and make the right call.

I’m getting off-track here, my apologies… You’ve had this experience from both perspectives; With your experiences, which is worse? Being the obsession, or being the obsessed?

-♾️

Hello again ♾️,

See, that's the interesting thing. Many cult leaders refer to themselves as messiah's, prophets or pseudo messiah's to some degree. And while, yes, I did consider myself one, I am still working through my experiences regarding the issue. Regardless, despite the fact that many believe that I shouldn't blame myself, it does not change the fact that people were harmed. And to just simply act like something of those lines never happened would be like going under the assumption that Shinra never destroyed entire towns or villages for the sake of capital gain. It would be like going under the guise that I never fought in the Wutang war and claimed the blood of hundreds of people. That said, my being a pseudo Messiah was purely impart of my liberating human souls and life forms from the planet. Purely for "mother's" reign.

So no, please do not apologize for your observations.

As for the obsession versus the obsessed part...

I find it a little odd that fans obsessed themselves over my hygiene and hair care habits. However it had its benefits, such as a pretty healthy stock of luxury shampoo and conditioner.

Being the obsessed comes with an uncontrollable mania that is almost painful to resist. You get a near murderous urge that you wake up with every single day as you ponder who your next victim may be. And when you know that this habit is developed and that it can be controlled, it can be even more frightening. Because you don't know where your breaking point may be.

[chirpsythismorning]

This is separate from people making Noah’s coming out all about byler, without ever separating Noah from Will, because yes that’s weird. But also entirely expected, like that’s as fandom behavior as it gets.

But for the sake of making a point here, what’s the main argument people use for why byler won’t happen?

It’s that the Duffers are just two straight old white dudes and the actors playing the characters are two straight white dudes. And because of that they’re probably all homophobic so it’ll never happen and if anything the opposite, most messed up ending, is more likely.

Heteronormativity and the assumptions that everyone is definitively straight, until they explicitly say otherwise, is something homophobes depend on.

Now all the people with ignorant arguments like that can do after this news, is bitch about how no one cares that he’s gay and it’s not even a big deal… a concept Noah literally references in his TikTok.

Even though I think straight ppl mean well when they say who cares, they’re ignoring the fact that straightness is the default expectation in our society. And this puts a lot a weight on queer people’s shoulders their entire lives, to essentially live a lie until they finally get the courage to come out.

Noah admitted that it took him 18 years to come out to his family and friends bc he was too scared to.

The reality is straight ppl mostly don’t want to talk/think about it and that’s why they get upset with too much discussion about the possibility in terms of byler and Stranger Things in general.

Unfortunately for all the practicing homophobes in the fandom, they’re going to get a big lesson on heteronormativity and the reality that literally anyone could be/not be gay.

Your best friend. Your brother. Your mom. Your gramma… You.

And that’s what scares ppl who’ve been internalizing homophobia their whole lives. They don’t want to talk/think about it for a reason. And it has nothing to do with actual other queer people just existing, it’s what they’re scared it could or could not mean for them. And they are making a vow to themselves to never find out.

And it’s because they know how gay people are treated and they don’t want to be the butt of jokes like that. They want to belong with people that are ‘normal’ or the default in society. And so hearing those same homophobes try to downplay and discredit Noah for coming out, it’s honestly just sad. The cycle of homophobia/internalized homophobia is so fucking depressing and it affects all of us.

Idec about specific ships at this point, it’s sad that a lot of men/boys in our society still see being gay as a negative thing, something they have to distance themselves from. And by being homophobic, they feel like they’re successful in achieving that distance.

And as much as homophobes piss me off every now and then online and in real life… I know why they’re doing it. Because they’ve been rewarded for it all their lives. They’ve been told doing the opposite made them different.

People forget (or are just unaware I guess) that Noah literally clapped back at byler fans on Twitter post-s2, saying, “why can’t boys just be friends anymore??”… yeah he literally made a textbook Reddit argument… though he has since deleted it…

And so I do hope that future generations of boys and girls are going to feel more comfortable accepting themselves, making it easier for us to be willing to look inward and not be scared and to eventually maybe get to a point where we don’t even have to come out as queer, we can just love who we love and it just is.

But that’s just not reality at this time.

And so yes I’m relieved that Noah himself was comfortable enough to share this with the world and didn’t spend anymore time hiding his sexuality, assuming he wanted to be out!

[onetimetwotimesthreetimess]

DELHI, INDIA, PRIDE 2023 | 26TH NOVEMBER

Okay, now that I’m done being overwhelmed from all of this. Here’s what I want to say.

Every year that I attend pride, my heart grows bigger. There is no place in the world as safe as the one created between a crowd of people who are just trying to live their lives the way they want. You’ll never find a softer, happier and funnier place to be in. Like every time; I met some of the sweetest, nicest and funniest people this year. I’ll cherish that forever.

But here’s what I want to say; and this one’s for the younger kids. Representation matters so, so much in the world. It’s so important to see your stories on screen, in books, in art, in and around the world. It is crucial that we all have that. But, you also need to go out in the world and actually interact with the LGBTQIA+ community. It will be the biggest surprise of your life because you will realise how not-rigid and beautiful the community really is. The right terminology is absolutely important while referring to certain groups, but y’all have to understand that these are real people, we’re not just stories; we’re not just a stat, we’re real and the ones you meet in real life will teach you more about the community than anything else.

