#don't believe anyone who doesn't cite a source

[kaelor0409]

It's politics.

The Harris campaign seems to be running two strategies right now.

The first targets "the libs" and is aimed at making Trump as scary as possible. The only thing everyone really agrees on is that Trump is a nightmare, so she's making sure everyone knows how bad a second Trump win would be. This ensures everyone on the Left votes for her, if only to keep Trump out of the Oval Office.

The second targets conservatives. Believe it or not, Trump isn't universally popular in the GOP. They aren't all fanatic idiots: some do realize that Trump is a corrupt criminal. It's why so many traditionally Red states flipped in 2020. They're still conservative though, and many are terrified that a Democrat win could somehow turn the country into a communist hellhole.

This is why Harris has been preaching "small town values", picked a VP who is basically the poster boy for "Midwestern Nice", and is promising a conservative seat in her cabinet. She is trying to win over those Conservatives who don't like Trump but also don't like Democrats. Just look at all the "I voted for Trump in 2016, but now I'm voting for Harris!" ads she's running.

Trump won in 2016 because the Democrat vote was divided, and lost in 2020 because the Republican vote was divided. This isn't about virtue signaling or being suicidally inclusive. It's about breaking the GOP base and getting as many votes as possible from both sides of the aisle.

Also known as politics.

[sophieinwonderland]

Debunking Anti(-endo's)Misinfo. AKA: How are anti-endos so bad at sources????

(The original)

Oh, well good on you for trying to cover everything! Nice of anti-endos to finally start trying to use science to prove their arguments. I'm sure these sources will totally be reliable and will prove your points beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that you won't just be falling flat on your face with every single attempt at basic reading comprehension, and end up repeatedly make a complete fool of yourself.

Let's go!

Off to a pretty strong start, acknowledging that many endogenic systems don't have DID or OSDD. Sadly, that basic fact is something that seems to escape most anti-endos. So with this in mind, I think it's safe to say the goal of this post is going to be to prove...

You can't possibly have DID without trauma.

You can't possibly have OSDD without trauma.

You can't be a system without DID/OSDD.

Let's read through and see how they'll do at proving their points by the end. I promise you, the results... won't surprise you. 😉

Well, there goes that strong start.

The source here is a Carrd and so-called "common sense."

Meanwhile, in the World Health Organization's ICD-11, alters or dissociative identities are described as "distinct personality states." In the same page, it's stated that you can have multiple "distinct personality states" without a disorder.

This is information from the World Health Organization affirming that you can be plural without a disorder. And I think that prevails over your so-called "common sense."

See also these screenshots from the plurality chapter of Transgender Mental Health, a book published by the American Psychiatric Association:

Finally, I really want to put a focus on this line of logic: "you cannot have alters without having a disorder, this is common sense as it's not normal to have alters."

Normal has multiple meanings in different contexts. The ICD-11's boundary with normality uses normal to mean "non-pathological." But this post seems to be using "normal" in the lay way to mean "common."

And that makes this particular rhetoric extremely dangerous and harmful to many communities. "If it's not common, it's a mental illness," was the basis for homosexuality and being transgender being listed as mental illnesses. "Most people don't think this way, so there's something wrong with them."

This could also easily be used to pathologize Otherkin and other alterhumans as mentally ill because it's not "normal" to identify as an animal.

The modern World Health Organization and American Psychiatric Association recognize the fact that simply thinking unusually or differently isn't an illness or disorder.

Statements like yours do not exist within a vacuum, but harken back to decades past when any non-typical thinking would have you labeled as having a disorder that needed treated.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Let's be thankful to live in a world today where our differences aren't considered disorders. And let's not resort to ideologies that threaten to return us to those days past.

Wait... who suggests this? Who are they? I think I need more info...

So... "some researchers."

Also, can we talk about how this starts off with "sometimes called multiple personality disorder." I checked to see if this was before the name changed in the ICD (which I believe was 2015) and it doesn't seem to be! Oldest archive I can find is 2020!

Rethink.org is a charity.

These are not peer-reviewed papers.

The page references "some researchers" without names or sources.

I have no idea who authored this or if they're qualified at all in this field.

This is a terrible source. A web page by an anonymous author citing other unnamed authors with no reason to think anyone who wrote this had any idea what they were talking about!

This says DID is caused by many things, and lists trauma as only one that's included. This doesn't back up the idea DID/OSDD can only be caused by trauma, and suggests the opposite.

Oh, and "it's also known as split personality disorder." 😔

Go home WebMD.

Usually associated with doesn't mean it's a requirement, and in fact implies that it isn't always.

"Is associated with." "Can be a response to trauma."

Reiterating that the first two goals here were to prove you can't have DID or OSDD without trauma. And these aren't doing that.

An association doesn't mean there's a causation, and it doesn't mean that association is there in 100% of cases.

"often develop."

Like with "usually", you wouldn't use the word often if if something always happened. The choice of wording implies you can have dissociative disorders without trauma.

Are... they messing with us right now???

I swear, you can't have a post that sets out with the goal of disproving the existence of endogenic plurality, and then use quotes that seem to consistently imply there can be other causes for DID and not pick up on that theme!

Oh, yay! We finally got a quote that's actually trying to argue the point we started with.

But, again, this runs into a similar issue to the ReThink.org one. This is a random independent organization. There is no author for this article. It hasn't undergone peer review like an academic paper would.

There is no evidence the person who wrote this article is actually educated in dissociative disorders.

And finally back to "usually."

You must be so proud...

Source Round-Up

There was a lot here, so let's just recap.

6 out of 8 of these sources only say that DID is "usually" or "often" or "can be" caused by or associated with trauma. These actually imply there are cases where it's NOT caused by trauma, going against the original goals of this post.

Finally, there were two sources, Rethink and Mind.org, which did suggest DID is just caused by trauma, full stop. But both of these are extremely questionable as sources.

Neither named their authors. There's no indication what the review process is for their websites. And "Rethink" merely said this is what "some researchers" believe.

So let's double back to those goals set at the beginning.

You can't possibly have DID without trauma: One source says this, but the reliability of that source is questionable. Another source says some researchers are saying this but doesn't name any researchers or cite those sources. Meanwhile, the other six sources imply that it IS possible for DID to exist without trauma.

You can't possibly have OSDD without trauma: Neither of the two sources that suggest DID can only be caused by trauma mention OSDD at all.

You can't be a system without DID/OSDD: None of the sources suggest you need DID/OSDD to be a system or to be plural.

So far, you've failed to prove you can't be a system without DID or OSDD. You've failed to show you can't have OSDD without trauma. And the case for DID being exclusive to trauma frankly looks weaker than before you started talking.

Incredible work so far!!!

And I mean that in the way that nothing about this is remotely credible!

Ugh. There is SO much wrong here. First, no sources for their claims about tulpamancy.

Now, tulpamancy draws its name from a Tibetan Buddhist practice called sprul pa.

This is not the same practice though. And the Tibetan Buddhist practice is NOT CALLED TULPAMANCY.

Something which should be obvious to anyone who knows even the most basic facts about language, with the -mancy suffix being derived from Latin. And tulpamancy as a practice generally isn't religious.

From Dr. Samuel Veissiere of McGill University:

The community is primarily divided between so-called psychological and metaphysical explanatory principles. In the psychological community, neuroscience (or folk neuroscience) is the explanation of choice. Tulpas are understood as mental constructs that have achieved sentience. The metaphysical explanation holds that Tulpas are agents of supernatural origins that exist outside the hosts’ minds, and who come to communicate with them. Of 118 respondents queried on the question, 76.5% identified with the psychological explanation, 8.5% with the metaphysical, and 14% with a variety of “other” explanations, such as a mixture of psychological and metaphysical.

When discussing the research into tulpamancy, we're not discussing a religious or spiritual practice that's been validated by psychologists.

We're talking about a primarily psychological practice that's been validated by psychologists.

And as for the DSM quote, it confirms that religious practices aren't a disorder. Cool. But it also implies that religious practices can result in multiple distinct personality states. Hence why they needed that criterion. It's not stated as explicitly in the DSM as in the ICD, but the implication is there, especially when taken together.

Whether you call these "alters" or not is up to you. Most endogenic systems aren't using the word "alter" to describe their headmates.

But regardless of the word, what the research is showing is that there are multiple phenomena which can result in people having multiple self-conscious agents sharing the same body.

I mean, you've still done a really bad job at showing DID and OSDD form purely from trauma, with many of your sources straight up saying the opposite.

And remember, a lot of mixed origin systems will say that their other headmates aren't caused by or related to their disorder. And there are documented cases of people with DID both having alters associated with DID, and having non-aversive entities they commune with outside of that, as Kluft references in this paper:

The woman he describes here, who experienced ceding control to another entity who talked through her, would qualify as a mixed origin system in the modern plural community.

SIX OF YOUR EIGHT SOURCES LEFT THE DOOR OPEN FOR DID TO FORM WITHOUT TRAUMA!

