#didn't even say a number

[fazcinatingblog]

Me: walk into doctor's office

Doctor, who I've never met before: get on the scales, we need to record your weight

Me: *thinks* okayyyy this won't be too bad

Scales: Sophia was right

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Happy Valentine's Day! (and this blog's first post anniversary!)

[inkskinned]

im gonna start a fight; and, at the same time, i need you to take this in the most good-faith way possible, but:

videos that involve body-checking and intentionally (and uncritically) show a mealplan of an unhealthy number of calories are just a revamped version of pro-ana food diaries.

and yeah, i know there's arguments. i address some of them under the cut. but at the end of the day, we're just coming back to romanticizing mental illness; we've just found a better platform for it.

this is already something we've done. we knew it was wrong and tried to stop it. and tbh. it just wasn't enough.

there are people who argue "well, what if you have an eating disorder, you can't help it if you don't eat!" except that as someone with an ED; we are not infants. we know what we're doing. part of having an ED is that you are like, maybe too self-aware. even if we can't help our own food choices, we don't need to fucking romanticize the disorder - something we've been warning you about since 2013. there are hours of setup, filming, and editing that go into these videos. they do not happen to fall into place randomly. there is a reason they are pieced together to be beautiful, bright, inspiring.

there's this woman who pretty much only posts daily plans under a normal amount of calories, and everyone defends her saying but it's better than nothing! and i'm like. except she opens those with images of her showing off her body and provides no context in the video or caption that suggests that she believes what she's doing is unhealthy. she has hundreds of thousands of followers on a platform designed for young kids and teens. i refuse to believe that by accident her content just happens to be cheery advice on "healthy" versions of starving.

for any other symptom of mental illness, we would be incredibly enraged by this kind of placid acceptance of a "tips and tricks" fast-start guide. imagine if people posted pink & pretty videos saying "best places to cut yourself" as if it was a fucking storytime. we, as a society, are so fucking fatphobic that we would rather accept blatantly harmful displays of self harm than admit that we are obsessed with a hyper-thin body type.

i am not suggesting someone never talks about their disorder. i talk about mine. actually, it's a plot point in my book.

here's the difference: i recognize it's a fucking mental illness. i am very careful to never mention a specific weight, eating pattern, or calorie plan. i always make sure to position it as something that ruined my fucking life. i do not put cheery music in the background and hearts and sparkles over my worst moments. i do not film it in bright light. i do not start each passage with an image of a thin body followed by "here's how to look like her."

eating disorders should not be framed as aspirational. and the problem is that society worships the "after" image, so long as you don't get too sick. there is a reason so many people who quit being "influencers" will later admit - i wasn't eating well that whole time; an obsession with food was completely destroying my life.

we let any uncredited, uncertified person write the most backwards, fucked up shit about how to get the body you desire! because the underlying, secret belief is: well, at least they're thin! and the real thing that fucking gets me each time - they make fucking money off of it. their irresponsibility and societal harm literally pays off for them.

"why do you care so much." "don't like it don't look." "so what if people experiment with new ways of thinking of food?"

thank you for asking. we're about to get extremely personal. it's because when i was 18 i discovered "thinspiration"/"thinspo." and it absolutely influenced, shaped, and codified my pre-existing eating disorder. i went from having some troubling habits and traits to being incredibly unwell within what felt like a matter of days. there were actual pages designed to train me on how to have an ED correctly. it was all so suddenly easy. i was sick; and the nature of the illness meant - i wanted to be sicker.

it takes an average of 7 years for a person to fully recover. i know this personally - even now, 10 years from the worst of it, i still fucking struggle. i am so much happier now and i eat what i want and i literally don't think about food at all (19 year old me would shudder) and yet - i still fucking know the calories of plain toast with butter.

an eating disorder is one of the deadliest types of mental illness. over 1 in 4 people with an ED will attempt suicide.

and i'm sorry. i just do not see the exchange rate of "high rate of engagement" versus "the value of a human life."

[notbecauseofvictories]

It's interesting, because at my last job my boss was good---very good---about creating and fostering relationships. At the time I was horrified, because why are you texting our general counsel? Why are you calling someone up and asking them to opine on something that's just showed up on your radar?? This is business, we need to do business-y things in a business way!!!