I’ve met and known people who call themselves fag, and they’re okay with it. You don’t get to tell them otherwise because there’s a history there. A history of reclaiming something that was used to hurt them. But there are also those who would never utter those terms. You don’t get to criticise them as well. When you meet these people, these very real people, it will blow you by the sheer strength of their will. It would be conflicting because social media teaches us there’s only way to be gay—it’s not true. You will meet fifty different types of trans people and everyone will be as special as they can. You will meet gays, lesbians, bisexuals, aspecs, aromanticism, pan sexuals/demi and a hundred other who are still trying to find a word for themselves. They will not be defined by their clothes, or their voices or their surgeries. They will only be defined by their kindness and heart but I repeat, you absolutely need to meet these people. They are real. We are real. And you will not find us on tumblr/social media discourses.

This one’s for the younger queer kids, please do not fall under the traps of the right way to be queer. Do not get into a pointless, intellectually superior discourse when there’s a living person standing in front of you, telling you who they are. When you’re only interacting with a community from behind a screen, you only see a one-dimensional picture. The truth is often far different.

The LGBTQIA+ community is not as rigid as tumblr/other forms of social media might make you believe. There is no right or wrong terminology in my opinion, no right or wrong way to live—you just have to accept that every person you meet can choose to do whatever the fuck they want.

But to really interact with the community and understand the history and our present fight, you need to interact with the ones outside. The ones living and breathing and fighting on the streets.

And to all the queer kids/adults who do not have access to these places and community yet, I am sending you all my love. I am putting alstroemerias in your hands, as they represent connection. Because when even if you all can’t be here, every time I am here, every time we are here, holding each other’s hands and hearts, we’re thinking of you. We’re fighting for you.

[my-castles-crumbling]

i’ve been debating sending you an ask about this, but i’ve read a lot of your anon answers recently and you’ve given some really great advice. 

(i’d like to just add here that ALL pronouns/neo-pronouns are completely and utterly valid and if anyone tells you otherwise, they can go fuck themselves. Also, i’ll be using he/him to refer to my partner as that’s currently the pronouns he’s asked me to use- this will become relevant). 

So I have a long term partner of seven years. last year he came to me and said he wanted to experiment with pronouns and self-expression. 

I was totally for it and together we found a hairdresser, and we made an effort to meet other trans people and I started using different pronouns for him and it pretty quickly went from she/her to they/them. 

And when he was using they/them, he was euphoric. I mean, i’ve known him a long time, and I know when he’s happy.

And he said that was for sure what he wanted.

And then he went to his parents house and told them about his new they/them pronouns. 

And they spent the whole time mocking him. Saying he should just fully transition and he’s being a wimp and they/them isn’t real- comparing it to identifying as random objects and animals (WHICH IS NOT TRUE, all pronouns, and neo-pronouns, are VALID!)

Anyway, he came home and didn’t wanna talk about it and two days later he asked me to use he/him pronouns.

It’s been nearly two months of this and I can tell it doesn’t fit. I’m using it now because it’s what he asked and I respect him, but I also know him, he isn’t euphoric and he doesn’t like the clothes he feels he has to wear.

If i’m being honest I always sort of noticed back when he was using she/her all those years. That something didn’t quite fit. And I had already been prepared to help him figured it out. Even though it didn’t actually click it in my head until he brought it up that first time. 

He liked his new name for they/them pronouns. He picked a “manly” one for he/him and he’s been asking me to refer to him with the they/them name as a nickname. Which I obviously have. 

I do think eventually this’ll run its course and he’ll go back to they/them. 

I know I don’t have the right to claim to know what’s going on in his mind, and I have supported him every step of the way, and he’s not sad now, he’s just not pleased with it. Like he is with they/them.

I can’t decide whether I should wait and see or not.  Because knowing his family and their love to get involved, it might take a while for him to pull away enough to realise this isn’t what he wants.

But his family is important to him and if I bring it up now he’ll probably just quote something his family said. And i’ll wait if that’s what he needs, of course I will, but this is hurting him- and I wish I could help. 

I bring up how they/them pronouns are valid all the time. And he’s never once thought against our friend who uses them. 

 But I personally have always blamed his family for it taking so long for him to ditch she/her, so I don’t know how long they’ll make he/him last.

And as I said, I do not care what he ends up choosing or how he presents himself as long as he’s happy. But I just don’t think this is him happy. (Also just to add, I am 100% sure he knows that I don’t mind whatever. Obviously anyone can love anyone who’s transitioning but I am pansexual and don’t give a shit how he presents himself cause he’s amazing and I love him for him. And I am sure he knows that).

Do you think I should tell him what i’ve been thinking? I’ll be careful not to phrase it in a selfish way as i’m aware this might make it seem like I think i know better than him or I want to rush him. But neither is true. 

I just want him to be happy. 

But I also know it’s not right to push him if he’s not ready yet. 

Thanks 😊 

Hi!!

This is definitely a tough question, because gender is such a personal topic, you know? But I do think you should be honest with your partner. I think it's just the way you're honest that matters.

The parts you said about noticing he's not as happy? That's what you should focus on. Because I feel like that comes off as concerned (which you are) and loving. Saying something like "Hey, I've noticed you've been different since you started using he/him pronouns. Do you agree? Why do you think that is?" I think that would really open the conversation to his feelings. Hopefully he'll be able to recognize your love for him and that you're coming from a place of concern. You could even say "I noticed when you started using they/them pronouns, you were so happy! Like X time, you were just so confident, you know?"

I don't think, though, that you should bring up his family. It sounds like he still has loyalty to them and bringing them up could cause more conflict than resolution. Same with saying something like "I think you'll end up going back to they/them." That makes it seem like you're dictating how he'll live. I know you're not, but it could feel that way.

