#but i also want something i can identify with

[daddyd0nt]

You’re either being purposely obtuse or intellectually dishonest but what you are saying is literally patriarchal brainwashing and so bafflingly sexist that you clearly either hate AFAB people or don’t take harm against us seriously. It’s “transphobia” to demand and maintain sex segregated spaces? Transphobia isn’t the violent males who kill trans people, it’s the AFABs who won’t sacrifice our PHYSICAL SAFTY to protect AMAB ego? Classic AMAB entitlement. Yall tell on yourselves so loud. SRS does not erase male socialization idgaf how dysphoric a AMAB person is their emotional comfort should not be prioritized over AFAB safety. You really think it is acceptable for a AFABs to be victimized so AMABs can feel validated in some weird postmodern sense of constructed identity? We don’t need to check genitals I would have no problem with the manliest most masculine most passing trans man in an afab space because no matter what hormones or surgery are involved they cannot rape and impregnate me with their penis the same way an AMAB person could. We don’t need to check gender if we normalize beating the dog shit out of AMABs who threaten us and disrespect our safety by entering our spaces. D you think AFAB trans people should be put in male spaces, not only bathrooms but hospitals and prisons, where they will be at an even greater danger risk of rape than a AMABs trans person and also stand to suffer greater biological consequences since an AFAB person who gets raped by an AMAB one runs the risk of pregnancy. Also trans AMAB people commit sex crimes at an even higher rate than cis AMAB people, they are literally the largest recorded demographic of sex criminals, and I should sacrifice my safety and let them into my spaces (which again did not START segregated they became that way because AMAB people could t be trusted not to rape/assault AFAB ones)?

Also “capitalism is real because it impacts me in a negative way but all other forms of oppression where I might be considered the privileged one in the dynamic is just hysterical people distracting from capitalism” you aren’t even trying to be subtle in your misogyny go join MGTOW.

“If you include trans people who are also oppressed by patriarchy in your fight against patriarchy but don’t include your oppressors who benefit from patriarchy regardless of gender presentation you are hateful I hope you understand this uwu” literally such a long form way to say you don’t want AFAB people to have a movement where we address our own needs because AMAB people can’t emotionally cope with any reminders that they are privileged under patriarchy exclusively for being AMAB.

I have no problem with trans people, I know and love a good amount of people of both sexes who identify as trans. I trust them fully. That doesn’t mean that women who don’t personally know them are obligated to trust them. And it’s not just bathrooms, I spend a LOT of time in institutions specifically high security mental hospitals for violent/psychotic patients including people sent over from the jails for being too mentally ill to incarcerate. I have to take sleeping pills at night and fall unconscious in a room with these people where I’m only checked on every 15-30 mins which is PLENTY of time for something bad to happen. I don’t want to risk having to share that kind of space with an AMAB person. If trans AMAB people don’t want to be housed with cis ones, they can do the legwork and create those spaces for themselves like AFAB people did they do NOT have the right to commandeer our movement and literally erase our rights and protections because not allowing AMAB people into these vulnerable spaces might give them the big sad. My not wanting AMAB people in AFAB spaces is not from not knowing them, it’s because I DO know them and listen to what is said about AFAB people in TRA spaces and know just how AMAB they are in their entitlement to everything from space to sex.

“You are letting fear define your politics” YEAH MY GUY IM FORCED TO LIVE LIKE A FUCKING PREY ANIMAL!!! Some fear is completely rational. AMAB people can not be trusted in AFAB spaces and your suggestion that I should be okay with even a fraction of a percent of AFABs being physically harmed so AMABs feel emotionally validated is absolutely disgusting and proves how patriarchal you are.

Gender is literally fake and varies from culture to culture. Sex based oppression is real and fucks over the lives of AFAB people worldwide. I’m not basing my politics on protecting feelings, I’m basically them on protecting AFAB people from actual tangible oppression.

"OP is a terf" is a thought-terminating cliche meant to keep you from questioning the status quo and keep you afraid of being labeled a heretic should you come to your own conclusions about anything.

[genderqueerdykes]

its extremely important, i would say even vital to learn about queer history. do not use what i'm about to say as an excuse to ignore our history, however i feel like i need to point something out, because i get a lot and i mean a LOT of questions asking if there are books written on every single queer identity and i have to point out that while it's extremely important to try to look to the past for validation in the present, it's also extremely important to realize that not every single queer experience has to have a long well documented history in order for it to be seen as "valid"

in many places in the world, even writing about being queer can be grounds for being jailed or killed. it's not always safe or practical to publish books, zines, or other written works when it comes to various queer identities. even in places where it is safe, not every single identity is going to be covered and written about. not every queer person feels the desire to write about their experience and not every queer person wants to be immortalized for being queer. this is extremely important to consider

also, queerness is based in identity. identity does not need empirical evidence in order to be legitimate. it may not be easy to find books on certain identities, but that doesn't mean they're not real. as important as it is to refer to books and the writings by other queers, it's also extremely important to not leverage literacy and the ability to publish books and/or zines against certain people and identities. just because there aren't books or comics or poems written about certain identities doesn't mean you can't view them as legitimate.