NONE CLAIMED OSDD COULD ONLY COME FROM TRAUMA!

NONE CLAIMED YOU NEEDED DID OR OSDD TO BE PLURAL!

Your sources are NOT claiming what you think they're claiming!!!!!!!

If this is "all the proof you need," to say endogenic systems aren't valid, it's clear you were only ever interested in confirming your worldview.

But surely you can't seriously think this will convince anyone who isn't already indoctrinated!

Not even addressing this in full. It's such a blatant strawman that it's not worth my time.

There are similarities between plurality and being LGBTQ. Especially to the many trans systems out there who are seeing anti-endos use the same rhetoric that transmeds have. Or like you did earlier, are endorsing the same types of views that led to homosexuality being pathologized until the 70s. But nobody is saying it's the exactly the same!

I'm not sure what this is specifically referring to. But it might be about the line in the differential diagnosis for DID in the PTSD section where it's stated DID may not be preceded by trauma or have co-occurring PTSD symptoms.

It does also say in another section that DID is associated with trauma, but it never actually says that's the only way to get DID.

This is a straight-up lie. Most sources used by endogenic systems are less than a decade old, with some being as recent as 2023.

Here's the breakdown of some of the dates in @guardianssystem's doc, for reference:

I mean, I feel like part of the reason nobody has been able to disprove it is because a lot of its more specific claims have been really hard to test.

But that's neither here nor there.

The bigger issue you'll run into is that the creators of the theory you're citing have stated that there may be other ways for people to be plural. Or as they phrased it, having "conscious and self-conscious dissociated parts."

The above quote is from two of the three authors of The Haunted Self, the creators of the theory of the structural dissociation.

The TOSD is made to propose a way trauma can cause dissociative disorders to develop. But it does NOT suggest you need to have dissociative disorders to be plural, and I doubt the authors appreciated their work being twisted like that

Final Grade:

F-

This started with three goals.

Let's look back at them one last time.

You can't possibly have DID without trauma.

You can't possibly have OSDD without trauma.

You can't be a system without DID/OSDD.

By the end of this, have any of these claims successfully been proven?

I don't feel they have.

The first claim is what all the sources tried to focus on. But most of the sources didn't say that and didn't support it. All but two implied that DID could possibly form other ways.

And for the others? Nothing suggests OSDD can only be caused by trauma.

And you failed to provide any sources that suggested you couldn't be plural without DID and OSDD.

You completely and utterly failed to find decent sources to back up your claims, and to make a compelling case for them, at every conceivable juncture.

If I were you, I would be embarrassed to have put out something of such poor quality.

What have we learned:

Non-disordered and endogenic plurality has been supported and validated across the psychological field, including the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and Trasngender Mental Health which has been reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association.

The creators of the theory of structural dissociation believe it might be possible that "self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality" might form without trauma and that this needs to be further researched.

Tulpamancy is a mostly psychological practice that has been studied and validated by psychologists.

Anti-endos are really bad at sources.

Conversely, the majority of endogenic sources are actual peer reviewed academic papers. And contrary to false claims here, many of the papers are actually very recent.

(Tagging some tags from the original post)

[skaruresonic]

Once more I must cite sources because folks assume you'll take their "nuh-uh" as a sufficient counterargument.

While there's no "official" count, the general consensus is that there are roughly 50 or more errors within the Encyclospeedia. Greeny has documented some of them, as well as CrystalMaiden77:

Sonic Encyclospeedia Errors: by CrystalMaiden77 on DeviantArt

These are purely factual errors. That's not counting the various formatting, spelling, and grammatical errors:

---

"The other writers don't currently have any way to ask for questions reliably" - Sonic Team regularly answer fan questions on Twitter, including Shiro Maekawa.

Dr. Crusher, Did you saw Shiro Maekawa response to someone... (tumblr.com)

"Silver has always been polite" - That is Flynn's own personal interpretation. And it's wrong.

Writings From A Field of Roses — Our monthly live show on YouTube, usually on the... (tumblr.com)

---

We've been having this long, drawn-out debate for years because there are many, many layers of inaccuracy, strawman, and ego-flexing going on, but I'll just drop this link to give you a crash-course on the broad strokes:

Encyclopedia Sonnica, ✂️ "Go read something else" (tumblr.com)

---

"ST have been using mandated material to govern Shadow as this edgelord over every writer in the past 14 fucking years" - Sonic Reddit invented the concept of Shadow mandates in response to Shadow's poor portrayal in IDW 19, which spread through fandom-wide games of telephone. There's no concrete proof they exist. Nor did Shadow-specific mandates seem to exist before issue 19.

The reason why IDW Shadow acts weird : r/SonicTheHedgehog (reddit.com) Behold, the reason everyone believes the fictitious... – @skaruresonic on Tumblr

The likelier explanation for why IDW!Shadow is a poor portrayal but Dark Beginnings is not is that Flynn receives more feedback on Shadow because he doesn't understand the character.

IDW Sonic "FAQ" - Google Docs

---

"Claimed games aren't strong enough when?"

Here:

---

If "98%" of references are "impossible to find," why are players complaining about the reference overload in Frontiers' message boards?

The constant attempts to reference past lore is kinda obnoxious. - Sonic Frontiers (gamespot.com)

Not to mention he straight-up plagiarized entire lyrics to a song from a fan band and did not credit them, just as a "reference":

Just in case you thought Ian Flynn putting song lyrics in dialogue was just a Sonic thing. : r/TwoBestFriendsPlay (reddit.com)

But you’re still standing here — Man, Flynn really hates #Playthegames, huh? What... (tumblr.com)

---

You're right, he doesn't hate Amy; he simply described her as "all over the place" and not-so-subtly put her and several other prominent girl characters down, calling Blaze the "singular kick-butt female character" among them, in order to imply his OC Tangle was going to fulfill a role none of them could.

His words. Not mine.

Game Informer Interview With Ian Flynn (lastminutecontinue.com)

---

“This is how Sonic is, by SEGA, and this is me basically spelling it out, for anyone who hasn’t quite figured it out to this point.” - Flynn

But you’re still standing here — “This is how Sonic is, by SEGA, and this is me... (tumblr.com)

---

Encyclopedia Sonnica, I was looking at some posts about Archie sonic,... (tumblr.com)

---

"He likes Team Hooligan? That's a problem now?"

It is if he's heavily implying his own fanon is games canon in a lore book that people pay for when it's not.

---

---

Lol the projection is strong in this one.

If he is a credible source on the basis that he, quote, is a "fan" of the series, then he should know something as basic how Chaos Control works within the context of the game in which the move debuted. You can't pick and choose. Either he's a credible source or he's not.

How Chaos Control works is not particularly obscure knowledge that only The Elitest of Sonic fans have.

The whole "Ian isn't an encyclopedia of perfect knowledge guys, come on" thing becomes especially ironic considering how vehemently you insisted the Encyclospeedia has no errors in it just because You Said So(tm).

Sure, Jan. Whatever you say.

---

"There are completely fair and respectful critiques of Ian Flynn out there that deserve to be heard and taken in. I am not saying his works are perfect and cannot be critiqued. This is just not how you do it lol."

I don't believe you.

Considering you lot go absolutely bananas whenever people contradict Flynn in any way, shape, or form, no matter how neutral the delivery or how heavily it comes attached with sources and screenshots...

...No. I don't believe you when you say you'll allow for "fair criticism," if there even is such a thing to you guys. Everything is considered "disgusting" and "mindless" hate to you, and this entire counterthread is proof of that. You literally opened your thread describing Greeny's points as evidence of a "disgusting" bias. Well, here I am, shoving the sources in your face. Look at them.

Oh, you'll "allow" the existence of opinions you hate, but only if you personally deem them acceptable enough? How very authoritarian gracious of you.

I have seen, with my own two eyes, someone complain that it's our fault that no one can bring up "reasonable criticism" without getting hounded anyway, as if the conclusion one ought to draw from that is Haters Suck(tm) and not that the call has always come from inside the house.

The harsh truth of the matter is this: people are not going to want to bring up any flavor of criticism around you. Ever. Especially not when you descend like a pack of hellhounds and stalk, threaten, and harass over the slightest disagreement.

People hide behind anons and have decided to confine Sonic discussion to private Discords because of the overreactions of people like you, who cannot grapple with reality and instead choose to project all that hate onto someone stating facts.

[red-hot-kick]

Theory: Ryuji was popular, before.

I'm not entirely sure if anyone has really talked about this but I maintain my interpretation that, in the canon of Persona 5, Ryuji used to be very (or at least moderately) popular prior to the events of the story.

This is something I've gotten into before when talking to friends who like the game and the character, but I haven't really considered writing it down until now. The main argument I have is based on three things:

Things Ryuji alluded to in canon (but no one believed him on)

The deliberate choice of making him a track athlete

Typecasting for voice actors

1: "There were girls all over me!"

