#even if they confuse you. even if their identity sounds contradictory

[lesvegas]

All the discourse (read: hate) around bi lesbians just reminds me of the anon I got once that was like 'you can't be a lesbian and an asexual at the same time' followed by a rape threat, along with other asks I got around the same time about how I was confused, should try going out with a man, etc etc. Anyway queerphobia is all the same shit, exclusionism is all the same shit, and anyone who hates a certain type of queer is a bigot, no different from our oppressors.

[jackiebrackettt]

as someone who got briefly swept up in the twitter hate against bi/mspec lesbians they don’t tell you what mspec lesbians actually are. they just share the terms around saying it’s harmful and then the one explanation they give is one meant to sound so contradictory that it gets you to react negatively

“mspec lesbians/bi lesbians means it’s okay for men to be lesbians” it’s supposed to activate your knee jerk reaction of “that doesn’t sound right” just like how “cishet aces means it’s okay for cishet people to be lgbt+” was used to exclude aspec people from the lgbt+ community

if you’re seeing these kinds of posts on twitter (or tumblr too, I guess but I’ve mostly seen them on twitter) I recommend you take a step back and ask yourself if these people are presenting the Whole situation. because speaking from experience I can tell you they’re really not

i came over to tumblr - stepping out of the little echo chamber twitter put me in - and asked for an explanation and got a lot of really informative responses. i’m too tired to recall them now in the detail that they deserve but my point is is that if you’re going to hate an identity for no fucking reason you should at least do it with your critical thinking intact and all the full knowledge of what exactly you’re excluding/hating is

at first it confused me a bit and I asked follow up questions. now the identity makes a lot of sense to me and I support bi/mspec lesbians whole-heartedly. but even if it doesn’t make sense to you what good does hating it do? what’s the point? “no trust me bro my exclusionism is good this time trust me�� seriously what’s the point?

[angrykittybarbarian]

A list of things that bother me about Dragon Age: The Veilguard Part 2

I already touched on a few things that caught my attention and personally irked me about the game. After getting through some more of it naturally a few more points have come up. Though I think they are not really new aspects but more concrete examples of what I had touched on last time.

Without further ado, let's get into it.

!Spoilers below the cut!

The dialogue is repetetive and at times contradictory

Like I already discussed last time the dialogue is bad, to express it in the simplest of terms. As I progressed through the game I stumbled upon a glaring example for what I mean.

In the questline where you infiltrate a Venatori meeting there is a part where Neve in disguise and in company of Rook and another companion gets a Venatori to admit that Elgar'nan was present but not Ghilan'nain. For some inexplicable reason Neve turns around and repeats this twice as if Rook wasn't present.

I stated in my last post that the game feels the need to state the obvious. This is what I mean. It makes the dialogue feel like a rough draft that was incorporated into the game without further polish.

As of its contradictory nature two examples come to mind.

In Harding's companion quest you meet this dwarf of Kal Sharok. His dialogue is stoic, no bullshit straight to the point and passionless. Which was fine. But after several minutes of him being that way they get to stone statue Valta who speaks in these misteryous riddles and suddenly he switches to this unserious tone of "Oh that weird statue, we never know what she's saying, ain't she funny." (I'm paraphrasing here). I was confused for half a minute because of his sudden change in attitude and left wondering what his characterization is supposed to be now: serious or quirky?

Same thing with Taash's whole story. This is especially upsetting because I feel like they could have done such great work with it.

Instead it suffers so much from several inconsistencies that I felt sorry for the VA because they actually did a great acting job.

Taash has a coming out scene with their mother where they reveal they're non-binary. Ignoring the usage of modern terms in a medieval-ish setting, the conflict about their gender makes no sense.

The writing wants you to believe Shathann is not okay with her child being non-binary but she never actually expresses such a thing. Actually Shathann sort of had an inkling that Taash was no ordinary woman ("Behaves more like a man...") and she never passed any negative judgement on it. When Taash told her this she even tried to understand by categorizing their identity into qunari vocabulary she knew (remember the term aqun-athlok?).

I get how hard it is to have an overly critical mother and the feeling of not being good enough but that was not what Shathann was about in that scene and it did Taash so dirty because they looked more like an entitled teenager than someone suffering from trauma and perfectionism.

But moving on.