It took me a long time to recognize what this approach bought him. He was terrible at data entry, yes. I don't think he once ever approved my vacation time, just said "sure, put your out of office message on." (He hated approving vacation time, so he just....didn't.) But he was looped in, hooked in, always consulted. Everyone picked up his calls, because if he was calling it wasn't going to be a haranguing, he wanted to work with you to achieve both your goals, and honestly? you could call him out of the blue too. It worked both ways. He was crystal clear when things were handed down from the top (usually because we'd get a beer and he'd complain about it) and when requests were coming from him/our team. And he was always, always very clear that we were his people, and it was Us against The Company; he was consistently, unequivocally and completely on our side.

(........this did not stop The Company from pulling its shenanigans, but it always felt like he was siding with Us when it did.)

I know this, because now I'm in an organization where my boss isn't on our side, where things aren't explained---even when explanations would make the boss' requests more reasonable. I'm aware of other situations too, where members of the team have been what seems like deliberately insulted or attacked by our boss, which is frankly unnecessary.

I don't have a conclusion to draw from all of this, and god knows that bad bosses are ten a penny, each terrible in their own way. Still, I do think about it more and more, particularly as I stare down 1 year with the company.

[helenofblackthorns]

reading tftsa is always an emotional experience especially when you get the short stories focused around the Blackthorns because the absence of Mark just bleeds out. like when you read about Julian being Helen's suggenes and Simon being the witness to Julian's parabatai ceremony you are just burdened with the knowledge that that's not who they would have picked if the circumstances were different. in a different life it was Mark.

[foxstens]

'he wasn't sorry but he didn't know how to live without kevin'

that's so fucking interesting you don't understand. kevin did not have a good time in his first few months at psu, or throughout the entire year actually, but he latched onto andrew and then neil so hard, even if the foxes weren't particularly nice to him they still probably helped keep him afloat mentally.

jean became riko's official partner after but he had a longer leash than kevin and he still slept in his own room. riko left kevin's side of the room untouched. riko slept alone the entire year. when was the last time he slept alone, woke up alone, did anything at all without kevin by his side. a decade ago?

but he wasn't sorry, because in that moment he saw kevin as a threat and this is what happens when you defy a moriyama. and the ravens turned on kevin instead, because of course they did. so he wasn't sorry but he still wanted kevin to come back, he wanted kevin to watch from the sidelines as riko lived out their dreams because he still couldn't imagine a future without kevin there in some capacity. he very nearly destroyed kevin to keep his status as 'number 1' (because who is he when he's not number 1) but at the same time he couldn't give up on kevin. and that ended up being his downfall, because between his obsession with riko and his need to be the best, kevin chose the latter, somehow.

[astralhope]

Yuma beings Astral's main concern even when Astral himself is in danger.

[twilight-deviant]

Watcher fans sure are entitled and a little insane, ngl. "No one is going to sign up for your service! We're all poor! You've made the worst decision, and you'll be back in no time!" Saying this directly to the creators really reminds you of how low the respect for people you don't personally know has gone. I miss the forth wall between creator and audience.

I get and fully understand not having the money to support them, but... Watcher does have fans with money. A lot of them actually. They have merch sales. Their live tour sells out most venues. They have thousands of supporters on Patreon, where the cheapest tier is $5. They're able to gauge the rough finances of their staunchest supporters; that's how they landed on the subscription price. Yes, this move will reduce their viewership in sheer numbers, but to say all of their fans are broke and none will follow/support is factually incorrect.

It may not be a decision everyone agrees with, but severing the limitations of advertisers and youtube in favor of artistic freedom is a good thing. Yes, even if it comes with a loss of revenue. They understand that risk.

Also, I'm begging people to stop treating this like "another Netflix" or something and instead look at it as, "I am supporting a creator I like, similar to Patreon." They literally said in the video that they don't care if you share accounts. Get five friends, and you'll pay $1/mo.

I hate feeling compelled to rant in favor of their decision because I have my own reservations about whether it's the best move. However, I know it's not a choice they made lightly, and I like to think they understand that they'll need to branch out like crazy to entice subscribers.

[gayofthefae]

Found a new, concise way of putting it that I'm gonna try and remember so I can reuse it:

To say, as a straight person, that a queer character's queerness is out of the blue or unrealistic is to claim that they understand the queer experience to be able to identify inaccurate representation of it.

To call a character's queerness out of the blue as a straight person is to claim full understanding of the queer experience.

[jopzer]

rubbing my fucking temples. roy kent always remains huh

[tj-crochets]

this poll brought to you by a text I got from one of the other [my job title]'s contractors while I'm covering for him being gone. The contractor texted me "The answer is as always [his name] [his company ID number]" To which I could only say "what was the question?"