I don't really have the time to go on a deep dive through all the instances in which he hints at his reputation before the Kamoshida incident, but I think the most clear-cut representation of this was during the scene where he and Ann spend the day with Futaba during her post-palace social rehabilitation:

So here's the thing...I don't think he's lying about this. Nobody in the room would be that impressed to find out whether Ryuji was popular since they are already friends (or in Mona's case, he really just doesn't care), so it wouldn't make sense for him to lie.

Regarding everyone's reactions though, here's my impression: Ann was simply not aware of what was going on with the track team, being predominantly focused on dealing with rumors, her friendship with Shiho, and her modeling career (and eventually Kamoshida's advances once he started doing that shit) and she mentions a few times that she and Ryuji weren't actually close before joining the PT; they were just in the same class in middle school. Futaba hasn't interacted with anyone her age in years and isn't the most reliable source when it comes to what people generally find attractive; just because she doesn't have any interest in Ryuji doesn't mean that nobody her age would. And Morgana is a cat that brags constantly about how cool he is, so he shouldn't be throwing rocks.

There are many other times in the game when you get little glimpses of his social savvy, and from my understanding of Royal (I'm an OG vanilla P5 player and haven't done 3rd-semester yet, so don't kill me) when the track team returns to "how it was", he is getting along extremely well with everyone. Not only was he the team's ace: this kid was also expected to become the captain by his senior year (as briefly mentioned when he bumps into his former senpai at the gym, iirc). That's huge! If his team held him in such high regard, then the general student body of Shujin surely had a similar opinion. This brings me to my next point:

2: Girls like boys that run fast(???)

This is honestly something that baffles me. It's also really difficult for me to substantiate; any source material on this is obviously in Japanese and if I could find any of it, I sure as hell can't read it. The only English-language source I know of I cannot find anymore; I think it was an old Tofugu article? However. If you've watched any romance anime set in a high school during the last 20 years, you might have seen this trope at some point: the school sports festival is happening, and the relay race is kind of a huge deal (it's the final event! a make-or-break moment for the class!). The boy thinks to himself "If I win this race, I'll be able to win her heart/ask her out/etc." Low-stakes drama ensues. Maybe a confession happens.

This is (from what I've been told) based on a long-standing trend of girls and women self-reporting in surveys about how, oftentimes, their crushes in junior or senior high school were simply "the boy who ran the fastest in the races". I have no idea what this means in a broader cultural context. It makes no goddamn sense to me at all. Do not cite me on this. But I think it's worth keeping in mind, even if it's almost entirely speculative (and possibly outdated) information. And even if it's just based on rumors, don't you think it's pretty in-character for Ryuji to go for a track scholarship—despite being adept at other sports like baseball and football/soccer, as mentioned in P5 and P5D—because he was aware of the potential of being more popular with girls? Of course, his priority would be getting the scholarship and paying his way through school to lighten his mother's burden, but hey, getting a girlfriend on the way up wouldn't be half bad!

I think this could also inform us as to why Kamoshida (as a predator who wanted attention from high school girls) felt so threatened by the track team in particular, and why he felt a need to specifically knock Ryuji down a peg and sought out a weakness to do so (as opposed to targeting any of the probably just-as-popular boys on the many other athletic teams and clubs in the school). Just some food for thought on this one! Also, if anyone can find a source or has any insight on the relay race thing, please share. I am so confused about it.

3: Typecasting

So this is something that you really only notice if you are very into keeping up with seiyuu in Japan. I am not one of those people. But I do have some favorite voice actors! One of these being Mamoru Miyano.

So I freakin' love this dude. He's voiced a lot of my favorite characters, sings incredibly well, and has an unreal sense of comedy. He's stated in interviews that his acting inspiration is Jim Carrey, and let me tell you: it shows. He is also quite consistently typecast into certain roles, predominantly as princely pretty-boy types, Coolguys, or complete fucking nutcases. Sometimes all three at the same time (shoutout to my boy Ling FMA!)

ATLUS definitely cast him for P5 because of his comedic chops. But I think they also cast him because having him voice someone like Ryuji is a great way to subvert expectations for the player. I think it's supposed to give you whiplash—"what do you mean the voice of LIGHT FUCKING YAGAMI is coming out of this guy's mouth?" "why does the delinquent character sound like king of the host club Tamaki Suou?" "isn't that Rin Matsuoka's voice?" etc. etc. etc.

(here's a quick list, just to really get the idea across. maybe you recognize a few.)

This is obviously a non-comprehensive list, but something that a lot of the characters he's voiced over the years have in common is that they were considered cool, handsome, or popular. Not just for fans, but within the canon of their stories! So...what does that mean? What does that say about how we should see Ryuji?

I think players are supposed to expect that he will fall into one of those categories too, and then be surprised to find that it's not the case—that he's been isolated and made bitter and resigned by what happened to him the year before.

Speaking of his tone, I think it's very telling that Ryuji actually forgets to keep up the delinquent act a lot in the original JP audio, which unfortunately doesn't really carry over in the ENG translation. The delivery of his JP lines sounds a bit more subdued in comparison too—yeah he's got a lot of energy and is very hotheaded, but when he gets to talking about serious shit, he sounds a lot more regretful and melancholy as opposed to the EN delivery which depicts him as more resentful and outwardly angry. I think before Shit Went Down, he probably had the Coolguy vibe. Still a bit of a rowdy idiot and a showoff, but I think he probably came across to most people as a very friendly, sincere, and popular guy.

So yeah, the girls probably were all over him, at least for a short while.

[marzipanandminutiae]

The Snark Is Real This Morning

Oh no! Some patriarchal shill just had an Illegal Corset Thought on the Internet!

Maybe they said "corsets weren't invented by the patriarchy" or "comfort was actually often a prime concern for most women's day-to-day corset-wearing, as evidenced by mid-late 19th century advertising" or "women didn't go around fainting constantly because most of them didn't tightlace most of the time."

Maybe they brought up "survivorship bias in extant clothing" or "rampant photo doctoring in the 19th/early 20th century" or "treating satirical cartoons and fashion plates as gospel" or "museums displaying corsets laced entirely closed when wear patterns and primary sources indicate that lacing gaps were more common in many times and places" These concepts are actually conspiracies invented by Big Misogyny to sell more booze to depressed history workers!

Maybe one of them said that she'd worn corsets, or even that she and/or her friends actually found them more comfortable than bras! Clearly she believes this is representative of all women throughout history and in the present day. Besides, she is suffering from Femininity Poisoning and nothing coming out of her silly, weak little brain can be taken seriously. Remember, it is Peak Feminism to dismiss what a woman says because of her gender presentation!

Don't be fooled! All of these statements mean one thing: they are saying that corsets were and are, always and forever, universally feminist and empowering. That no woman in the past ever found them uncomfortable, and that GNC women didn't exist before 1960 and also are icky. Did they actually say that? Doesn't matter! You know what she Really Meant- you've seen P*rates of the Caribbean and Br*dgerton! Corsets were always torture devices meant to oppress women, and any statement contradicting that clearly means the extreme opposite.

So what's a right-thinking and concerned Internet Citizen to do? You have a few options:

See point above re: femininity. Feminine-presenting women are basically brainless, so if a woman talking about dress history Wears An Skirt, you can just write off whatever she says. Easy peasy! Be sure to say something derogatory about her appearance, so others know why they shouldn't take her seriously.

Accuse them of not knowing their history. Any degrees, professional experience, publications, academic accolades, etc. they may have are irrelevant. Their primary sources are...idk photoshopped or something? Best to ignore them altogether. You have Feelings on your side, and that's far more valuable than any research!

Accuse them of accusing you of being a t*rf. Works especially well if they've said anything about the preponderance of t*rfs expressing your True and Correct views- that just means they're calling everyone who thinks like you a transphobe, duh!

Tell them they're not believing women. If they have cited so-called "realities of historical women's lives," well, that's clearly just the rich elite of any given era (who were also brainrotted by Femininity, natch). If you're a woman, and you say corsets were the spawn of Beelzebub, that should be enough ~evidence~ for anyone!

Appeal to common knowledge. Everyone KNOWS corsets were evil; can they really be DEFENDING a KNOWN HATEFUL OPPRESSIVE HELL-GARMENT?! What is the world coming to! If they ask how exactly everyone knows that and where that collective belief comes from, reply with a snarky GIF and block them. There's just no reasoning with some people.

Call them a tradwife. Are they a tradwife? Irrelevant.

With all these tools in your arsenal, you are now well-equipped to fight the horde of vile corset apologists online. Remember: It's Only Real Oppression If The Oppressed Group Is Miserable 24/7!

[pluraldeepdive]

Let's Fact Check: Was MPD renamed to DID for Harmful Reasons?

(Disclaimer: This post contains descriptions of ableism and disbelief in plurality. I do not condone any hatred towards any person mentioned on this post. If you see anyone attacking them, please report them for harassment! This post was made to spread awareness, not negativity.)