Some old characters are mischaracterized

It's Scout Harding. I mean Harding.

I was really excited to have her as a companion in the new installment but they sort of butchered her character that I found myself annoyed everytime she opened her mouth.

And this is because they make her sound so immature. Really think about it. DATV somehow makes Scout Harding sound younger and more childish than she was in DAI despite the fact that she is supposed to be a whole decade older in DATV than in DAI.

I don't know what direction her VA recieved while recording but everything was pronounced so slowly and extra clear that it seemed at times that Harding was either talking to a confused elderly person or a child.

She herself uses expressions not fit for her age. The most jarring moment was when she called the Blight in D'meta's Crossing 'weird' and sounded like a teenager who has stumbled upon furry art for the first time on deviantArt. This pattern pretty much continues throughout the game. And it hurts so much.

Also Morrigan. She at least still uses her even for DA setting standards antiquated vocabulary but she is too happy and cheery and friendly.

Morrigan is not a nice person to those she does not know and like personally. But to Rook she was so nice despite having met them for the first time.

The Morrigan we have come to know love/hate should have been more snarky or at least more neutral in her demeanor.

The Venatori

I don't know why they are still a thing honestly. I was under the impression they have lost all footing after the death of Corypheus. Why would they follow the Gods of the people their country systemically abuses anyway?

Bonus: Why would the Antaam for that matter, as the qunari are so notoriously arcanophobic that they leash their mages, sew their mouths shut and literally call them "dangerous thing"?

Solas' spy network and agents

What happened to them? Where are they? Shouldn't he have a small army? Why weren't they used as the gods' agents instead of the Venatori? Surely, Elgar'nan and Ghilan'nain would have an easier time simply controlling Fen'Harels elven army after imprisoning him in the fade.

The Chantry

It is just not present. Sure there are some Chantry buildings but there is no discussion of faith. In all previous DA games the Chantry has had a constant influence that could be felt everywhere. Faith was discussed and explored from various angles and perspectives, ranging from ultra conservative to progressive. But in Veilguard it's not there.

Why are we not exploring the Tevinter Chantry more? Why doesn't Emmrich discuss the nevarran Chantry, who follows the Sunburst Throne in Orlais, in regards to the Mournwatch, their necromancy practices and magic? Why was he not affected by the mage uprising that started in Kirkwall? How does he deal with faith and the Chantry? It is simply never mentioned.

By all accounts, this game avoids delving into the world like the plague.

Part 3

[lycandrophile]

I’ve been struggling for a long time (almost 5 years now) over whether or not I’m trans. At this point I’m think I might be, but I’m terrified of loosing all the stuff I love about womanhood. The friendships, the clothes, but mainly being able to call myself a lesbian.

I think I really need to confront my gender, but I don’t know if it’s worth loosing all of these things that mean the world to me, advice?

fun fact: you don’t have to lose any of those things to be trans!

your friendships don’t have to change. sure, if you get to a point where you pass as a guy / are seen as not-a-girl in some way, new people might treat you differently and approach friendship with you differently, but the friendships you already have won’t have to change at all. absolutely nothing about my friendships changed when i came out; there’s no way of being friends that’s exclusive to women. and if a friend does treat you differently just because you’re trans? that’s on them, and it honestly might be a sign that you’re better off without them anyway.

you can wear all the same clothes you do now. my wardrobe hasn’t changed at all since i came out. i’ve always chosen my clothes just based on what is most comfortable for me, so i’ve been perfectly happy keeping all of my old clothes. my body and the way other people see me were the things i felt the need to change, not my clothes. i might not have the most masculine wardrobe ever, but it’s what i’m comfortable in and that’s the important part. if anything, being trans just expanded my wardrobe instead of changing it — i kept wearing all the things i always liked, but i also started to look in the men’s section and found even more things that i like wearing.

and you don’t have to stop calling yourself a lesbian just because you’re trans. it’s one thing if being trans also means the label doesn’t feel like it fits anymore, but if it still feels right? you can keep using it as long as you like. nonbinary lesbians and transmasc lesbians and lesboys and trans men whose love for women still feels gay and people whose only remaining connection to womanhood is the fact that they’re lesbians and multigender people who are lesbians because of their womanhood while also being other genders and people whose genders are just butch or femme or dyke and nothing else all absolutely exist, as do trans guys who don’t personally call themselves lesbians anymore but remain part of the community because it still just feels like their home; you’d be far from the first person to transition while holding onto an identity that’s still meaningful to you, even if it sounds contradictory to other people.