But yeah, I do think you should bring it up. I think partners are the best people to try to point out to their S/Os that they need to put themselves and their needs first sometimes, and stop worrying about others.

I hope that helps! Feel free to message/update me if you want! I'd love to know how you both are doing!

Also, I'm naming you smiley anon because I'm trying to give every anon a separate tag and you put a smiley face at the end of your post.

[circulars-reasoning]

Let’s discuss the screenshot together, shall we? I’m an English teacher, and reading comprehension is something we focus on strongly as kids enter 6th grade. So, eyes and ears students! We're going to have some fun today. Got your textbooks?

Let’s comprehend. Then, we can move on to analysis.

First, the most crucial part of comprehension (imo) is context clues. So let’s see the context.

“Here’s some more things that are normal in DID/OSDD systems, and some weird myths, in no particular order”

This was a collection of myths and non-myths about CDDs. With this context, we now know that the screenshotted text was intended to clarify a truth or debunk a myth.

Having spoken directly to the author, as a dutiful researcher, I have found that the post that instigated the creation of this post was from a system who was seeking help identifying if their experiences were standard for a CDD system. With this further context, we now know that the screenshot was taken from a post that was intended to inform people about what is standard for CDD systems, as stated explicitly by the author.

Now we have some context; time for content.

“The dysfunction criteria” is specifically referring to the criteria within the diagnosis of DID to be “dysfunctional.” Now, as much as I would love to simply say “google the definition,” we’re not talking about English terms. This is what we call jargon.

Jargon is words that are specific to a group, and while they might be words that are used in other ways, they have a specific meaning in the group they’re used in. For example, we know that in math, “acute” triangles are triangles where every angle is less than 90 degrees - but in the medical field, “acute” means a condition that comes upon someone suddenly. It’s the same word, but it has a different meaning because of where the word is being used.

So, for “dysfunction,” we can’t Google it - we need to know what the diagnostic manual defines dysfunction as. Thankfully, the DSM has provided many places where it defines the word "dysfunction." Let's look first at how it is used to help define mental disorders:

(From Page 20 of the DSM-V)

Simply put, mental disorders are ailments that disturb an individual's thinking, feeling, or actions, in such a way that there is a clear issue with the body (whether mental, physical, or genetic) that affects the brain's functions. This disturbance also cannot be simply caused by cultural responses (like death) or defined simply by deviance from society. It 100% has to cause problems within the person.

Therefore, dysfunction is being defined here as things that cause a problem for an individual beyond the scope of normality. When paired with a mental disorder, we have problems caused by internal functions that are not functioning properly - disorders influenced by dys-function. A function that isn't functioning right.

Does that make sense?

(It is crucial to note that dysfunction does not mean unable-to-function. It simply means there is a problem in functioning. Nowhere in this screenshot does it imply that those with mental disorders are incapable. Simply that their functioning is affected.)

Back to the original screenshot. "The dysfunction criteria is redundant and circular." This is to say, the criteria for a disorder (which is defined, as we just saw, as internal problems caused by dysfunction) including dysfunction is like saying "this thing that is caused by dysfunction must be caused by dysfunction." This is, indeed, an example of circular reasoning (in which you attempt to provide evidence of a claim by restating a claim: an example of this could be "We know the text is accurate because the text says it is.").

"The dysfunction criteria is redundant and circular, where the symptoms themselves fulfill the criteria,"

Well, this simply continues our circular reasoning. If the DSM defines mental disorders as having dysfunction, then obviously, a symptom of the disorder is dysfunction. This is starting to feel a bit like Emperor's New Groove...

"The dysfunction criteria is redundant and circular, where the symptoms themselves fulfill the criteria, and as per the DSM, doesn't imply any inherent need for treatment or distress,"

"But Circ, isn't dysfunction distressing?" Yes, often! But the DSM clarifies that it does not need to be in order to be dysfunctional.

(Also from page 20 of the DSM-V)

"However, the diagnosis of a mental disorder is not equivalent to a need for treatment." Having a disorder does not require treatment. Allow me to rephrase: Having a problem caused by dysfunction does not always demonstrate itself as requiring treatment. Treatment must be done on a case by case basis, as per the DSM, with the following kept in mind: symptom severity, symptom salience, distress associated with symptoms, disability related to the patient's symptoms, risks and benefits of available treatments, and other factors.

Therefore, one could say, a diagnosis of a problem that is caused by dysfunction does not imply an inherent need for treatment, as many individuals do not experience all of the following (severe symptoms, salience of symptoms, DISTRESS, disability, or other factors)."

Let's return to our screenshot!

"The dysfunction criteria is redundant and circular, where the symptoms themselves fulfill the criteria, and as per the DSM, doesn't imply any inherent need for treatment or distress -- so being happy, loving your system, feeling like your system helps you more than it hinders you, all normal (and good!) but still DID/OSDD."

That's the full screenshot! So let's review what we know:

The text was addressing common myths about DID/OSDD. This was done in an attempt to inform anyone interested in what is standard with the disorder.

In a section of the text, the author addressed some jargon, "dysfunction," and (by using the definitions provided through the field where the jargon comes from), debunked a myth surrounding DID/OSDD.

Through this information, I can infer that the myth SysmedsareSexist was debunking was the very common myth that DID/OSDD must involve constant suffering and feeling as if your system is hindering you. As someone who has DID, I fact this myth constantly. It's lovely to see a post that discusses the fact that my disorder does not need to be doom and gloom; that I still have DID, even when I'm happy to be plural. Even better, the individual knows their stuff, and used the correct terminology ("dysfunction criteria" versus what I almost always see referred to as "clinical distress criteria").