In this post, we will be investigating the claim that multiple personality disorder (MPD) was renamed to dissociative identity disorder (DID) for harmful reasons.

Origins of the claim

This claim most likely originated from a (now privatized) wordpress blog post made in 2019.

Click here for an archive of the blog post.

In this post, the author is discussing a blog post they found that's written by Allen J. Frances, the chairman of an outdated edition of the DSM. After reading his blog post, they came to the conclusion that Frances renamed MPD to DID out of malicious intent towards people with MPD because his blog post states that he does not believe in MPD.

This wordpress post was later linked on Twitter, where many users began repeating the claim. As it spread across Twitter and other social media platforms, the claim has adopted several variations. Some people claim that Frances attempted to get rid of MPD entirely, some claim that he renamed it as a scheme to erase all plurality, and some claim that “DID” is an ableist or offensive diagnosis because of all of this. It seems like most of the people spreading these claims do not have DID themselves, however.

Click here for a link to an imgur folder showing examples of this claim in online plural spaces.

The post by Frances

Now, let's look at the blog post that was cited as proof that MPD was renamed to DID for harmful reasons.

Click here to read his post (TW for fakeclaiming and ableism).

This post was written in 2014. In it, Frances is expressing how he doesn’t believe in what he calls MPD. He personally adheres to the debunked skeptical models which suggest DID is created through therapeutic suggestion or is a “fad”. He talks about how he wished he could remove MPD from the DSM-IV, but couldn’t do so. The next best thing, to him, was to allow controversial statements to be injected into the manual. These statements were removed in the current edition of the DSM.

Frances does not mention anything about the diagnosis's name change.

Addressing bias & concerning behavior

First of all, it’s important to look into the author of the wordpress blog to understand how reliable their word is. The author is a median system who I found out, from the blog, is @/multi_sapphire on Twitter. She also runs the blog @/acting-nt on Tumblr, which is a fact known by many in the online community.

At the time of making her blog post, she did not identify as having DID. She is openly anti-psychiatry, as well. While I don't want to make this a big focus, this system also has a history in the plural community of being very hateful towards the DID label. I have had to make a PSA about them before for posting hatred in the DID tags (source). They are the coiner of the term "traumascum" among other things (source). Many, many PSAs have been made about her by other systems about various concerning behavior (source).

Frances’ post can be easily triggering to anyone with DID, OSDD, or plurality. It’s understandable how a system, who was already unfavorable towards psychiatry, came to think that all of the changes made to DID in the DSM-IV were done out of malicious intent. Let's investigate that next.

Addressing how the DSM is made & who coins names

For anyone who doesn't know, "DSM" stands for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is a handbook used by clinicians to diagnose mental disorders.

The DSM-IV is an outdated edition that is no longer in use. It was published in 1994 and was replaced by the DSM-5 in 2013. While Frances was the chairman of the DSM-IV, he was kicked off the taskforce and has nothing to do with the current DSM. Most of the changes he made were completely reversed in the current manual.

The DSM taskforce is run by many people. Diagnoses are divided across different work groups who receive input and data from researchers that specifically research and work with people with those disorders. Suggestions are proposed from the researchers to the work groups, who then analyze this, conduct field trials, and propose changes that should be made to the DSM (source).

While Frances oversaw the taskforce, he is not listed as a member of any work group or researcher in the DSM-IV. This means he did not come up with any of the proposed changes to the DSM-IV.

Why MPD was renamed to DID

All of the dissociative disorders were renamed at the same time! All of them, except for DPDR, were changed to have the word “dissociation” in them. Researchers explain that they proposed this change in order to make the dissociative nature of these disorders more understandable.

Psychogenic amnesia was renamed to dissociative amnesia.

Psychogenic fugue was renamed to dissociative fugue.

Multiple personality disorder was renamed to dissociative identity disorder.

Atypical dissociative disorder was renamed to dissociative disorder not otherwise specified.

When it comes to DID in particular, there are two main reasons for the shift from multiple personalities to dissociative identities. Hersen et al. states the one of these reasons is that the term 'personality' defines "the characteristic pattern of thoughts, feelings, moods, and behaviors" of the whole brain (source). This is what makes alters identities rather than personalities. According to this definition of personality, having multiple personalities would mean having multiple brains! The second reason is that the older term emphasized the alters over the dissociation (same source).

In my opinion, refocusing on the dissociation rather than the alters allows people with DID to have the full spectrum of their symptoms recognized, and helps distance plurality from disorders. Many plural systems don't view their systems as the problem. Many systems don't have DID, either. The shift in this diagnostic language has made it much easier for that distinction to be made! It's very unfortunate that false claims have been made about this, casting more stigma onto both DID and non-DID systems.

Summary

To summarize everything:

The claim that MPD was renamed to DID for harmful reasons most likely originated from a 2019 blog post.

The author of the blog post was reasonably concerned about a figure of authority being ableist. However, their own biases against the DID label likely influenced their claim that the DID label was created by said figure of authority.

In actuality, that guy did not come up with the name "DID." Researchers are the ones who did.

MPD was renamed to DID in order to make it more understandable and put an emphasis on dissociation.

All dissociative disorders were renamed along with DID to include the word "dissociation" in them.

[thecrazyalchemist]

I've recently seen a post on Tumblr that just, 'broke' something in me (for a lack of a better term).

So I just want to vent about it and another thing that's been bothering me.

(Disclaimer: this is a vent post. I am not an expert in the topics discussed. What I say is knowledge that I have learned from all kinds of places (school, history classes, researching for history projects, reading first hand written material from archives, and other places) and I don't have much the energy to compile everything source into a list (if I can even remember them). However, if you want to add, argue against, or argue in favor of something said here, correct me, you're welcome! Although, please act civil and cite your sources please. (I know I didn't and I'm sorry, but also please remember this is a vent post.) so anyways, here we start)

So, first of all:

Let's talk about Zionism. What does it mean?

To me, it seems that a lot of people think Zionism is something along the lines of 'racist bloodthirsty monstrous baby murderer and cold blooded killer and a rapist pedophile' since I keep seeing the word 'Zionist' in DNI lists next to 'nazis', 'pedophiles', 'minor attracted people', and other stuff like that.

I would love to hear what you think its definition is and I would love to hear where did you learn it, or perhaps any sources for such a definition.

Here's a brief recap of how Zionism was formed and what it is:

Zionism means the desire for Jewish self determination and self governing to exist/continue in the land/country of Israel.

It is an umbrella term, like the term queer, for example.

Zionism has deep roots in Judaism. A lot of practices and rituals in Judaism involve or are related to Israel. The name Israel comes from the name Jacob got from the angel he defeated, and after him the whole tribe of the Jewish people and the area are called Israel. The name Israel is in one of the most basic Jewish prayers - Shema Israel. Also, at the end of every pesach (Passover) Seder we say "Leshana habaa beyerushalaim habnuia" - next year in built Jerusalem. Jewish people have said so ever since the diaspora started.

Before the state of Israel existed, Zionism was about how to create and build Israel.

Three examples:

Political Zionism - create Israel by first getting a charter and international recognition and funding.

Practical Zionism - create Israel by first buying land, building settlements and developing the area.

Synthetic Zionism - a merge between the two movements above. Afaik most of the early political leaders of Israel were from that movement (for example, the first Israeli prime minister - David Ben Gurion).

Nowadays, Zionism is more vague. The reason for is that Israel already exits. The different movements on how to create Israel are kind of irrelevant now, because it exists now. The discussion on how to run Israel is perhaps what one may define as different movements within Zionism in modern time, however yet almost always when one says they are a Zionist, they mean they desire/want/believe that Israel should exist. That's it.

As such, Zionism alone doesn't say almost anything about the political view of the person who identifies as a Zionist.

Afaik basically 100% of Israeli Jews and around 80% of the Jews in America identify as Zionist. Under *this* definition.

Now because Israel exists, it's much harder to talk about different movements within Zionism which aren't basically political movements within Israel.

That leads me onto Kahanism.

Kahanism is an extremist far-right nationalist-racist religious Zionist movement (that I completely do not, I repeat: **do not** agree with). It was founded by the rabbi Meir Kahane, which believed that Jews should rule the whole area which was the kingdom of Israel in the days of the Tanach and should kill anyone who's an enemy of the Jewish people (which according to him, is basically everyone).

Here's an article that sums up some of my feelings about it in relation to the current events:

[https://archive.ph/2024.06.10-191347/https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-06-10/ty-article-opinion/.premium/forget-being-anti-zionists-lets-be-anti-kahanists/00000190-0228-d660-af95-6fbed3e60000]

Now on to the post that 'broke the camel's back', per say.

The post said “I think that all Israelis should go back to Europe” and that it would solve all the problems here.

Let's try to break down the sentence “all Israelis should go back to Europe”. That sentence implies that that's where *all* Israelis came from.