[capybaraonabicycle]

Doctor: Huh, is that who I am now?

Donna: It was never that far from the surface, mate.

Doctor: frowns Yes, it was! You know I used to be a woman. And that made people... assume all sorts of stuff. And - and pretending to be Graham's wife for five minutes was bad enough but - Byron? That was torture. Does the man ever stop talking?

Donna: Takes one to know one

Doctor: Oi! I just mean, there were all these men people assumed I would be into and I - and I just - I just wanted -

Donna: I know, darling.

Doctor: softly I just wanted Yaz.

Donna: I know. - There was one man, though, remember?

Doctor: No, there wasn't! I don't fancy the Master!

Donna: ...

Doctor: Okay, fine. But the Master isn't a man. He's like me! Flexible - uh - timelord gender and stuff.

Donna: Sure.

Doctor: So, anyway, I have always been primarily into wom-

Donna: What about Jack Harkness?

Doctor: - Jack doesn't count, everyone fancies Jack.

Donna: ...fair enough.

[keelanrosa]

started reading the cass review because i'm apparently just Like That and i want everybody crowing about how this proves sooooo much about how terfs are right and trans people are wrong to like. take a scientific literacy class or something. or even just read the occasional study besides the one you're currently trying to prove a point with. not even necessarily pro-trans studies just learn how to know what studies actually found as opposed to what people trying to spoonfeed you an agenda claim they found.

to use just one infuriating example:

Several studies from that period (Green et al., 1987; Zucker, 1985) suggested that in a minority (approximately 15%) of pre-pubertal children presenting with gender incongruence, this persisted into adulthood. The majority of these children became same-sex attracted, cisgender adults. These early studies were criticised on the basis that not all the children had a formal diagnosis of gender incongruence or gender dysphoria, but a review of the literature (Ristori & Steensma, 2016) noted that later studies (Drummond et al., 2008; Steensma & Cohen-Kettenis, 2015; Wallien et al., 2008) also found persistence rates of 10-33% in cohorts who had met formal diagnostic criteria at initial assessment, and had longer follow-up periods.

if you recognize the names Zucker and Steensma you are probably already going feral but tldr:

There are… many problems with Zucker's studies, "not all children had a formal diagnosis" is so far down the list this is literally the first i've heard of it. The closest i usually hear is the old DSM criteria for gender identity disorder was totally different from the current DSM criteria for gender dysphoria and/or how most people currently define "transgender"; notably it did not require the patient to identify as a different gender and overall better fits what we currently call "gender-non-comforming". Whether the kids had a formal diagnosis of "maybe trans, maybe just has different hobbies than expected, but either way their parents want them back in their neat little societal boxes" is absolutely not the main issue. This would be a problem even if Zucker was pro-trans (spoiler: He Is Not, and people who are immediately suspicious of pro-trans studies because "they're probably funded by big pharma or someone else who profits from transitioning" should apply at least a little of that suspicion to the guy who made a living running a conversion clinic); sometimes "formal" criteria change as we learn more about what's common, what's uncommon, what's uncommon but irrelevant, etc, and when the criteria changes drastically enough it doesn't make sense to pretend the old studies perfectly apply to the new criteria. If you found a study defining "sex" specifically and exclusively as penetration with a dick which says gay men have as much sex as straight men but lesbians don't, it's not necessarily wrong as far as it goes but if THAT'S your prime citation for "gay men have more sex than lesbians", especially if you keep trying to apply it in contexts which obviously use a broader definition, there are gonna be a lot of people disagreeing with you and it won't be because they're stubbornly unscientific.

Also Zucker is pro conversion therapy. Yes, pro converting trans people to cis people, but also pro converting gay people to straight people. That doesn't necessarily affect his results, i just find it funny how many people enthusiastically support his findings as evidence transitioning is… basically anti-gay conversion therapy? (even though plenty of trans people transition to gay? including T4T people so even the "that's actually just how straight people try to get with gay people" rationale for gay trans people is incredibly weak? and also HRT has a relatively low but non-zero chance of changing sexual orientation so it wouldn't even be reliable as a means of "becoming straight"? but a guy who couldn't reliably tell the difference between a tomboy and a trans boy figured out the former is more common than the latter + in one whole country where being trans is legal but being gay is not, sometimes cis gay people transition, so OBVIOUSLY that means sexism and homophobia are the driving factors even in countries with significant transphobia. or something.) anyway i hope zucker knows and hates how many gay people and allies are using his own study to trash-talk any attempts to be Less Gay. ideally nobody would take his nonsense seriously at all but it doesn't seem we'll be spared from that any time soon so i will take my schadenfreude where i can.