How do we know it's the correct terminology?

The text they reference tells us so!

"However, in the absence of clear biological markers or clinically useful measurements of severity for many mental disorders," (such as DID/OSDD), "it has not been possible to completely separate normal and pathological symptom expressions contained in diagnostic criteria." (Meaning, we struggle sometimes to differentiate what is normal and what is part of a disorder). "This gap in information is particularly problematic in clinical situations in which the patients symptom presentation by itself (particularly in mild forms) is not inherently pathological and may be encountered in individuals for whom a diagnosis of 'mental disorder' would be inappropriate." (Note: this is like the difference between "I feel sad sometimes" and "I am clinically depressed." Refer back to the definition of a mental disorder if you're a bit confused here!)*

(Oh here's the important part)

"Therefore, a generic diagnostic criterion requiring distress or disability has been used to establish disorder thresholds, usually worded 'the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."

So, to put it all very simply:

The diagnostic criteria for DID only includes "the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" because it needed to be made clear to everyone that mental disorders are, in fact, mental disorders, which cause dysfunction, because mental disorders are inherently dysfunctional.

So... the criteria is saying "in order to have a mental disorder, you need to have a mental disorder, which is defined as having a mental disorder."

Now, it wouldn't be a Circ Classroom Lesson if I didn't ask a very important question. Why is this important?

Well, on a surface level, I'm sure y'all have seen the Syscourse(tm) today and yesterday. With individuals deciding to tear into others for no reason other than what appears to be ignorance or distrust. It's obviously why I wrote this post. I wanted to illuminate what @sysmedsaresexist, a very close personal friend of mine, was trying to say in their educational post. I thought it was fairly clear and easy to understand, when I read it.

Sadly...

Sigh.

I am understanding of students in my classroom who struggle to comprehend, and I am understanding of Sophie here now. I try my best to see good faith in everyone, even those who hurt me. It's something I actually work closely on with my therapist, as I work on not blaming myself (or others) for facts of my life.

But I won't lie and say it's not frustrating to have the same exact conversation, over and over, because I haven't cracked the code on how to help that student learn.

And I'm seeing the same trend with you, Sophie.

Yes, I know, I have you blocked. I also know you'll see this, eventually, somehow, someway. I don't particularly want your response - while I usually support open communication, there does come a time when, well...

So please, please, I am literally begging:

Listen.

Dude posted this long educational positivity post because I had specifically been discussing my experiences with CDD in the plural servers, and his post to ashenphoenixflock resonated with so many of those I was speaking to. I explained to him how much his post resonated with many in the plural servers I was in, who expressed they hadn't known these things about DID/OSDD, or that they related more to traumagenic plurality than they first thought.**

Upon seeing the impact he was making, Dude then made the post the screenshot discussed here came from. That's why the title of the post was "I’ve heard one of my posts is causing waves." He heard it from me.

He posted this to endogenic tags because I was encouraging a transfer of information with inclusive plural spaces. I was the one who encouraged him to post in endogenic tags. It wasn't malicious, as you tried to spin it. And had you simply asked, or even just minded you own business, you wouldn't have published disinformation (information that is not true in an effort to cause harm) about my friend.

Dude's educational post is not arguing that individuals who do not meet the diagnostic criteria of a disorder should be diagnosed with it. It was simply trying to demonstrate that the dysfunction criteria does not, in fact, mean that those with DID must be in constant suffering. Nothing more, nothing less. Was there more meat there he could have posted? Obviously! But the post was not intended to be an argument against plurality or dismantling the DSM. It was simply busting myths and spreading positivity and normalcy for DID systems. And you saw issue with that.

It is not dangerous in the slightest to explain what the DSM means by dysfunction. If anything, it would have helped me greatly to understand my traumatic experiences and come to terms with them far, far sooner than I did. I (and many, many, countless others) convinced themselves they were functional enough, and therefore, could not imagine themselves as being "disordered." Proof of this was sent to Dude, which inspired another post with another worthwhile discussion to be had.

Tell me, do you genuinely believe that reassuring this person that you can still be disordered, in need of help, and receive that help, even if you are """functional""" is... malicious?

Why are you screaming? You are in agreement. Dude never once argued that you don't need to fit all the diagnostic criteria to have the disorder. He argued that the criteria is repetitive. You're the one who read his post wrong.

Furthermore, you read the source you used incorrectly as well.

Shall we refer back to the criteria Loewenstein is referencing?

"This gap in information is particularly problematic in clinical situations in which the patients symptom presentation by itself (particularly in mild forms) is not inherently pathological and may be encountered in individuals for whom a diagnosis of 'mental disorder' would be inappropriate. Therefore, a generic diagnostic criterion requiring distress or disability has been used to establish disorder thresholds, usually worded 'the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."

Loewnestein is arguing that tulpamancy is different from DID because DID is a disorder. That's it.

And let's review why it's so fucking important to share this information, based on the article you yourself linked. Let's look at how Shea responds to the distress criteria.

"It causes dysfunction it makes them unable to take care of themselves."

"She feels like she has a good sense of when mental illnesses do cause distress."

Ableism. What she has is a good sense of ableism. The exact myth that Dude was attempting to debunk. The exact myth that Dude was attempting to help educate people on. I wonder what Shea's reaction to the education would have been?

But given that she practices tulpamancy, she could potentially be a fan of yours. And what does she see?

"Not needing to be bedridden is medical misinformation."