queerness is not like a scientific theory. it does not need to be proven. it does not need evidence. you do not have to prove that other queer people of the same identity exist in order for your identity to be valid. do NOT use this as an excuse to refuse to learn about queer history, but also do not look down on queer people whose identities don't have books written about them, either. remember that queerness is illegal in many, many places in the world. not every experienced can be published and written about. that's okay.

basically what i'm trying to say is don't use a lack of written records to dismiss certain queer identities or even misgender people. that person's anecdotes, that person's stories are still worth listening to. it doesn't matter that you personally haven't heard of other people identifying that way. don't use books and literature against individual queers. don't weaponize the lack of published work against people with complex or niche identities. having books and sources to refer to is an incredible resource, but that's not why they're there. they're not there so you can refer to them and go "a-hah, this is irrefutable proof that x group of queer people don't exist!" they're there so you can learn about some of the beautiful experiences humanity has to offer.

queer literature and history is important, but just because we don't have proof of something being reflected in the past doesn't mean it's not legitimate in the present. there were periods in time before these books and records that we refer to were published. it doesn't mean the people who came before these works weren't queer, and that their identities weren't legitimate. there have always been queer people as long as humans have existed and it's honestly very shitty to spit in the faces of everyone who came before the common sources we have to refer to today. they were still queer even if they had no books to refer to. queerness is not a science. it's okay to accept someone even if they can't provide you with piles and piles and piles of proof that their identity should be allowed to exist.

you don't necessarily need a "source" to prove that queer identities exist. the "source" is humanity. the "source" is lived experience. don't ever stop learning about our history, but don't use a lack of written records against other queer people. it helps no one. thanks. hope that made sense.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

How do I write basic movements, I'm not a native speaker so it gets hard for me to define basic bodily movements. Even if it's as simple as reaching out and taking something off the counter

Facial expressions, gestures, and eye gaze are often identified as the 3 major types of body language, but other aspects such as posture and personal distance can also be used to convey information.

A few common gestures & their possible meanings:

Pursed lips. Tightening the lips might be an indicator of distaste, disapproval, or distrust.

Lip biting. People sometimes bite their lips when they are worried, anxious, or stressed.

Covering the mouth. When people want to hide an emotional reaction, they might cover their mouths in order to avoid displaying smiles or smirks.

Turned up or down. Slight changes in the mouth can also be subtle indicators of what a person is feeling. When the mouth is slightly turned up, it might mean that the person is feeling happy or optimistic. On the other hand, a slightly down-turned mouth can be an indicator of sadness, disapproval, or even an outright grimace.

A clenched fist can indicate anger in some situations or solidarity in others.

A thumbs up and thumbs down are often used as gestures of approval and disapproval.

The "okay" gesture, made by touching together the thumb and index finger in a circle while extending the other three fingers can be used to mean "okay" or "all right." In some parts of Europe, however, the same signal is used to imply you are nothing. In some South American countries, the symbol is actually a vulgar gesture.

The V sign, created by lifting the index and middle finger and separating them to create a V-shape, means peace or victory in some countries. In the United Kingdom and Australia, the symbol takes on an offensive meaning when the back of the hand is facing outward.

Crossed arms might indicate that a person feels defensive, self-protective, or closed-off.

Standing with hands placed on the hips can be an indication that a person is ready and in control, or it can also possibly be a sign of aggressiveness.

Clasping the hands behind the back might indicate that a person is feeling bored, anxious, or even angry.

Rapidly tapping fingers or fidgeting can be a sign that a person is bored, impatient, or frustrated.

Crossed legs can indicate that a person is feeling closed-off or in need of privacy.

Open posture involves keeping the trunk of the body open and exposed. This type of posture indicates friendliness, openness, and willingness.

Closed posture involves hiding the trunk of the body often by hunching forward and keeping the arms and legs crossed. This type of posture can be an indicator of hostility, unfriendliness, and anxiety.

The term proxemics, coined by anthropologist Edward T. Hall, refers to the distance between people as they interact.

Just as body movements and facial expressions can communicate a great deal of nonverbal information, so can the physical space between individuals.

Hall described 4 levels of social distance that occur in different situations:

Intimate Distance: 6 to 18 inches. This level of physical distance often indicates a closer relationship or greater comfort between individuals. It usually occurs during intimate contact such as hugging, whispering, or touching.

Personal Distance: 1.5 to 4 feet. Physical distance at this level usually occurs between people who are family members or close friends. The closer the people can comfortably stand while interacting can be an indicator of the level of intimacy in their relationship.

Social Distance: 4 to 12 feet. This level of physical distance is often used with individuals who are acquaintances. With someone you know fairly well, such as a co-worker you see several times a week, you might feel more comfortable interacting at a closer distance. In cases where you do not know the other person well, such as a postal delivery driver you only see once a month, a distance of 10 to 12 feet may feel more comfortable.

Public Distance: 12 to 25 feet. Physical distance at this level is often used in public speaking situations. Talking in front of a class full of students or giving a presentation at work are good examples of such situations.