i’ve gone through similar processes of trying to reconcile newly discovered parts of my identity with the parts i’d already accepted, and you’d be surprised how often the answer to the dilemma is just “i guess i’m both, unless/until i decide one of them doesn’t feel right anymore.” i don’t talk a lot about my specific identities on here but they’re full of so-called contradictions. the thing about queerness is that it’s never been about making our identities “make sense” or “sound right” to other people. queerness is automatically looked down on by most people as wrong or unnatural or confusing or just completely unintelligible, and the job of queer people is not to make them more intelligible but to embrace them despite the fact that most people think we’re ridiculous for doing so. the only person your identity has to feel right to is you; no one else matters.

any shift in identity is going to feel like a massive change when your old identity is one you lived in for a long time and grew attached to, but being a big change doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a loss. of course, if it feels right to let go of some of the old to make room for the new, do that, but never feel obligated to do so. if you aren’t ready to let go of something associated with your old identity yet, let those things stick around while you welcome the new stuff in and see how they get along. you aren’t on any kind of timeline; you can take the transition slow and only let go of things once you feel absolutely sure that they aren’t serving you anymore, even if that means never letting go of some of the things other people say you should want nothing to do with. some of us are happiest when we embrace identities and ways of moving through the world that make absolutely no sense to anyone but us.

so my advice is this: don’t run away from this. it’s not fair to yourself to live your entire life in a limbo space of perpetually agonizing over your identity but never doing anything about it. the best thing you can do is give yourself permission to explore these feelings in their entirety, rather than only focusing on the things they might take away from you. i know it’s scary, but i guarantee you’ll come out happier on the other side no matter what you end up identifying as. knowing more about how you want to be seen and how you want to live life is only going to help you be more satisfied with the life you’re living — you can’t be happy if you never give yourself the space to learn what being happy means for you.

if, at the end of it all, you do end up letting go of some of the things you feel attached to now, it’ll only be because you found something that makes you even happier and feels even more right. and if you don’t? you can live the rest of your life holding onto all of the things you love about womanhood without actually/entirely/only being a woman! there are no rules; gender and queerness have no limits except for the limits of how far you’re willing to go to truly know yourself.

[aeraspais]

Hi !! Hope i’m not bothering you or anything (i’m the one who made the post about Gerrard in s8, just in case btw) i just wanted to tell you thank you for the exchange we had about it !! I really appreciated reading your perspective on it, it was really interesting, and i also wanted to thank you especially !! It’s becoming rarer and rarer, in fandom space (and more generally on social media), to have respectful and open conversations with contradictory and/or different opinions on something, and that’s why I tend to avoid interacting with some discourses or people because it can quickly become the usual “i’m right, you’re wrong, i don’t care” deaf dialogue. Which I personally find very annoying and senseless. So I’m really glad to have had the opportunity to exchange with you, since it was none of that, and you did thank me for that as well — so, i not only wanted to return the favor, but I also wanted you to know that I have a lot of consideration and appreciation for people like you. So thank you, i liked it a lot !!

Also, I’m taking the opportunity to mention that the opinions you voiced here on Buck were very interesting and i agree with them !! You said that some people forget that Buck is now also marginalized because of his sexuality and it’s new for him, he never had to deal with the kind of discriminations that are inherently linked to his identity — i couldn’t agree more !! And i’m glad you brought it up because it’s a very important and interesting aspect of his current situation !! Anyway, that’s all i wanted to say !! Hope you have a great day/night ✨

Oh no, you’re not bothering me at all — thank you so much for this message, it was such a kind thing to do! I know your feelings all too well. I’ve had way too many sour experiences voicing my opinions in this fandom that whenever I do have a pleasant exchange with someone new, I'm very compelled to leave a compliment or two. Like you, I’m terrified of inadvertently kickstarting discourse, and at least on Twitter, I’ve been in the center of a couple bad faith attacks from 911 fans who took my tweets directed at my friends out-of-context to slander me, when they could’ve just looked the other way. So if I ever voice a public disagreement, I will try my best to be polite and respectful to the other party. ❤️