"Not needing to be unable to care for yourself is medical misinformation."

"To be diagnosed with a disorder, you need to meet this criteria, no questions asked."

Which, to people like Shea... Wait. This reminds me of something.

"You must suffer to have DID. It's a serious trauma disorder."

I thought it sounded familiar...

And since you wanted a dialogue with me, here.

This is the true problem with reading comprehension. And why I made this entire post. Nowhere, anywhere, in the OG screenshot, did Dude say "ignore the criteria." You're the one who took that step. You are the one who chose to see malicious intent where there was none. And not even logical malicious intent! If Dude were to be the top-tier most anti-endo ever, would he ever, EVER, argue that the diagnostic criteria for DID be less specific?!

I am glad we are in agreement, then. You attacked a positivity post.

Class dismissed.

[bunnidid-reviews]

hello 🌷 I hope you're doing well. i wanted to ask and I hope this isn't offensive in any way.. so those w did and osdd have the word system to refer to themselves as, right? what about the c ptsd fragments / parts? some r saying that they give their parts names even, but I don't do that.. tho I do want to make it clear to my loved ones that I am fragmented if that makes sense, and maybe even tell them what this ep does and how my anp usually behaves but im confused. i don't want to make it look like im different people but I know they get confused when I differently to protect myself or shift states, so I do want to explain!! im not in the community yet hence why I asked. thank you and I apologize if this was rough to read. ☺️

Hi anon! Thanks for reaching out. Pls note I’m not a professional and can’t give advice or speak for how the community feels, just going off my own experiences

So I’m a full supporter of using what language makes sense to you and your loved ones when explaining what’s going on for you. If that means using system language to describe it all, theres literally no issue with it at all, especially when its just between you and loved ones anyway. Sorry, but I’m not going to gatekeep words, thats silly! People might get confused if you talk about it in a more public way but thats about it.

I frequently change up my words according to who I’m telling about this all, depending on what they understand. Not everyone knows I have DID but I’ve had to explain what happens sometimes because I’m pretty overt with my presentation and I don’t really like having to do the whole ‘do you believe me or are you going to be fucking weird about this’ song and dance.

Here are some words that might suit you, based on things I’ve used to explain my parts without outing my DID entirely that you may or may not find useful:

- parts of self (‘this part of myself’, ‘the traumatized part of myself’, ‘the part of myself who struggles with this specific thing’, etc. descriptors help a lot to differentiate)

- trauma brain and present brain (easier, snappier, more to the point than ANP and EP, nicely not specific to any one part. Sometimes people use left brain and right brain to explain their logic side and creative side, so its the same kinda thing)

- using animals to describe whats going on (my housemates use things like ‘feeling stalked by hyenas’ when feeling urgency, or ‘hiding like a wounded animal’. This is pretty normal too, like ‘a deer in headlights’ used to describe someone whos frozen or confused)

- age descriptors (‘me at seven’, ‘teenage self’, etc. )

- job descriptions (‘the part of me that can go to work’, ‘the aggressive part of me’, ‘the part of me who cries all the time’. Makes it easier to get to the point of what this part does)

As for a system of parts, if you don’t feel comfortable using system, here are some others I’ve used:

- animal groupings (a flock, a murder, a herd, a colony, whatever works here)

- computer or machine terminology (‘my inner processing unit’, ‘my folders full of memory files’, idk I use the term ‘programming’ a whole lot with my loved ones because of how theyve said that I respond like a robot, but I’m certain some people here would be upset that I use their Very Special Terms. But if its in the privacy of your own home I really do not think it matters)

- Literally any sort of grouping analogy, whatever makes sense to you and feels right. You could say a jar full of trauma buttons or something idk! Up to you! Get creative with it

R and I constructed an understanding of my DID without using the Big Community Words because it was just me and him figuring it out for a few years. Things like The Personas (instead of parts or alters), the Council Of Bunny, trauma brain/present brain, The Guys In my Head.

When it comes down to it, you and I are on the same spectrum anyway. DID is not some special disorder, its just C-PTSD with extra steps really. So I wouldn’t worry too much about all this. I wish you luck in finding words and phrases that suit you and your loved ones’ understanding of what’s going on. Having someone Know helps so so so so much

And also if I totally misunderstood and you were just wondering what the C-PTSD community uses.. i have no idea sorry! Maybe look into inner child language? I’m not even caught up on my own community

[granulesofsand]

Feel free just to ignore this

So I know pluralpedia is obviously not a good place of information but this, this gives us a bad taste in our mouth as a programmed system. But since I really don’t know the full extent of what(and I say this with all  distaste) can be accomplished with programming, but I don’t think you can program yourself. Yes internal programming, but that’s usually put there by the handler. I don’t want to start drama and that’s not what I’m trying to do but to all my knowledge(and I can admit it is limited to my org and the things that happen to me and others ) that you CANNOT program yourself, you can condition yourself, but that is nowhere near the on the level of programming. I think it’s dangerous to spread misinformation about DID and especially about programming, like anything misinformation sucks.

I guess what I’m asking is this possible?

Im sorry about this.

https://pluralpedia.org/w/Self-programming

I clicked through the pages I haven’t read before, and I’m gonna take a more neutral stance on this.

🗝️🏷️ RAMCOA, programming, sh, syscourse

I haven’t seen the system mentioned as having coined it, but there are three listed examples.

The first is a traumagenic alter building their system of their own volition. I can see how this situation could arise and have no problem with it, but I wouldn’t call it programming. I probably wouldn’t call just this conditioning either.