Source ⚜ Some Additional Resources:

Anatomical Movements

Types of Body Movements

Human Body Movements

Hope this helps with your writing! Definitely have trouble with this at times as well.

[slowcatsisland]

Trafalgar D. Water Law; Ideal Type Deep Dive

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

The first thing that comes to my mind is that audio - “ I need to find my darling husband!” “What do you see in that guy?” “He makes me laugh.”

Law absolutely needs to be with someone who can make him laugh.

Throughout the post time skip arcs, it has been shown that Law -

Has a fear surrounding accepting and giving love

Believes that there must be a reason for earning love/giving love to someone

Law’s character had the most development in Dressrosa and Wano that could propel him towards healing with the defeat of Doflamingo, the revenge of Corazon’s death, and the closure statement that Sengoku says to him: “Don’t try to find a reason for someone’s love.”

Law has to heal first, or have a partner that will help him heal. To me, Law wouldn’t even think of committing to a relationship until the end of Dressrosa/Wano.

Law surrounds himself with goofy people, so it makes sense for him to fall for a goofy person.

This person would probably be on his crew as his trust issues wouldn’t allow for him falling for someone that has other loyalties that could easily be prioritized over him and end up betraying him.

Law is strict about subordinate dynamics, which is why you being on his crew may also hinder him from wanting to pursue something with you because he’s supposed to be your boss essentially.

Law would want someone that is smart, textbook smart like he is, but I also see this not being important if he truly runs into the ‘one’ that brings him the most peace.

I mean by that if you can’t hold and add to a conversation about idk the anatomy of the human body and the effects of a certain ailment, you’re not totally disqualified from his radar.

Someone who could hold emotional conversations with him is good. Even if he probably wouldn’t want the conversation. He’s kinda icky with feelings. Someone that could tell him how he feels, how they feel, and how that changes the context of whatever situation they are in. He needs someone like that.

I used to be opposed to the thought, but I believe Law needs someone truly soft. That means you could still fight if needed, but would rather not yk. It’s okay if you’re not out here swinging a machete trying to bloody the streets with your foes. That aspect of humanity that you have is something Law needs more prevalently in his life.

I remember reading an analysis of Law’s type and the creator said something similar to “Law needs someone who wouldn’t pull the trigger, just like Corazon didn’t.” I don’t know how much I agree with it but I think it’s worth mentioning.

Someone patient, but stubborn. Someone who is willing to wait for him to be ready to accept his feelings and won’t leave him when he makes a mistake (trust me he will make many mistakes in a relationship). Someone who also won’t be an idle figure in situations, you have an opinion and will voice it even if it doesn’t agree with Law’s perspective. You think the crew should help him on something rather than wait on the submarine and him go off alone? Tell him and make him listen, even if he shuts you down.

Law needs someone positive that can look at things with a glass half full mindset. Someone who looks at the rain and thinks about how the plants are getting water, someone who watches the snow fall but are commenting about how Penguin and Sachi are making snow angles and Bepo is really comfortable in the temperature. You even out his pessimism and bring light.

You’d have to get along with the other crew mates, especially Bepo too. Bepo is so important to Law, and if Bepo didn’t like you it already taints Law’s image of you.

You were always kind to him. Even before he invited you onto his crew, he identified your nature and could make a note about how you’re different from the majority of people he’s met.

Preferably, you’d be goofy, but not too loud. I feel like Law gets uncomfortable around those that are crazy extroverted- kinda like Luffy. Sometimes it reminds him too much of the Donquixote Pirates with all their flamboyance. That doesn’t mean if you have this quality you’d be off the list, he would just need it in smaller chunks or around the crew to be acclimated to it.

Grr, someone that ends up reminding him of Rosinante. Someone that Law knows is just a good person, regardless of their past.

If he asked you “why do you love me?” And you couldn’t give him an answer, you’re perfect.

He needs someone to be his safe space. Someone that could sit in his office while he works, content in the shared silence. Someone that he could ramble about his coin collection to without the worry of being judged. Someone that he could let touch his chest and have them run their fingers through his hair without worry that he’ll be harmed. Someone that will soothe him after he has a nightmare or read out loud to him until he falls asleep.

Someone that cares for him- this loops back to the stubbornness. Someone that tries to make him go to sleep, to make him eat, to make him take breaks from working. To make him live happily, something that he’s starved himself of truly ever since he was 10. He prolly won’t act like it, but you showing you care for him makes his heart bleed suffocatingly.

Someone that can show him how to love again and what it feels like to love again omg. The destruction of Flevance and the manipulation of the Donquixote Pirates so cruelly changed his perception of love.

Law wouldn’t want you to be a big shot in canon. If your bounty was rather substantial compared to his crew and him, or you had a crazy ability- it would make him worry awfully. He’d probably try to keep you out of harms way even more than he does with the rest of his crew.

Someone he can tell everything to and trust that they’ll keep it a secret.

Someone that likes the cold, likes the ocean. Living on a submarine as a pirate kinda requires this lol.