What's "Israeli"? Afaik, since Israel is a country, Israeli is anyone who has Israeli citizenship (and some may even add 'and/or everyone who was born here').

What's Israel's population demographic? According to official government surveys, Israel has around ~9.9 million citizens, out of which ~73% (~7.227 million) are Jewish, ~21% (2.079 million) are Arab and the rest ~6% (0.594 million or 594 thousand) are classified as else.

The Arab population of Israel (which has equal rights as the Jewish population in Israel) and the Arab population of Gaza and the West Bank originate from the same group of people. Some of them originate from Arab people who had been here for hundreds of years (since the empires age) and many originate from Arab immigration between the end of the WW1 and the establishment of Israel.

Even if you claim that the Arab population of Gaza and the West Bank are the actual indigenous population of this area (despite numerous archeological and historical evidence pointing otherwise, although they do have a long history here), you cannot claim that just because a person was born or even just lived on the other (wrong, in your eyes) side of a border they aren't indigenous to the area!

In Israel, there are also a lot of minorities who are persecuted in other parts of the middle east. Such as: Druze, Armenians, Circassians and more. They have to go to Europe too? No, just the Jews? Surely this isn't antisemitism!

And let's talk about the Jewish population in Israel. MOST JEWS DID NOT COME FROM EUROPE! There are Jews who came from diaspora in Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Saudia, Ethiopia and a whole lot other countries through the middle east, south west Asia and north Africa. They have to go to Europe too?

And that's beside two other important facts: first of all, the Jews are indigenous to the levant. We are indigenous to the land of Israel.

And of course, do you now what happened to Jews all over the world, and especially Europe?

To name a few very notable examples: *The Spanish inquisition*, Kishinev pogrom, Jedwabne pogrom, *The Holocaust*, what that happened in the Soviet Union and many more pogroms, expulsions and massacares. (There were of course also pogroms in the MENA countries, however *I* haven't learned about them. Two examples I am told is notable is the farhood pogrom and the Holocaust in North Africa).

All throughout history, the Jews were expelled and massacred from almost every place. You then expectus to just come back to those places as if nothing has happened?

You want us to come so badly. Can you prove that we are safe to come? That we *have a place to come to*? Because so far you haven't shown that.

That when you and the people around you see a Jew, you won't immediately turn them into the scapegoat of every problom you have and then rape and/or expell and/or kill them.

And also, how would that solve more problems than it will create? Exchanging around ~2 million refugees for ~9.9 million refugees? How would that help? And even if you only mean the Jews (which I can't see how it isn't antisemitic) it's ok cause it's Jews? (which is even more antisemitic)

So no, it would not solve any problems. The country of Israel won't go anywhere, the Jews won't go anywhere, because we don't have anywhere to go - we were born here and we are staying.

However, yes, just as well, the Palestinians will probably not go anywhere (*not talking about Hamas and other similar groups here*). The only way to solve the situation is to unpack and deescalate those decades of conflict and escalation and hate, which will take a lot of work.

[specialagentartemis]

We talk a lot about reading comprehension and misinformation on this website, but learning how to slow down, assess sources, and fact-check is a skill. A skill a lot of us have not been called on to demonstrate since high school, but a skill that's vitally important in the modern world.

I'm in graduate school for the social sciences (anthropology) - critically assessing sources is part of the skillset we are taught. I've had people ask on my post about historical misinformation, "How can I only reblog things that are true? How can I tell?" And it's a good and important question!

A couple core questions to ask, about history, science, or current events, are:

Who is saying this?

Where are you seeing this information? Is it a legal scholar, a historian with a PhD, a museum curator, an on-the-ground activist, a rando twitter poster, a Mormon conspiracy theorist? For scholarly questions, look for people with PhDs and published articles; for questions of current events, look for what people who are actually there are saying and showing.

Who agrees with them?

Can you find articles from other sources corroborating this, or is it just one guy who is saying this? Conversely, do you see anyone disagreeing and correcting this information? Who?

Does this person have an ideological bias that might cause them to discount conflicting information?

Everyone has biases, of course, but some are obvious. A lot of revisionist American history is put out by Mormon groups to try to prove the literal truth of the Book of Mormon; ditto for history that seeks to prove various things in the Bible. It may be easy for us to laugh at that, but a lot of tumblr revisionist history involves inventing gay historical figures out of flimsy sources because we want it to be true. Is there a reason that the person making this claim might want this to be true? This doesn't necessarily make it false, but it does mean you have to require more robust claims.

What sources do they cite?

Do they cite well-documented research or well-provenienced archaeology? Do they have photographs of what they're claiming happened? Or do their claims rely on nameless, dateless, "I can't show you my sources yet" or "I swear I heard about a guy..." Do they cite any sources or is it "just trust me bro"? Are those sources that they do cite reliable, or are they circular? Do the sources they cite actually say what this person is claiming they say? Are they cutting out half of a quote, or ignoring conflicting evidence presented in the same source?

Is this conspiracy theory thinking?

Is this making claims that an individual or a group is secretly hiding information from the general public? Is it blaming one individual or group for widespread societal problems? Is it claiming that the only reason this isn't common knowledge is because Somebody is suppressing it? Is it claiming that the solution to a complicated political problem is actually simple and everybody knows it but people just don't want to do it for nefarious reasons? That's conspiracy thinking, and it's almost never as clean or easy as the claimant wants you to believe.

Just because someone is saying something confidently doesn't necessarily make it true, but also, just because you don't like something doesn't necessarily make it false. Ask these questions when you see a claim that makes you feel angry - or makes you feel righteous. Look for journalists, scientists, historians, legal scholars, who present their credentials and their sources. Look for multiple independently verified news reports or scientific articles. Determining The One Truth about things is not always easy and sometimes not possible, but asking these questions helps you assess what you're reading critically and evaluate claims.

[susiephone]

Or, a crash course in checking your sources. Because we've all seen some absolutely bullshit stuff spread around the internet, and Tumblr definitely isn't immune to it.

It can be hard to sort out the fact from the rumor from the propaganda when a story is actively developing, especially one that is fast-moving and has a lot of voices coming in from all sides, but it is vitally important that you check your sources before spreading a claim.

It's easier to verify or disprove a claim about something that's purported to have happened in the past, so, admittedly, checking stuff that's purported to be happening now is a messy, confusing process. All the more reason to err on the side of caution.

I am not a journalist or professional researcher or historian or anything like that, so this is all coming from a layman who does their best to be informed. If I get anything wrong, or anyone more qualified has something they want to add, please let me know in the notes.

Why should I check my sources?

Because you should care whether you're spreading propaganda or not.

Because sometimes in the heat of the moment, when emotions are running high, it's easy to be misled.

Because every time you spread misinformation to help your own cause, even - or especially! - if that cause is righteous, it becomes a ding on your credibility, and the credibility of your cause.

Because when you don't, a journalist loses their wings. Probably. Fact-check me on that.

How do I know when to check my sources?

If you don't recognize the source, check it.

If you hear a claim and think, "Wow, that is so cartoonishly evil," or, "That's so absurd I'd think it was far fetched if it was in a movie," or, "It's weird no mainstream outlets are reporting on this," check it.

Now, a claim sounding too bizarre or evil to be real doesn't always mean it isn't--I mean, half of what I hear about George Santos sounds like an SNL sketch and it always ends up true. But check it.

If the claim sounds like something a Nazi would want you to believe, check it.

If a claim is only being spread by one or two small sources, check it.

How do I check my sources?

The following sites are great resources for fact-checking.

PolitiFact. Ranks claims on a truth-o-meter and provides context for what's true, mostly true, kinda true, and made-up.

Media Bias/Fact Check: Publishes lists of fact checks from other credible sources, and ranks media outlets on their bias and trustworthiness.

Climate Feedback: Verifies claims about science, especially climate change.

Lead Stories: Verifies claims as they develop, especially stuff spreading on social media.

Here is a list of sources Media Bias/Fact Check considers to be the least biased.

What are some red flags to search for? / What are some questions I should ask myself?

Does the claim only come from a handful of small sources?

Do all those sources only cite each other?

It bears repeating: does this claim sound especially sensational or over-the-top? I know it sounds basic, but when you're furious at somebody (be it a person or a government or a system), it can be easy to believe every horrible thing you hear about them. But just because someone is awful doesn't mean every rumor about them doing awful things is true, and you still have a responsibility to keep your criticism accurate.

Who provides funding to the source? Do they work off of grants, reader donations and subscriptions, government backing, private donors? Do they not disclose their funding at all?

Has the source been caught spreading false info before? How long ago was this? Did they issue a correction in a timely manner? Was the journalist who spread the false claim fired or otherwise reprimanded? Does it seem like it was a mistake, or was there an agenda at play? Has the source taken steps to reestablish credibility?

Who benefits from me believing this?

Okay, I did all my fact-checking, and I'm really not sure if this claim is true or not.