Steensma's studies have the exact same problem re: irrelevant criteria so "well someone ELSE had the same results!" is not exactly convincing. This is not "oh trans people are refusing to pay attention to these studies because they disagree with them regardless of scientific rigor", it's "one biased guy using outdated criteria found exactly the numbers everyone would expect based on that criteria, i can't imagine why trans people are treating those numbers as relevant to the past criteria but not present definitions, let's find a SECOND guy using outdated criteria. Why do people keep saying the outdated criteria is not relevant to the current state of trans healthcare. Don't we all know it's quantity over quality with scientific studies. (Please don't ask what the quantity of studies disagreeing with me is.)"

Steensma also counted patients as 'not persisting as transgender' if they ghosted him on follow-up which counted for a third of his study's "detransitioners" and a fifth of the total subjects and. look. i'm not saying none of them detransitioned, or assuming they all didn't would be notably more accurate, but i think we can safely treat twenty percent of subjects as a bit high for making a default assumption, especially when some of them might have simply not been interested in a study on whether or not they still know who they are. Fuck knows i've seen pro-trans studies which didn't make assumptions about the people who didn't respond still get prodded by anti-trans people insisting "the number of people claiming they don't regret transitioning can't possibly be so high, some of the people who responded must have been lying. (Scientific rigor means thinking studies which disagree with me are wrong even if the only explanation is the subjects lying and studies which agree with me are right even if we need to make assumptions about a lot of subjects to get there.)"

and this is not new information. not the issues with zucker, not the issues with steensma, not any of the issues because this is not a new study, it's a review of older studies, which in itself doesn't mean "bad" or "useless" -- sometimes that allows connecting some previously-unconnected dots -- but the idea this is going to absolutely blow apart the Woke Media, vindicate Rowling and Lineham, and "save" ""gay"" children from """being forcibly transed""" is bullshit. At most it'll get dragged around and eagerly cited by all the people looking for anything vaguely scientific-sounding to justify their beliefs, and maybe even people who only read headlines and sound bites will buy it, but the people who really believe it will be people who already agreed with all its "findings" and have already been dragging around the existing studies and are just excited to have a shiny new citation for it.

the response from people who've been really reading research on transgender people all along is going to be more along the lines of "……yeah. yeah, i already knew about that. do you need a three-page essay on why i don't think it means what you think it means? because i don't have time for that homework right now but maybe i can pencil it in for next semester if you haven't learned how to check your own sources by then."

[superhell]

day one of working for house you get a brief that is a photo of wilson along with his pager and cell numbers and the instructions that you MUST tell this guy anything house does. you have GOT to keep him notified. and everyones like ‘thats ridiculous’ right up until 2 hours in when they watch wilson talk house down from doing something TRULY reckless. and then they never ever forget. tell wilson. its in the hospital handbook

[wormchaser]

you are complaining about complaining too much while complaining about the fact that maybe people dont like you because you complain too much while complaining about being alone. just stop complaining and do something about it. talk to people. reach out. dont just wait for someone to come to you first.

i have tried reaching out to different people in the past year or so but it never works. i understand its my own fault for letting relationships decay because of my own insecurities and issues but that doesn't mean i can just will myself to think or believe different things about myself. it's a self fulfilling prophecy ; i think people don't like me so i don't reach out so people don't like me etc . i am sure you do not want to hear me list all the things i want to say in response so i will put them in the tags.

[worstloki]

saw someone on twitter say "one of the main characters in a loki show should have been thor odinson, not some random Sylvie or Mobius.

...... It's like a written law"

wdyt do you agree

I don't think it was necessary to make Thor a main character in a Loki show, the same way it WOULD be possible to throw together a Thor movie without having Loki be a main focus.

The issue comes in the quality of the narrative itself, and writing that if evidently without intention to care for (whichever) main character's importance will not work out. Neither the Loki series nor Thor 4 cared about the arc, motivations, history, or continuity of the titular characters beyond trying to make the media marketable.

Overall messaging can add a layer to the impact a story will have. Musical score can be a bonus way to control tone or tie a story together. Supporting cast can be vital to tell a good story. Prioritising their presence over anyone's (especially Loki's) characterisation is what the Loki series suffered from, not that other, original-adjacent characters were there.