Omg imagine you’re from the North Blue too. He picks you up around the same time he does Penguin, Sachi, and Bepo. You’re one of the original members. The connection I feel like he would have with you would make him more willing to fall for you…

I feel like Law would like someone with longer hair. If he could watch them brush it, curl it around his finger, watch them create a hairstyle for the day. Small acts of domesticity in life.

Someone with large, doe eyes. He can see so much emotion through them, they hold so much weight. It reminds him of Bepo. (lol)

Someone aware of their own emotions and are in tune with their wants and needs.

I feel like he would fluster really easily if you had a gummy smile. Yk those big, pure smiles where the gums showed. When your eyes crinkly and your teeth are bared so naturally and without malice. It’s so beautiful to see.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

He’s so broken

Mwah 😽

[mariacallous]

It's been very eye opening to see how online leftists (and spread into real life) have abandoned core leftist positions: body autonomy and abortion, anti-racism, (real) solidarity, feminism, lgbtq+ rights, grass roots activism, freedom of movement, coalition building and outreach -> for identifying with right wing terrorist groups. this idea that a revolution will "happen" and leftists will seize power to create a true utopia (history says source not found). i am not sure how they delude themselves into thinking that the 2.5% of the country who voted 3rd party are going to bring about the Great Change. I think of how much work real governance takes and how the left, like maga, think by eliminating governance we will achieve freedom. something that has never worked for humans in the long run. part of me thinks it's pure laziness: to attach yourself to one cause (eg the destruction of israel) and ignore the people around you hoping but not working towards a new world.

A lot of thinking has been decoupled from reality and objective fact, and also I don't think they genuinely want the revolution to happen because it's so much easier and more profitable to keep fighting against the status quo and always having your stated goal out of reach. Because it can never be your fault, it's that the conditions aren't right, or people aren't ready. But you are the True Voice and the true Keeper.

[yuukirita]

Hi! I’m a new follower so I haven’t had a chance to really go through your blog fully yet but I was curious- how did you get into drawing transformers? Also could you share tips for people trying to learn?

I mostly draw robots- outsides of commissions I mean. Always been a fan of Transformers and the movie is just robots so... I take. It's just luck that I ended up posting any of it.

Any tips I can give is 1: to use references. 2: You don't have to follow any ref completely, identify the most stand out traits and use the general colours of who you wanna draw and most people are gonna get who you draw. 3: drawing transformers is just like drawing anything else, practice and you'll get it.

I'm not the best at giving tips but I can give you tiny steps by steps of how I draw my bots if u wanna. Like u can ask for a specific bot or something... Not sure who would want that but I can do it. Anything to encourage CREATING!

[honourablejester]

I am having a severe flavour problem with the new 5.5e warlocks. And I kinda saw it coming, but I also thought that maybe they’d do something about it before we got here. But, well. Apparently not.

My problem is this: taking up the warlock subclass at level 3 instead of level 1 has turned all warlocks, flavour-wise, into absolute idiots.

“Through occult ceremony, you have formed a pact with a mysterious entity to gain magical powers. The entity is a voice in the shadows—its identity unclear—but its boon to you is concrete: the ability to cast spells.” (PHB 2024)

You have explicitly and purposefully made a deal with something you don’t know the identity of.

Now. You could always play the warlock as having done that, if you wanted to play someone a bit reckless. But. It was an option, not baked into the class. You could also have met your patron any number of ways and decided how to deal with it, going into the pact knowingly and with foreknowledge of the potential consequences. Because you choose your subclass at level 1, your patron and your relationship with them was essentially your first decision as a warlock. So if you were in a pact with a devil, you had the chance to be knowingly in a pact with a devil. It was a choice you might have knowingly made.  

Here, though, your warlock put a phone call out into the void and won’t know for two more levels what exactly picked up on the other side. Which bakes a considerable amount of recklessness and frankly outright stupidity into the class concept.

Weirdly, both sorcerers and even clerics come out of this shift better, of the classes that used to get their subclasses at level 1. Sorcerer, it kind of makes sense, when the magic is in your blood regardless, that it just might take a while for the nature of the magic to become fully apparent. Sorcerers, by the nature of their lore, never had a choice what magic they possessed. It was always luck of the draw and the potential idiocy of their ancestors. And clerics, their subclass is a choice of domain, not patron, so they can still be devoted to their particular god from level 1, and just choose which aspect of them to exemplify at level 3. So clerics, even with the shift of timing, are still making more or less the same choices. Their god is still a conscious choice from the start.

But warlocks are now explicitly stated to be gambling on the nature of their patron for power.

Of course, you can just ignore that. You can say that your warlock fully knows what patron they’ve made a bargain with from the beginning, and it’s only at level 3 that the patron considers them valuable enough to start giving them identifiable, tailored abilities, or some similar justification. Before that, it’s something like a trial period, where they decide if you’re worth keeping on and having abilities that could link back to them. Ignoring the text and telling your own story is still (and always) an option.

I’m just faintly annoyed that they built the idiocy into the text. That the new Pact Magic feature outright states that you were dumb enough to make deals with mysterious voices from the beyond without the first clue who that voice might be.