It’s fairly common for alters to be able to interact and heavily affect their environment. If they’re creating structures and subspaces, good for them. Not programming. If they’re implementing commands not given directly by an abuser (maybe a sociocultural norm or forcing ‘good’ behavior), that might be conditioning. Also not programming.

The third (I did skip the second) is allowing the system to be programmed as a form of self-harm. That’s not self-programming. That would be just programming. Similarly, I don’t believe that putting yourself into an abusive situation constitutes self-harm in the same way that damaging your own body does.

Even lowering your defenses or creating ideal conditions is not doing the programming. Even asking someone to do it isn’t the same as doing it yourself. I do think that the external figure harming you is responsible for the harm, although there are nuances to both. Still not self-programming.

The second is exomemories. They specify parogenic systems with programming by their creator in the given text, but I’m going to address every kind of exomemory.

I wouldn’t mind having an alter tell me they experienced xyz in their exomemories as long as they bring up that it is exomemories. I can’t guarantee any kinship or overlap, but neither can I for any other person.

Along those lines, I wouldn’t consider innerworld memories as unreal as coverup memories. I don’t know if a nonprogrammed system can recreate the circumstances needed for external programming, but ours can and does. Even totally unrelated memories are a different kind of unreality from coverups, as they can be held as real by the alter.

Coverups are more up to the alter, if they are desperate enough for understanding to pop up in these communities. Some folks don’t think of those memories as real to them, so they aren’t. Some do but don’t care to risk themselves to the crowd.

Neither can claim RAMCOA in external reality if they don’t consider their memories external. But I wouldn’t shoot down interaction from those whose memories matter to them in that way.

As for the term itself, it’s fine. The examples are all iffy, but there are other means of identifying as self-programmed that would be fair in my eyes.

I also don’t mind the terms ‘scriptwriter’ or ‘scripted group’, but I don’t feel comfortable with no programmed systems using them. The references in the self-programming entry are not the people I would be okay with using those terms without some clarification.

RAMCOA is still trauma, and it feels icky to have people claiming entry to this really sucky thing we went through seemingly without research. It’s touchy for a lot of survivors, and it would be preferable to introduce around those words first if you can. We’re still in danger because of this abuse, and it’s a sore spot to poke into blind.

[kariachi]

Welcome back to Achi climbing out of bed in the middle of the night to ramble. Tonight’s topic: MasterSinger Merelan.

Now I’ve mentioned before how fucking weird it is that in the Menolly books and beyond it’s treated as this shocking, weird-ass thing that a girl could be a proper student at the Harper Hall. Everyone acts like your only options are to be a fosterling/paying student (aka ‘you aren’t here to learn music you’re here to make connections’), be somebody’s wife, or be a general worker. Everyone acts like this has always been the case, or at least the whole of the case in living memory.

But Merelan. The last two MasterHarpers were directly related to this woman, who was very clearly not only a member of the Harper Hall but also incredibly well respected. Yet both of them act like the very idea of considering that maybe a girl could be taken in as a proper student in any capacity is tantamount to asking the Weyrs not to fly Fall. I could understand them being reluctant to do anything that could even hint at being replacing her, but to act like the idea is entirely unprecedented just- What the fuck dudes?

(And this isn’t even getting into the DLG giving us a lady Harper who ended up marrying the Lord of Ista in the far past. Yadda yadda ‘the DLG isn’t canon’, it’s only as contradictory as the books themselves, and it’s statement that ladies have been allowed in several Halls for a good while and the Harpers just got dramatic about it, presumably to present themselves as progressive, tracks better with the sudden ‘what no ladies can’t be Harpers ladies have never been Harpers don’t you dare look at that portrait behind that curtain’ shit than the proper books do.)

And that brings us to another thing buzzing in my brain right now- Meralan is referred to as just Singer multiple times, but is also given the full title of MasterSinger. This is, such a big fucking deal and I don’t know how other people haven’t seemed to notice, how did I not notice-?

First up, Singer as a title brings up some interesting concepts about the potential inner workings of the Halls. We know Harpers as teacher, composer, musician, singer, but for Singer to exist as its own title means it’s its own distinct subcategory. Which leads to questions, the main ones being 1) is this a distinct ‘ladies can’t be Harpers so we’ll call them this’ situation (in which case why not recommend Menolly for the position), 2) if it’s not, is ‘harper’ the generalized term/title (like how you would call your cardiologist ‘doctor’ even though there’s a specific job title), 3) or is ‘harper’ more a term for generalists (people who teach and compose and sing and play etc) while specialists get the more restricted title (singer, player, teacher, scholar, etc), 4) if any of these are true, then are there similar situations in other Halls (does the Minecraft Hall have Miners, Cartographers, Lapidarists, etc?) and if so what are they?

We don’t learn much to help is those questions, though we do know that Merelan was considered a Master in her own right, that she was a Big Deal, and that she had her own students.

But, more than that, much more than that, she’s titled MasterSinger. One word.

A Harper who’s reached Master rank is a Master Harper. A Smith who’s reached Master rank is a Master Smith. Master Miner. Master Healer.

MasterHarper is the title of the head of the Harper Hall. MasterSmith is the title of the head of the Smitchcraft Hall. MasterMiner heads the Minecraft Hall. MasterHealer heads the Healer Hall.

MasterSinger...

I don’t doubt Anne didn’t give a second thought to what that title says about her worldbuilding, but I’m not Anne and so I can. MasterSinger Merelan having that title, in a singular word, implies that she’s not just a singer, not just a Singer, but in charge of all the other Singers on Pern.