Then don't share it.

If more information comes out and it turns out to be true, then go ahead.

But if there's doubt, don't share it.

Okay, sure, but the claim sounds like it could be true, and-

"Could be true" and "is true" are not the same.

Fine, but the person or government it's talking about has already done so many awful things, even if this specific rumor isn't true-

DON'T. SHARE. IT.

I am going to come to your house and bite you.

Further information.

How to fact-check like a pro.

The Psychology of Fact-Checking.

What is fact-checking?

Misinformation (YouTube video)

And there we go! If anyone has anything to add, go ahead, but I will be monitoring the comments and will be blocking any nonsense.

There's enough misinformation spread by bad actors in our current media landscape. Please don't make their job any easier.

[transmutationisms]

i am the world's biggest wikipedia defender (especially against people who say that it's unreliable) because, while i know it's not infallible (is anything, though?), it is peer-reviewed. once, my friend edited the othello page to include a joke we had made and she got her account banned. how do you reckon with wikipedia as a source of knowledge? my understanding of it is that it can serve as a good base for things, but learning never stops and one should read as many sources as possible to gain a fuller understanding of whatever they want to know about. this is a very long-winded way of asking your opinions on wikipedia. my apologies, and i hope today is alright for you :~)

wikipedia obviously gets a lot of flak for the fact that anyone can edit it, which means that people certainly can and do check each other's work, but also that anybody with an axe to grind or just a poor understanding of a subject can potentially really distort the presentation of that topic. there have been some high-profile cases of bad and even dangerous editorialising, like the woman who basically single-handedly is trying to correct a whole bunch of pages for former nazis that really whitewashed their legacies and cited various antisemitic and white supremacist sources to do so. i think it would be foolish to claim that crowdsourced knowledge is inherently accurate, fair, nuanced, &c. wikipedia replicates the biases people put into it, and just having more people edit it doesn't instantly 'average them out' because yknow, we're often talking about widely held positions or prejudices that have also caused distortions in many of the cited sources. also, wikipedia has many more gaps than most people realise, partly because an encyclopedia is necessarily a massive undertaking and also because, by design, it excludes eg oral traditions, non-literate people, &c.

however i do find a lot of wikipedia criticism annoying because it will usually involve trying to counterpose wikipedia to approved academic channels of knowledge production, specifically in a way that sets academic institutions and publishing as an intellectual gold standard that crowd knowledge simply can't compete with. academia is not some kind of magical solution to problems of distortion and bias; academics have their own ways of perpetuating and rationalising prejudices, and reinforcing rather than challenging each other's epistemological authority and laziest, most harmful assumptions. not to mention that many shitty wikipedia articles do actually cite approved academic sources published by university presses! because these characteristics do not actually guarantee that a source is good, only that it passed quality control at a reactionary institution lol.

ultimately i approach wikipedia basically the same way i approach any academic text, which is to say i have to read both with attention to how the arguments are being developed, what evidence they rely on, what ideological assumptions are being made or defended, and so forth. i can't really think of a source or genre of source that i would endorse just reading and uncritically believing; in that sense i certainly agree with people who point out the major potential for inaccuracy in wikipedia articles, only i think this line of criticism is totally useless and blatantly elitist if it simply exempts 'respectable' academic sources or presumes institutional channels of knowledge to be epistemologically infallible.

anyway i use wikipedia to check dates of major events and it's sometimes useful or intriguing simply to see what about a topic interested people enough to write an entry about it. but i don't automatically trust any arguments or analyses in wikipedia articles, any more than i would the thesis of any nonfiction book i pick up.

[shakertwelve]

new wave timeline talk

for @dw-flagler, responding to this post; under a cut for length

so, the worm wiki's reasoning on vicky and amy's ages (on the timeline page here) begins as follows:

Victoria, in 2011, is in her senior year of high school: she belongs to the age range of 17 to 18.[57] According to Victoria, she was seventeen when she arrived at the Asylum.[58] Victoria, in October 2015, notes the day after the Navigators Incident[59][60] that she is twenty-one.[61]

the problems start with that first line, the citation for which links to this spacebattles wog:

Her grades were good enough she could have skipped a grade, but she decided to stay in High School for mornings only, so she could remain in touch with friends and enjoy her senior year.

high school seniors are 17-18 in the sense that they turn 18 over the course of senior year; the cut-off is usually in september, such that anyone who's 17 by september is going into senior year. pre-timeskip worm takes place in spring of 2011, at the end of the 2010-2011 school year, so everyone but the youngest high school seniors [who have not skipped any grades] has already turned 18. the only way for victoria to still be 17 in the spring of her senior year, without skipping grades, would be for her to have a summer birthday (and it would have to be even later in the summer than when she entered the asylum). the above quote also confirms that she chose not to skip any years of school, even though her grades were good enough that she could've, so there's no way for her to be 17 years old and a graduating senior at the same time.

the other data points cited in that paragraph (victoria was 17 in june of 2011 when she entered the asylum, and she's 21 in october of 2015 during ward) cohere with each other and with other mentions of victoria's age in worm and worm wog, where she's consistently described as 17 pre-timeskip. knowing that she hasn't had her 22nd birthday yet in october of 2015 places the lower bound on her birthday in late october 1993, with the latest she could've been born, based purely on this information, being may of 1994.

given all that, what makes the most sense to me is to assume that victoria being a senior is a mistake; she's 17 years old and should be wrapping up her junior year in high school during pre-timeskip worm.

the next paragraph is about amy's age, and reads as follows:

According to Marquis, Amy was six before his incarceration in February 2000.[62][63] On June 4, 2011,[64] Marquis states that Amy is currently seventeen:[65] this is correct if she is six in February 2000 as Amy would be born before March 1994. Both Carol Dallon and Sarah Pelham believed Amy was Victoria's age (6) before Amy's adoption.[63][66] According to Amy, she was six when she was adopted and seventeen before she left Carol and Mark Dallon and went to the Birdcage.[67]

i consider marquis the most reliable source we have on amy's age, since he was in direct contact with amy's mother, who would definitely know, and the information he gives consistently places amy's birthday in the winter of 1993-1994. i've seen some people theorize that amy could be up to a year or two younger than vicky and the dallons just put them in the same school year out of convenience, but the only evidence for this is that carol and sarah guessed that amy was probably a bit younger than vicky just from looking at her, which doesn't mean much when you take into account that kids grow at different rates, amy is known to be smaller than vicky as an adult as well, and carol's description of young amy in her interlude isn't entirely objective in other ways, either. i've also seen the theory that amy is older than vicky and just doesn't know it, but i don't think that's too likely given this exchange from interlude 10.5:

Marquis frowned. “My daughter, she would be… what year is it? 2010?” “2011,” Lung replied. “She would be seventeen.”

if amy's birthday were in october or earlier, it would've made more sense for him to ask for the month as well; stating amy's age with confidence based purely on the year only works if she's born very close to the change of the year, and so is the same age for roughly all of the calendar year. so, my favored interpretation is that amy is younger than vicky, but not by very much.

the wiki continues:

In June 2011, Amy claims to Taylor that she is sixteen now; however, she presumably brings it up in the context of getting a non-government job and avoiding rules and regulations that apply to exploiting minors with powers.[68] Eric Pelham in 2011 is fifteen before his death:[48] Amy cannot have turned sixteen in 2011 as Eric is three years younger than Amy.[69]

as noted, this doesn't line up with anything else and is either amy lying or wildbow making a math error. eric being 15 and three years younger than the 17 year old dallons looks initially like a contradiction, but can be chalked up to him having just had his birthday and being between 2.5 and 3 years younger than them, such that he's 3 years younger for most of the year.

after this there's another section about school, in which i've highlighted the part i take issue with:

A short time after Crystal Pelham's trigger event, Victoria had to pick a class in the arts (i.e., art, music, or drama) for her next high school semester,[72] along with a specialized science class (i.e., chemistry, biology, or physics) for the first time.[73] Victoria is a freshman and not a sophomore because she would otherwise take a specialized science class in the fall.[74] As Amy also got these instructions and might be in the same art class as Victoria next semester, Amy must be in the same school and birth year as Victoria.[73][72] On the same day, Victoria also notes that Amy and herself are three years older than Eric Pelham.[69]

that citation links to this quote, from worm 5.4:

In biology, Madison used every excuse she could to use the pencil sharpener or talk to the teacher, and each time she passed my desk, she pushed everything I had on my desk to the floor. [...] “That’s September eighth,” I pointed out, “My first day back at school, last semester. September ninth-” “Excuse me, sorry. How many entries do you have?” “One for pretty much every school day starting last semester. Sorry, I only decided to keep track last summer.

the problem with this, of course, is that taylor goes to winslow high, while the dallons are at arcadia, so there's no reason to assume their school curricula work the same way; public schools are required to follow the same general educational guidelines, but i don't think you can use what year winslow students start taking biology to prove that arcadia students also take biology the same year. without accepting this premise, the entire paragraph of reasoning above doesn't matter except for the part about vicky and amy being three years older than eric, which we already knew.