I mean, warlocks are rather implied to be not the most sensible people from a standing start. But I'd like to have the option of my dumbass having made calculated risks, instead of just gambling blind, you know?

[catboybiologist]

on the order of: denying E makes it easier to cry or hrt changing sexuality

I think these two examples in particular may be repeated and accepted so much is because they don't fit nicely with other political arguments.

For the former, E making it easier to laugh and cry would mean, simplistically, that T makes it harder to cry. Or, at least that going from a T dominated system to E dominated makes it easier to express emotion, then going the other way must make it harder. If not thought about carefully, this could easily reinforce the idea that women are emotional and men are emotionally stunted not because of socialization, but because of ~biology woooo~. Whereas if it's a lifting of some kind of emotional fog, well then it could go either way, T and E would both equally make it easier to express one's emotions because they are ~in balance~ or whatever. This is of course also assuming there is a "right" or "predesitined" way to be a certain gender, that trans people were always the gender they identify with now, which is still gender essentialist in a way I think. BUT The narrative that we've had to build, medically and politically, is that we've always been our gender and we're just trying to "correct" it. And to throw this out would also mean losing political ground, possibly.

As for the latter, it's pretty much the exact same I think, a lot of people want to describe hrt changing sexuality as a consequence of change in confidence or self image or anything like that would counter the "born this way" political narrative that has been built up over time where we're just they way we are and there's nothing you can do to change that, so there's an instinct, because I don't think it's even necessarily that people are doing this consciously, to fight anytime someone implies sexuality can be changed.

Anyway, I do very much agree with your stated opinions, just wanted to possibly add something

So you sent a follow up that was like "wait no you already said this don't respond" but you have good points here that I didn't make

Namely, the socialization vs hormones thing. A lot of people view these as in contention- eg, men are solely socialized not to cry, T has no role vs the opposite. Male socialization makes it harder to express any emotion and testosterone makes it harder to cry are coexisting statements, however, and the crushing weight of men having less "visible" shows of emotion combined with the societal expectation that they shouldn't have emotion at all means that it's hard for men to get emotional help.

Vice versa for women being "overemotional", which is generally the more oppressive societal issue. Women's displays of emotion are excused as unserious, or downplayed, because "women are like that". The ability for hormones to cause physical displays of emotion to be different affects how society demands we repress those emotions, either through personal "stoicism" or societal excusal. And we learn habits of how to navigate those systems in turn.

[sharkgirldick]

hey Vee, how did you come to figure out that you were a transfem butch? i've been thinking about my relationship to my transfemininity and masculinity and exploring the possibility in my head that i might also be butch, but it's an idea that to a certain extent, frightens the part of me that once would have completely banished the idea that i might in any way want to embrace masculinity

if you have any insight into how to like, square that circle, or at least, how you came to the conclusion that you were/wanted to be a transfem butch yourself, i would genuinely appreciate it, but if it this is a too personal question no worries

I've had this sitting in my inbox for a couple of days, and I've been having it marinate in my head for a while.

This got kinda long, so full thing under the cut.

When I first came out, I wanted to be very feminine. My first rush of gender euphoria came from shaving my legs. It was also incredible to hear my (then) cis girlfriend tell me that they were jealous of how nice my legs looked. I bought dresses and skirts and crop tops. I wanted to pass, and was really thinking over what I would need to do to achieve that goal. If you scroll back far enough in my selfie tag, you can even find where I was mostly dressing femme.

If you'll forgive me for backing up a little... One of the things that caused me to come out was that I realized I didn't vibe with being a man. It didn't suit me, and I knew something needed to change. Maybe, under a slightly different set of circumstances, I would have been nonbinary. Anything, anything, except being a man.

With that in mind, as I continued on into my transition, I realized more and more how much I identified with butchness, and how dissatisfied I was with how I was presenting. I felt gross in the clothes I wore, and I didn't like how I looked in the mirror. Plenty of that was dysphoria, yes, but I could tell that wasn't all of it. I'm so much more satisfied now seeing myself in more generally masculine outfits.

I kinda did resist it, though. I thought, as a trans woman, it would make me less of a woman to be butch. Which, of course, isn't how that works.

Eventually, in exploring what being butch meant for me, I realized that it wasn't masculinity that I had an issue with, just with being a man. That isn't to say that I (or all other butches, for that matter) dislike being more feminine at times, but being a masculine woman just feels right. It feels like me. That's why I've stuck with the label for more than two years now, and plan to stick with it in the future.

I feel like I more rambled than anything, but I hope this helps, anon.

[becomingthatgirl111]

can u do a guide on how to change our beliefs? it will be very helpful

Sure. The first step is to identify them. For this you can write down on a piece of paper all those negative or limiting thoughts you have about any subject and next to them write how you would like to start thinking, something more positive or if you find it difficult at least a neutral affirmation such as “I am in the process of improving” for example.

When you have a negative thought in your head, convince yourself that it is not real, because it really is not, it is only an idea that you have ingrained but that you believe to be real, you can change it for a totally different one and eventually it will become a truth for you.