Singer is never treated as it’s own crafthall in the series, not to my knowledge, and that makes sense. The Harper Hall covers everything else music and with it the oral histories of the civilization, so it makes sense that Singers would also be lumped in there. But for there to be a MasterSinger says a whole lot about 1) the status of Singers (namely, that they’re likely equal to Harpers as far as Crafthall politics if nothing else, if this was just a minor position among the hierarchy, or even just ‘we give women this so they can be included’, likely there wouldn’t be a MasterSinger), and 2) that one way or the other they were more-or-less self-governing within the Harper Hall. Again, single word Masters, everywhere else in the series, are treated as more-or-less on par with Lords and Weyrleaders as far as power and status goes. It’s a big deal. Meaning that it’s entirely possible that MasterSinger is supposed to be either second only to the MasterHarper or, more likely I think, on equal footing with the MasterHarper.

The power imbalance in place by Merelan marrying Petiron and him being... Himself, may well have fucked up what was supposed to be functionally a dual position- with the MasterHarper managing composing, teaching, and that whole branch and the MasterSinger being in charge of the actual learning to sing and to play. It would also make sense with just how expansive the Harper Hall’s jurisdiction is, if it was more of a split-but-united deal. It’s the Harper Hall because that’s what it’s been forever, but the Singers are a distinct subset within it with power and import of their own.

 Which then brings up the question of wtf happened to the position of Singer? Because Merelan had students, and a very blatant rank of her own for those students to take. And for her to be MasterSinger she can’t have only just started getting students, that would’ve started when she was just Master Singer.

So we’re left with four questions Merelan’s existence and title drop unceremoniously on us-

What is a Singer in the context of the Harper Hall?

What happened to Merelan’s students, of which there can’t only have been the ones we meet?

What happened to the concept of Singers in general, that is never comes up again chronologically?

What the fuck bug crawled up Robinton and Petiron’s asses that despite there being a position in the Hall that explicitly allowed ladies, one that they’ve both been alive to see, one that would likely have been The Norm when Petiron was a student and teacher given Merelan’s position doesn’t seem to be questioned, both of them pull the ‘well you know the Hall hasn’t taken a female student in half of forever if ever, but maybe I can make something work for you’ game?

And we are never going to get a fucking answer so damnit we better start coming up with some for ourselves because nobody else is gonna touch it.

[max--phillips]

genuine question but if being heterosexual or homosexual has nothing to do with genitals then what are those of us exclusively attracted to one sex or another supposed to do or call ourselves...

I’m going to do my best to respond to this in good faith, but you’ll have to excuse me if I get a little snippy because I am not the only person who has addressed this and trans people are, rightfully, kind of tired of having this conversation. That said, this is probably going to get long.

The short answer is: why do you feel the need to differentiate yourselves? You just keep using whatever label makes you happy.

The long answer has several parts. It has to do with division, medicalization, communication, and, of course, attraction.

First: division. This is a slightly longer version of my short answer. If you identify as a lesbian, and you truly are only interested in having sex with people with vulvas, you’re still a lesbian. There’s no need for you to differentiate yourself from the rest of the community. I’ll expand a little on that with communication.

TERFs reeeeaaaaaaaally want lesbians to be their own little island within the LGBT community, as if we don’t have a long, rich history that overlaps with bi women, trans women, trans men, and nonbinary folks. Bi women face similar discrimination. Trans women have always been a part of our community because they are women. It isn’t unheard of for a trans man to refer to themself as a butch lesbian, or vice versa, and for that to be completely valid (and there is a ton of overlap in our experiences otherwise!) Nonbinary people have always been a part of our community, too. While labels are important to many people, we need them to stay labels and not become boxes. The world is not black and white, and neither is gender and sexuality.

Second: medicalization. I realize that the terms homosexual and transsexual are being actively reclaimed by our community, but I do not know very many folks who choose to label themselves as “homosexual.” (Not that you can’t, of course, it’s a perfectly valid label to choose!) The reason they’re being reclaimed is because they came from the field of psychiatry to pathologize our lived experienced because they were seen as wrong or deviant or abnormal. But, words change meaning over time. In the context of the LGBT community, “homosexual” just means gay or lesbian. It no longer means its biological definition, which is two animals of the same sex engaging in sexual activity. Therefore, someone who uses the label homosexual is typically not implying that they are strictly attracted to someone of the same sex, but rather as someone who is attracted to the same gender.

We need to learn, as a society, that yes, gender is a construct, but so is sex. It is two arbitrary categories for people with “typical” genitalia and other secondary sex characteristics. Yet, many people fall outside of those categories, and may not even realize it their whole life; many DSDs/intersex conditions are wholly undetectable unless specific medical tests are run. Sex is just as complicated a subject as gender, and once again, folks (especially TERFs) want so desperately for everything to be black and white that they ignore this fact when having this conversation.

I’m going to mess with the order here a little bit. Third: attraction. I’m going to say something that is going to make you defensive, but I ask that you hear me out. You are not attracted to a specific sex. Let me explain. Let’s say you see someone on the street. You know absolutely nothing about this person, but you find them sexually attractive. Given the opportunity, you’d gladly have sex with them. But, you still don’t know anything about their chromosome makeup, or their genitalia, or anything other than the outward facing secondary sex characteristics you can see. This may give you an assumption as to their sex, but it does not guarantee anything either way. You don’t know anything about their biological sex until you get into their pants or ask—and even then you STILL might not know.