circling back around to the subject of fleur, the wiki says:

According to Amy, Victoria and herself are not in middle school after Fleur died.[70] Her death happened in the latter half of 2007.[*] Victoria, in 2007, is not in elementary school as she graduated from middle school in June 2007.[57] Thus, Amy must have graduated middle school on or before June 2007, as she would otherwise be drastically younger than Victoria to not be in middle school.[70][63] Indeed, Victoria believes she and Amy got to high school at the same time.[71]

if we accept that fleur's death was in late 2007, the claim that amy and vicky weren't even in middle school yet when it happened doesn't make sense, since they would've been eight graders at the time. so our two options are that fleur died earlier than 2007, or it should say that they weren't in high school yet, not middle school.

my first reaction was to take the mention of the year more seriously than the mention of the grade, since, at this point, i have very little faith in the dallon kids' grade levels meaning anything. but as you noted in your post:

there's only one thing placing the boston games, and fleur's subsequent death, in 2007, which is ashley's narration in Eclipse X.8. But everything else points to it being 2 years earlier, in 2005. Actually, I'd say it would be even earlier, maybe 2003, 2002, because we know that new wave was struggling for "most of [Victoria's] childhood," and they were only struggling after Fleur's death.

&

even if amy (wildbow) misspoke and said middle school instead of high school, this still leaves a problem, because it occupies a lesser portion of Victoria and Amy's childhoods. I mean, if it is 2007, then that means Fleur died only a year before Victoria's trigger event, which seems crazy late to me.

and yeah, that actually does track better with the overall impression we're given of new wave's trajectory during vicky's childhood. if we assume this happened in 2005 rather than 2007, then it does bear out that amy and vicky "weren't even in middle school yet", if you assume that their school district only counted 7th and 8th grade as middle school (some schools include 6th grade as well, or even 5th and 6th grade, but a two-year middle school is totally normal).

this leaves the issue that ashley states she's 16 during the boston games, so we'd be making her two years older overall, meaning she'd be 26 in ward rather than 24, which seems a little out of keeping with breakthrough's overall teen-through-early-20s age group and with the dynamic she has with victoria, which feels like they're supposed to be pretty close to the same age. the other option is to keep ashley's birthday in 1991 and assume she just thinks she's 16 when she's actually 14 during the boston games, which shifts her character in a different way, playing up her tendency to exaggerate her own maturity in her own mind.

or we could say that the cape ashley fought was an unrelated heroine who just happened to also be using a fleur-de-lis symbol. or, like, a stranger-trump imitating fleur, or something. a wizard did it.

[sophieinwonderland]

why is the only source you cite for being pro endo Transgender Mental Health?? i emailed the author and got a response saying there was no scientific sources backing up endogenic plurality

Yeah... I'm extremely doubtful you emailed the author.

As for why Transgender Mental Health is the main source I cite, it's because... and there isn't really a better way to put this... sysmeds are stupid.

Often willfully so. The Transgender Mental Health quotes are great because they VERY EXPLICITLY say that you can be plural without trauma or a disorder.

My actual preferred quote is from the ICD-11 Boundary With Normality.

This, unfortunately, doesn't use the word plural or system, so there is enough room for sysmeds to intentionally misinterpret it.

One argument they might make is that this is totally different because it's a cultural practice and therefore shouldn't be compared to DID. This is despite the fact that "distinct personality states" is literally the same exact wording the ICD-11 uses for dissociative identities.

Another argument is that this doesn't count because it's spiritual.

This is very often when the sysmed is trying to shutdown the conversation by claiming they don't want to talk about spiritual stuff.

Which makes me then ask if they believe the World Health Organization is confirming the existence of literal spirits. And also, describing the literal spirits as "personality states."

I think anyone with basic reading comprehension who is reading this in good faith would understand that the "personality states" in question that arise from these spiritual practices are being treated as if they are psychological in nature. Not something actually metaphysical. Hence the use of the "personality state" language.

If there exists even the slightest inch of ambiguity for sysmeds to misinterpret a source, they are going to run with it for a mile!

The Transgender Mental Health quote is just really hard for them to pull that with. There is zero room to misinterpret. Zero room for them to claim it doesn't mean what it clearly means.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Please share your reasoning when you get a chance on why you don't believe Theresa Longo Fans. Granted, they have been wrong before.

So the TL;DR of it is:

They're anonymous journalists and that's suspicious.

They haven't updated their brag sheet in 6 years, which means they haven't had a good source in 6 years.

They plagiarize almost everything.

They use vague language and broad generalities in their scoops that lets them take credit no matter what happens.

Keep reading for the longer explanations.

1. I'm always immediately suspicious of anyone in journalism that doesn't use their name. When a journalist is anonymous, especially when they have no need to be like in TLF's case, it's not easy to hold them accountable to lies and mistakes. The two guys behind TLF like to brag about their journalism credentials, and that's huge because there's no way to follow up to make sure they are who they say they are. They rely on "just trust me" authority, and when has that ever worked out? Especially with blind gossip sites (in addition to TLF, this includes CDAN, Blind Gossip, DeuxMoi, and Exposing SMG), you can't verify the accuracy of what they post - especially when you consider that CDAN, Enty, and DeuxMoi all admitted they make stuff up.

(And also ExposingSMG rarely has new information when it comes to the BRF. (They might have sources for other celebs, but I don't pay attention close enough.) Specifically, they just repeat what was being discussed on the blogs and reddit, calling them "my source" so they don't have to cite. BTW, ExposingSMG has since rebranded as Scandalous.Media. They posted about the Sussexes recently and some of their quoted sources or "revelations" are things that have been around for awhile. This one in particular I think is a combination of info from CDAN and SMM.)

I saw somewhere once that the TLF guys don't share their names so they can protect the privacy and confidentiality of their sources. But I call BS. If journalists needed anonymity to protect their sources, then why aren't more journalists reporting anonymously? These two guys are the only people I know that calls themselves journalists who do this, and to me that is suspicious. (Exceptions only for reporters in war zones.)

2. Look at the scoops they take credit for in their pinned tweet: Sussex baby #1, Khloe Kardashian's pregnancy, Kylie Jenner's baby, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's divorce, Megxit, Wendy Williams's show demise, and the Pulse/Orlando nightclub shooting. What these all have in common is that they are events from 2016 - 2019. Meaning they had really good sources, contacts, and access 6-8 years ago. And that list not having anything more recent suggests they don't have the kind of sources, contacts, and access anymore. If they did, and if they were still getting the same sort of accurate scoops that they were 7 years ago, this list would be updated to inclde those more recent events. Why haven't they?

Now, that's not to say they never had good sources. They did have good sources, and whoever it was, their information was solid enough that it upset Meghan enough to get Bouzy to take TLF down. That doesn't really mean anything because a broken clock is still correct twice a day.

3. The tweets themselves are problematic. In fact, most of them are plagiarized.

If there's a direct quote in the tweet, it's plagiarized from some other source/news media and TLF never cites the source. For example, this TLF tweet from January 8th:

It implies that they've interviewed Dominic himself. But they never spoke to Dominic. The quotes come, verbatim, from this January 6th article published by The Mirror.

And for tweets without a direct quote in it, they usually try to pass it off as their own scoop but nine times out of ten, it isn't. For example, this tweet:

It looks like a good scoop. At face value, it is: they know someone who saw Shia at church and connected one plus one.

But #1, when you search "Actor Shia LaBeouf appears to have converted to Catholicism after being seen at a New Year's Eve Mass presided over by Capuchin Franciscan friars," this article from the Associated Press on December 31st comes up:

Almost everything they publish is like this. Go ahead - choose any tweet, copy the text into a search engine, and see what happens.

And #2, look at their verbiage. Specifically, the phrase appears to have in the Shia tweet above. This is how they get away with passing off their stories as scoops, with vague verbage that could go either way. That way, when an article is later published about it, they can grab the "original" tweet and claim credit with "as we told our followers back in..." or "no surprise to our followers..." tweets.

*******************************

Now, specific to royal-watching: they completely and totally missed the ball on big stuff (like Platinum Jubilee and Coronation appearances), but they got it on the smaller stuff (Spare and Frogmore). But the kicker is that the smaller stuff is things that were either written about by royal reporters or was plausible gossip floating around the royal fandom.

The things they were wildly wrong on - for instance, the children being on the balcony at the Platinum Jubilee and the royals hosting a birthday party for Archie after the coronation - were things that came directly from Meghan's PR. So either they didn't realize it was Meghan's PR or they decided to hedge their bets and post it anyway on the off-chance it happened, which I think is in poor taste but it makes for very fun entertainment.