The use of affirmations is helpful but you also have to convince yourself during the day of the new positive thinking, that will replace the bad ideas you have and they will fade away. They will no longer be part of you.

But if, on the other hand, you continue to give a lot of importance to those thoughts that you don't want to have, they will stay with you.

When you speak try to speak from the version of the person you already want to be.

Listen to new ideas, read more, this will help you expand your mind and discover things you didn't know or didn't notice before.

For me the use of subliminals has helped me and writing in a diary when I feel bad helps me to identify what kind of thoughts I have.

There are more ways, I could write more about this in the future but I hope I have been able to help you 🤍

[wordswithkittywitch]

This year, Beauty Trends That Men Hate Day falls on the 25th. That's tomorrow. Here’s the questions I get asked the most:

How do I celebrate Beauty Trends That Men Hate Day?

Simply by wearing fashion that has either someone has told you “Men don’t like it when you wear…” or shown up in one of those silly lists of “Beauty Trends That Men Hate”. I myself have forgotten what day it was and dressed appropriately on accident because those lists are copious, contrary to each other, and often quite long.

Why is Beauty Trends That Men Hate Day even a thing?

Alright, first off: Do you have the slightest concept of how many small, frivolous holidays there are? January the third is “Fruitcake Toss Day”. March eleventh is Oatmeal Nut Waffle Day. Goodness, on Tumblr we celebrate November the fifth in remembrance of when a lot of weird things kept showing up as news on the same day. Secondly, there is something to be said about clearing our collective throats once a year and reminding everyone that almost no one dresses purely for the approval of the people they’re expected to (and often don’t) want to attract. Even if you are a heterosexual woman, it is incredibly unlikely that you pick out your outfits thinking, “I need as many men as possible to find me sexually attractive.” This relates to why it’s the last Monday in November, because by that time (in the northern hemisphere at least) it’s started to get a bit nippy and those leggings, knit hats, and oversized sweaters people keep insisting men hate are looking pretty cosy.

I don’t identify as a woman. Can I or how do I celebrate?

Feel free to celebrate! I’m quite sure that every nonbinary person reading this has at least one memory of being told they can’t wear something because it wasn’t appropriate for whatever gender they were perceived as at the time. Likewise, I’m also sure the men can remember being told “Real Men™️ don’t wear (something fun that you’d really like to wear).” Today, and every day, really, is the day to remind those people they don’t get a say in how you, or anyone else, dress.

Beauty Trends That Men Hate Day

I am trying to start a holiday called “Beauty Trends That Men Hate Day”. It is to be celebrated on the last Monday in November by wearing fashion that is either on some list of “Beauty/Fashion Trends That Men Hate” or they have been told “men don’t like it when you wear…” The purpose of this holiday is to raise awareness of the fact that these fashions are being worn solely for the pleasure of the person wearing it and not a misguided attempt for male approval.

[velvetvexations]

(someone should correct me if I get anything wrong about forcemasc and autoandrophilia)

The thing about autoandrophilia and autogynephilia is that they're extremely basic concepts. The idea of fetishizing becoming a man or a woman a very simple idea. Using it as a basis to "explain" trans people is dumb and wrong but that both cis people and trans people would have kinks that fit that definition is neither surprising nor should it be scandalous. Forcemasc is often tagged transandrophilia because it literally is fetishizing taking on aspects of masculinity from a theoretical starting point of non-masculinity, regardless of if "beginning as something other than a man" is how one conceptualizes their transness out of kink. Forcefem kink likewise fits the definition of autogynephilia, but isn't used because, while transmascs also get routinely accused of what is in essence autoandrophilia, that specific word is used less, and so autogynephilia has a more viscerally negative reaction even though it's obviously also fetishizing transitioning and the act of becoming and/or being a woman.

It's very arguable, though, that the dictionary definitions of autoandrophilia and autogynephilia can be taken at face value because it's whole conception and advancement are transphobic in nature. No one ever applies them to cis men and women, for instance, even though cis sissies should also fall under the category of autogynephilic. I believe there are people who self-identify as AGPs but I know nothing about them. You could go by that dictionary definition, but can you really do so neutrally or is just a poison word from the ground up? Autoandrophilia may be used by actual transphobes less, but it does get used, so some transmascs have chosen to do so on their end in spite of that. Presumably there are transmascs who are into forcemasc but don't like the term autoandrophilia and actively avoid it, too.

There are in fact transfems who do actually fetishize the concept of autogynephilia as well, of which I am one myself. The funny thing about that, though, is that while forcemasc tagged autoandrophilia is autoandrophilia, all transfem content I've seen to use AGP is closer to a form of autoandrophilia itself, getting off on how one's masculine features contrasts with societal standards of femininity. Like, to go all "ohhh I'm such an AGP freak >:3" you're not actually doing autogynephilia, you're getting off on the idea of theoretically not being a woman, which is the exact opposite of an actually "autogynephilic" kink.