There are trans women with vulvas. There are trans men with penises. Yet, technically, only the orientation of their genitalia was changed, not what sex they were determined to be by their DNA—be that peri- or intersex. Yes, bottom surgery used to be referred to as a sex change, but the language has evolved to be gender affirmation surgery (which also includes other procedures, such as top surgery and FFS.) Ultimately, at the end of the day, you are not attracted to a specific sex. You are attracted to a specific gender, and you have a genital preference. Which is fine! And leads to my last point.

Finally: communication. Look, I know that there was a pretty strong camp a while back that was like “if you have a genital preference you’re transphobic” and while I will always encourage people to examine why they have a genital preference (is it trauma? Is it genuinely just preference? Or is it internalized transphobia?) I don’t think that having those preferences is inherently transphobic. That said, there is a correct way to go about communicating that preference.

Just be fucking polite. If you’re flirting with someone and think you might get busy, you just tell them, “hey, I think you’re really cool, but I just want to let you know I’m really only comfortable with this specific genital situation. Is that going to pose an issue?” And if they say like, sorry but I don’t have that situation, you say “bummer, but no worries! You’re cool though, I’d still like to hang out/be friends/whatever.” And if they say no issues here, steal me away, then y’all go do whatever you wanna do.

Key takeaways: you put the onus of the genital preference on yourself, not on the other person. No “what’s in your pants,” no “so have you had bottom surgery,” none of that. And you also don’t react negatively when and if they tell you one way or the other. This is not an invitation for you to lash out at them or be violent or anything crazy like that.

Ultimately. Stop trying to force the world into pure black and white categories and realize that everything has overlap and complexities that you cannot and will not root out. Separation only makes us easier to conquer. And they won’t stop conquering with the minority du jour. They will come for you, too.

[jenny-dreadful]

actually, for funsies, lemme rattle off as many of otgw’s subtextual death symbols etc. as i can think of off the top of my head

(understanding that the bulk of this is probably well-trod territory if you’ve sought out much discussion on it, and that some of it is inarguably half-baked ideas that i’m interested in bringing up nonetheless)

Beatrice, in the Divine Comedy, is the name of Dante’s lost love. Also, there is a traditional folk belief (having trouble finding its origin) regarding bluebirds as a sign or incarnation of a deceased loved one

“Pottsfield” as a corruption of “potter’s field,” a type of burial place for the unclaimed dead (How nice, then, that all those skeletons seem to get such a joyful welcome!)

(Addendum: I love all those cheeky little lines there, like “Aren’t you a little too…early?” and “Folks don’t tend to leave Pottsfield.” gtfoh)

(DOUBLE ADDENDUM: Reference to this village event as a “harvest” functions at two ends, sort of. Death is commonly compared to a sort of harvest, as with the Grim Reaper; also, the Pottsfield idea of “harvesting” people who are already dead and buried, rather than living people, serves as perhaps the series’s first glimmering hint into the idea that the titular “garden” is a graveyard

The tavern crowd is satisfied to identify Wirt as “the pilgrim;” The Pilgrim’s Progress famously depicts an allegorical journey through death

Endicott—definitely well-trod that his name appears on a headstone in the real world later on, which is more text than subtext. But I wanna mention it anyway bc (while one may conclude that everyone lingering in the Unknown has died) Endicott is the only one it gets so explicit about, and here too is a graveyard-garden synapse crackle: Where can you find him? Well—in the real world, it’s the cemetery, but in the Unknown he’s prospering in his garden

The search for two pennies for ferry fare (presumably, one each for Wirt and Greg, with Fred and Beatrice planning to play dumb and board for free), ending in the sort of left-field thing where Greg sullenly throws them away? cracks me up because I can only imagine the whole episode being written before someone in the room went, “Shit, wait, they can’t actually pay the ferryman— How do we get out of this?”

(Add.: A ferry typically crosses a body of water rather than traveling along it, doesn’t it? Usually, a vessel like the one depicted would be called a “riverboat;” the decision to consistently call it a “ferry” instead is deliberate as hell.)

Beatrice’s initial endeavor is in bringing the boys to “Adelaide of the pasture”—or, in only slightly different terms, putting them “out to pasture”

Some more small ones, but when they encounter the other frogs and realize they’re all clothed, Greg kind of oddly makes a particular point of noting their unclothed frog’s “cold feets;” bare feet are sometimes used in art to suggest death, and separately, going barefoot is a part of proper mourning in some traditions. Also—there’s something to those frogs burying themselves in the mud to sleep, and to our party going on instead of staying with them, isn’t there?

Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for…thee, ultimately, if you get eaten? I’m gonna be tbh with you, I don’t see a strong connection here, but it feels weird to not mention it when there IS a strong (if general) association of bells as announcers of death. Maybe I’m missing something.

Greg sure does visit (and choose to return from) what can only be described as someplace resembling a child’s heaven. Traditionally, only one way to achieve this.

Oh, man, no big surprise with, like, “Come Wayward Souls”’ moody ass, but “Patient Is the Night” is such a cool instance of a particular old-fashioned, folkish flavor, poetically obfuscating the topic of death to present it as welcoming and restful (couldn’t work out a less pretentious or clunky way to say that).

And last, for now: Hey, shit, I’m pretty sure this doesn’t quite add up to anything, it’s just… It’s kinda weird that Greg’s big crime is revealed as the theft of a stone (painted to represent a person) from somebody’s garden, when this poetic interpretation of a graveyard as a “garden” (lined with stones, each carved to represent a person, in a different way) is established pretty thoroughly. Like, I won’t pretend that’s not kinda a reach. But it’s not nothing nothing, right?