[ruthlesslistener]

I got harassed because of you. Because you declared anyone who doesn't headcanon the Knight as a child to be sus. So thanks. Hate how you seem to be the "headcanon/lore expert" these days, to the point where no on else is allowed to headcanon differently from you. All the hk antis seem to cite you as their "reliable" source always, even outside of tumblr.

i. turned on anon yesterday. What. how did you find me this quickly already.

Anyways, another announcement just to make this potently clear to anyone stupid enough to treat a tired college student with a neurodevelopmental disorder as some sort of pariah of headcanon/lore expertise: i said that headcanoning the knight as an adult was 'sus' in a half-hearted jokey manner right before i went to sleep late at night based on bad porn takes that i came across while scrolling twitter and nothing else. Then when my friends were like 'uh wait no more interpretations exist' i went 'oh shit my bad, i still dont like it bc of personal tastes tho so please dont flood my inbox about it again, but its fine'. I don't even believe in anti rhetoric either, I'm constantly reblogging why they're fucked up and their harassment campaigns are wrong and dangerous, so idfk why they'd consider me as a reliable resource

Also, why the fuck would anyone take me as the lore/headcanon god?? Nothing about what I do is special. I don't even care that much about my own headcanons, almost all of what I find fun about the fandom is comparing and contrasting my headcanons to those of other people's because I love seeing what they get up to. As for canon, literally everything I loredig about is in the game already, I'm just rambling about it through my own perspective as someone who likes to do media analysis. Nothing about what I do is special or should be treated as such, and I always talked about my hcs/interpretations as someone who assumed that people knew they were just that: ramblings and nothing more. I love different hcs, I just sometimes don't click with others because of my own weird squicks and triggers

Also also: I don't post my headcanons outside of tumblr and what I write on my ao3 in my fics, so idk how you want me to somehow control the rabid freaks on other websites. I'm not doing this to be an influencer, gain popularity, or broadcast some superiority complex. In fact, I've actively spent the entire duration I'm in this fandom worrying about bothering people with my hcs/ramblings, but posting them anyways because if I don't talk about it then it makes me want to chew my own leg off. The main reason I've not been talking about it on my tumblr and have only been passively rbing hk stuff recently is specifically because I'm trying to avoid causing that sort of damage again after this whole disaster

[jh-newman-opn]

with regards to the poll:

I voted yes, because I believe a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy no matter the circumstances. I do not believe the state should have the right to force anyone to have or terminate their pregnancy. And of the alternative, would it be to force the mother to carry the child to term? Either they’ll end up being raised by someone who didn’t want them in the first place or put up for adoption. The issue fundamentally stems from patriarchy and preventing an abortion does little to stem the effects, other than making impact a child who is born rather than preventing the birth of a fetus.

I don’t think it’s hypocrisy to hold the consistent belief that a voluntary procedure should not be denied, no matter the reason. And I think the comparison to thalidomide and alcohol is a bit disingenuous, seeing as the concerns with those are e effects on children who are born, as opposed to abortions which are, by nature, not born.

Ultimately the practice of preferring and selecting for male pregnancies stems from the deep roots of patriarchy, and preventing abortions is not going to stop the problem so much as it will pass it onto the unwanted daughters who will be forced to be born.

no I'm sorry this is solipsistic paper academia nonsense. Banning sex-selective abortion is a normal and reasonable response that countries often take when this happens because it's abhorrent and widespread.

If you thought the thalidomide/alcohol comparison was disingenuous, then how about bride-burning? You may as well be arguing: "well, husbands setting their wives on fire is tragic and not a decision I'd personally make in marriage, but the alternative is that those women have to suffer through marriages in which they're unhappy because their husband doesn't want them anyway. Husbands not liking their wives is fundamentally a misogyny problem, which won't be solved by legislating against setting your wife on fire if you decide she's not exactly the way you wanted her. Men will just find other ways to kill their wives which are less culturally accepted than burning them alive, so we should focus on the root problem of systemic misogyny and let husbands do what they see fit with their wives in the meantime." Killing is not a proportionate response to a child or spouse having a characteristic you don't personally like, and saying that people should be able to give or take life based on completely spurious-- and as you yourself pointed out, entirely bigoted grounds-- is just abhorrent.

You seemed to miss the point where I said that the cultural practice of permitting sex-selective abortions is comorbid with female children being killed and neglected. THESE THINGS HAPPEN IN TANDEM because people take a legal permission or a tacit lack of enforcement as encouragement for their pre-existing beliefs. In India, as per the paper I linked, sex-selective abortion is technically illegal but culturally accepted and the ban is unenforced, which is where we see the frequent mistreatment of unwanted female children. In the UK, the practice is illegal and enforced, and we do not have the same problem. If you're going to make claims about "xyz policies lead to abc effects" you should be citing sources to back that up like I did in my original post rather than just making assertions as if they're factual. Banning sex-selective abortion is a necessary stage in socially decriminalising being female and solving the misogyny problem that you aptly point out, and then propose zero solutions to. like, if your experience of unacceptable misogyny is limited to things that can be rectified with a bit of social campaigning then I get why the measures required to hoist a culture out of the systemic murder of female adults, children, and babies might seem a bit radical. "oh well if we ban xyz people will keep doing it illegally" ok let's just unban murder entirely. why ban anything at all if bans do nothing to stop a thing happening or change people's opinions about whether a thing is bad.

Furthermore, your point about "forcing the mother to carry the child to term" is just bonkers. If we were talking about abortion as a whole, fine, but this is specifically about sex-selective abortion. The whole notion of "consent to x is not consent to y" is completely indefensible if you're trying to extend it to the point of "consent to carry a male child to term is not consent to carry a female child to term" (or the inverse!).

Finally, I deeply loathe the phrase "forced to be born". "Disabled people should not be forced to be born" "women should not be forced to be born" "people who will grow up in poverty should not be forced to be born" I'm sorry but being born is not a traumatic event for the child that ought to be avoided, what you're saying here is that people should not exist if they're going to have difficult lives, that it is preferable for someone to not live at all than to live in a suboptimal manner. I completely empathise with the feeling that people should not be forced to spend their lives in situations of extreme hardship but saying that they shouldn't be "forced to be born" is equivalent to saying that people are better off dead than poor/female/disabled/fill in the blank. You're saying that the most ethical thing is for human life to continue until the point at which it might start to endure suffering, at which point it ought to be terminated. The best thing you can do for people is to end their lives before they experience hardship. We can have debates about whether a foetus counts as a person or not until we're blue in the face, but it's an unavoidable fact of the phase "nobody should be forced to be born" that it encapsulates this bizarre idea that a) the event of birth is the beginning of suffering and b) the most humane thing for us rational thinking adults to do is to end life before that point.

[boreal-sea]

Sex based oppression is a terf term and I would recommend you don't use it, it's also transmisognyistic to imply there's a male supremacy, as a trans woman, it can be used as an argument that *I* would be harming cis women just for existing, which is what the terfs want

Please learn more about trans misogyny and learn from mistakes!

😘💕 xoxo no harm towards the previous anon or you op

I would really like it if some of y'all would cite WHY you think sex-based oppression" is a terf term. Who coined it? When? Why? Y'all also never suggest any alternative language.

But firstly:

An afab person talking about sexism and the hatred afab people face - regardless of the words they use - does not imply the existence of "male supremacy". The only way the words "sexism" or "sex-based oppression" can mean "male supremacy" is if you believe in a world of binaries, where if something is true for X, the opposite must be true for Y. If you go down THAT rabbit hole, THAT is radical feminism/terfism speaking. And if you think discussing sexism against afab people is equivalent to saying "male supremacy exists", I cannot help you.

Sexism is not solely perpetrated by males, nor are females the only targets - but we are the targets for whom sexism was designed and intended for. However, unlike the adherents to the "TMA/TME" dichotomy, I'm not going to sit here and say "only afab people can experience sexism, because sexism is only against females".

Fact: anyone can experience sexism.

A societal hatred of afab people does not mean all amab people are going to be treated as superior, because that's not how oppression works. Our society hates afab people, things associated with afab people, and anyone who doesn't perform malehood exactly right.

Two truths:

Our society treats people who were assigned female at birth as second-class citizens.

Our society treats trans women as second-class citizens for various reasons, many of them involving sexism, just like the oppression it places on people assigned female at birth!

These two facts exist simultaneously. They do not contradict each other. They in fact are intricately linked.

Furthermore, just because our society oppresses people assigned female at birth based on our birth sex does not mean all amab people oppress all afab people. People who were assigned male at birth are not oppressing people assigned female at birth just by existing.

Now. Back to your uncited claims that "sex-based oppression" is a terf term: I can find sources of academic articles (behind paywalls) going all the way back to 1983 using the phrase "sex-based oppression". What's YOUR source it is a modern-day terf dogwhistle? Or is it just that terfs happen to use the phrase a lot?

I genuinely would like someone to cite a reason why they think it's a terf phrase. I'm a scientist. Give me sources and proof, don't just say it at me.