AGP kink is an element of misgendering and detrans kink. For transmascs, as far as I can tell, misgendering and detrans kink usually takes the form of being an extension of misogyny kink, while for transfems it leans more towards things like trans supremacy. In both cases the idea is that both are, within the simulated kink scenario, applying cissexist bioessentialist ideas to revert trans women and trans men alike into sexual stereotypes of their AGAB, which is to say sexually aggressive dominant men and sexually weak submissive women. There are some transmasc trans supremacy doms, however. There are also a lot of submissive trans women into misgendering/detrans or kinks adjacent to those, for whom it goes into homophobia and sissy stuff, or just the general masochism of processing the pain that often comes with unwanted detransition.

I kinna got off on a tangent here, but I just like talking about kink. Ultimately it's within the rights of transmascs to use the word autoandrophilia if they want to because it is something that also gets thrown at them even if not always using that name (and often indeed using that name) while transfems are within their rights to not use it. Yes, I know this may be shocking, but the big conclusion here is "do what you like and let other people do what they like."

[zacks-pawz]

I'm going to say something most people are not going to see this but I feel like getting it out there anyways

The nonhuman identity is not one exact thing. Never has and never will be. It is so different for every single person.

Some nonhumans might not consider a single part of them humans, while some might consider that they do have a human body, but it feels like they are an animal inside.

It will never be one thing. That is why trying to make a definition is causing much more harm then good.

And I completely believe that with my whole heart. Saying that a nohuman is anyone who doesn't identify as a human is hurtful to nonhumans who identify partly as a human.

Just like saying a nonhuman is a human who feels like an animal inside can harm nonhumans who just are creatures.

Saying that a nonhuman is one definite thing is harming everyone in the community.

Yes I understand that a definition can help humans understand nonhumans and can help change hurtful mindsets some people have. But at the same time it is not going to help our community if we are actively harming folks in the community.

One great way to talk to someone about your nonhuman identity is to just talk about YOUR nonhuman identity. Don't speak for all in fact make sure you say that not all nonhumans think this way.

It is so important if you want the nonhuman identity to be normalized to not harm any creature in our community.

Also I just want to say that so far of all nonhuman online spaces I've been on tumbler is the best. It is so inviting and helped me to truly understand my own nonhuman identity after being told everywhere else that I was wrong for genuinely identifying as an animal.

[aihoshiino]

Focusing on less... *waves hand at recent chapters* things, you mentioned in an earlier ask how a duo of Ai and Kana would interact, and I think that raises the obvious question of: what about how Akane would interact with her? Would she unofficially adopt Ai (assuming similar ages obv) like she sorta did with Aqua, or would there be a more equal dynamic there?

It's funny you mention Kana because I've always imagined a peer-aged Akane & Ai dynamic to being kind of like... sort of a blend of how Akane behaves in relation to both Kana and Yuki and how Ai behaves in relation to Nino (and the other B-Komachi girls, presumably).

Akane has this, um, Interesting (🏳️‍🌈❓🤨) pattern of behaviour in relation to certain types of other girls where she sort of... fixates on them in a very particular way. Her rivalry with Kana is a lot more pointedly hostile so it's easy for it to get lost in the noise, but with both Kana and Yuki, Akane clearly sees something in them that she wants to both bask in and borrow for herself - some inner light that she doesn't seem to think of herself as being able to radiate as well. I think it's pretty clear that Akane both has low self esteem and also kind of like... a weak self image? If that makes sense. She doesn't have a super firm grasp on her own identity and what she does know, she doesn't really like - it's why she's so able and willing to be totally consumed by her roles the way she is and why she over-identifies with and projects onto them.

And we see her do that with Ai herself. even if only posthumously, to the extent that we see her continue to do it long after LoveNow. I kind of feel like there was a part of her that saw a lot of herself in Ai and that Ai was simultaneously somebody who was like her but someone who was better that Akane could absorb some part of. I definitely think she has some weird parasocial feelings about Ai which bleed into her sense of responsibility for Aqua and Ruby, but that's a post for another day lol.

ANYWAY... my point was that, taking all the above into account... can you IMAGINE how deeply Normal Akane would be about not just an alive Ai but one who is a peer and essentially a co-worker and rival to her? Ai is basically Kana on God Mode but instead of lashing out at Akane with externalized hostility, Ai holds her at a careful, suffocating distance, refusing to either reject her or to let her get too close?

the toxic yurisms write themselves........

[alexanderwales]

Chapter three of Save the Cat is about figuring out who your "hero" is. This is the money quote:

Tell me a story about a guy who ... I can identify with. I can learn from. I have compelling reason to follow. I believe deserves to win and ... Has stakes that are primal and ring true to me.

And of course this is fine for mass market stuff, which is good given the book is written with mass market movie-goers in mind. But I'm (as Blake Snyder says) a bullheaded writer, and I don't want to write a story like that, or not all the time.

I want a hero who is grappling with purpose, who is facing existential dread, who worries about his legacy or what his life will end up meaning, who cares about the nature of personhood and reality. I want a guy whose stakes are "oh god, is this all predestined" or "are clones people" or "what does it ethically mean to steer a culture". I don't want this all the time, but I do want it a lot of the time. And according to Blake Snyder, this is the sort of story that you can practically hear audiences and producers walking away from.

My next web serial will be Doomsday Pivot!, and the logline is in flux, because the first book is written but unedited, and there's still time to make changes. The short version is, the world has broken apart and everyone gets to choose a character class, so a small startup pivots to becoming their city's first expeditionary force. Something like that, anyway. The stakes are survival, which is primal enough by Blake Snyder's metrics, but that leaves the question of who the protagonist is.

It's not what's in the book, but my sense is that you can give a few of the directives from the money quote a miss and still be fine, and your main character doesn't need to be a complete prototype of the main demographic (or who that demographic sees themselves in, or wants to be).

But it does leave me thinking about my protagonist, and how he's framed, and how to frontload what the audience wants so I can earn some slack later on. There's a particular bit about age there, how going younger is usually the right call, and some of this is outdated market advice given that the book was written in 2005, but I'm approaching 40, and I think I do tend to think of characters as being my same age just by default. My market is a lot different from Snyder's market, mostly in the sense that it skews much younger, mostly teenagers, even if the median patron is older.

So I am left asking myself some questions, which I think is good, and one of the reasons I'm reading this book. Should my protagonist be 34? Or 26? What's the one single adjective that I would use to describe him? What's the one single adjective I would use to describe the antagonists? Snyder suggests that being a slave to the logline is a good thing, and makes for a better story, and I have my own thoughts on that, but one of the pieces of advice that I've been giving in the last few years is "find a singular guiding star for your story and make sure that you don't point yourself too far away from it". I suppose that guiding star could be a logline, though I have my own disagreements with the "logline first" practice.

There are also some parts I found interesting if irrelevant to me about writing with casting in mind, and making sure it's a part that many people can play, but I think it's industry insider stuff that won't become relevant unless I spontaneously decide to start writing scripts with intent to sell, which seems unlikely.

[marbles-for-breakfast]

Thoughts/Arguments about Endogenic systems:

(for context, I’m probably best described as “quoigenic”, but I don’t really identify with any origin label because I think they ultimately cause more confusion than clarity)

Firstly, for those who don’t know, the term endogenic is about the narrative of your own existence. It was created by a diagnosed DID system which believes they were born plural and would have been plural regardless of the trauma they experienced. Whether you personally believe that to be true is your business, but I fail to understand how people think that idea is harmful, ableist or anything else. Not everybody wants to conceive of the origin of their existence in the same way. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Trying to force people to adopt a certain narrative about their own life doesn’t help anyone or prevent any sort of harm.

As far as willogenic systems go (because they’re under the endo umbrella, I’m pretty sure), I really don’t know enough about them to have a super definitive opinion. People seem to have mostly positive experiences with it, and it sure doesn’t affect me whether somebody I don’t know tries to make headmates through things like meditation. It’s obviously something quite different than DID, but I imagine it could work similarly in some ways, so I don’t really mind them using terms like ‘system’. I do understand the aversion to willogenics to some extent, though. I feel that sometimes too. And ultimately I think that’s because they get to make a choice that I wasn’t given. And they get to skip syscovery, and probably a lot of dissociation on top of that. It’s tempting to resent them, to assume they see it as a fun or frivolous thing, and are totally ignorant of our problems and suffering. But I don’t think that’s true.

They know what DID is. They know it’s usually caused by trauma, and often serious abuse. They know it is a serious disorder that can make life very difficult. They also know that they created headmates through meditation or something, and now they’re a system. Why should that upset us? Why do we think we own plurality just because we suffered more on the road here? Maybe you think they’re wrong about having headmates, but…. how would we know? Just because an experience isn’t accepted or understood by the field of psychology doesn’t mean it’s not happening. And I make a point to believe people about their own minds.

Just because they don’t have DID and have very different experiences to people with DID doesn’t mean they can’t acknowledge that those experiences do have some similarities. And it certainly doesn’t mean they can’t find community with OSDDID systems who want to normalize plurality itself in order to make life easier for all systems. It may seem “weird” to us, we might not understand it, but that doesn’t mean we should deny just because we originally learned that DID (and therefore plurality) can only form through extreme trauma. Aren’t a lot of the things we originally learned about DID wrong? Aren’t a lot of the things we assumed about it wrong? We, as a species, have never understood the human brain. Even doctors and educators make assumptions about what’s impossible without looking into it enough to prove that.

But when tons of people tell you they created headmates on purpose, and you don’t really have a reason to think they’re wrong other than “I don’t think that’s possible”, maybe it’s time to switch to, “idk how that works, but you do you”. It’s time to acknowledge that someone living their life in a way that you wouldn’t choose for yourself is actually completely fine. I mean, as long as they’re not hurting anybody obviously, but willogenics are not hurting anybody by being openly willogenic.

So yeah, endogenic systems are not inherently a threat to you or anyone else.

This post sums up my thoughts pretty well, so I might just refer people to it in the future. If you’re here from that, thanks for hearing what I have to say. I hope it helps you refine your worldview in some way. You don’t have to agree with everything I said here. I just hope you at least interact with people with more good faith (believing what they say until they give you a reason not to).