But on to your second point: an anon also pointed out that for many fans they have already been treating Buck like a canonically bisexual character so season seven didn’t really tilt the axis either, and I think this is why (however harshly this might sound) I strive to separate my fanon believes from my canon analysis because it’s too easy to let what you’ve read on AO3 dictate how you treat the text. Before I write out my thoughts, I always take a few different things into consideration: what did this episode say that they haven’t before, what is a new for this character, and how can this be tied into their behavior now. For Buck, it’s literally his sexuality. Then I consider any complications. The easy route would be focusing solely on the racial dynamics at play. It’s the most obvious, but it didn't explain why Gerrard had so much beef with Buck since we also know from his first appearance Gerrard still treated Eli with respect, despite taking Chimney under his wing in “Chimney Begins.” It also, however unintentional, says some ugly things about institutionalized homophobia — that it doesn’t as much matter if the character or the person it’s directed at is white. But both things help characterize Buck’s reaction and later confusion over his motivations. Losing it also makes Buck out to be more violent than the show’s intentions, because I think the aim for it to be a concerning escalation based on prior history (here’s to hoping they bring up the 704 tackle), not something remarkably out-of-character just to drive the plot.

Anyway this got away from me when it’s not even 7 AM. It could’ve been worse, though. I could’ve had my morning coffee, then we’d be here all day/night!

[distort-opia]

Hello! I hope you don't mind that I ask your opinion regarding other people's take on Bruce, because you are one of the people whose opinions about him I trust! 😄 I saw this post earlier (www(.)tumblr(.)com/mamawasatesttube/712242128960585728) and I do somewhat agree with it, but also I remember your reblogged post about multiple interpretations and contradictions, yet I am curious if this is something that, in your opinions, can coexist within one interpretation. (If you get what I mean. I hope it's not confusing) Thank you!

Hey, Anon! Thank you for the kind words, glad that the Blorbo that lives in my head resonates with you. I don't mind giving my thoughts on the subject, though with the note that it's simply as an exercise and not meant to be hostile; I found the post interesting too, and I'm answering with the intent of commentary.

My personal opinion is that OP's idea (at least in the post you sent me) of Good People, and Abusive Parent, and The Superhero Genre, is a bit black-and-white. If you think Good People would instantly condemn abuse, and that Abusive instantly means Bad, and whoever does not condemn Bad cannot be Good... yes, you would end up seeing these behaviors as contradictory, and incapable of coexisting. (Though I don't really agree that the premise of the Justice League is that they are Good People-- I would rather say they are people trying their best to Do Good. There's a distinction.)

But that's not how it works. Human beings are rife with contradiction. The thing is, Bruce doesn't see himself as abusive. The Family doesn't see him as abusive, since the narrative doesn't either. What's fascinating is that (despite the fact this is motivated by DC writers refusing to admit to Batman's flaws) this is a realistic depiction of a potentially abusive parent, and the justifications the people who love him come up with. Bruce's abusive patterns do not mean he hasn't been a good father too, they don't mean that he doesn't love his children, and his children know that. Hell, some of those behaviors happen because Bruce loves them, but has not learned healthy ways of expressing it-- which leads to a common way of thinking for abused individuals ("They hurt me because they love me"). Not only that, the Justice League has seen it too: Bruce caring about the Family, and being willing to lay down his life for them. They've seen much less of the bad stuff, and I will make the note that actually, there are Leaguers who have openly disliked and criticized Bruce because they disagree with his parenting methods, especially regarding Dick (like Green Arrow and the Flash). Even Clark has commented negatively on Bruce's behaviors regarding his kids, and has sometimes acted to counteract some of Bruce's harsher choices. So he does know how Bruce can be like, and he deals with it the way he best sees fit. Needless to say, Bruce doesn't exhibit manipulative tendencies towards Dick or Tim or the kids alone, but towards Clark and the League too. Bruce is quite good at making people believe what he himself needs to believe.

OP's post also makes it sound like Bruce and the League don't have conflicts, but before Clark and Bruce were friends, they fought and disagreed a lot. They still do. Bruce has had issues with multiple people in the League; the infamous JLA: Tower of Babel comes to mind, as one example of a significant conflict between Bruce and the League... Not even going into the fact that, as revealed during Identity Crisis, the League pretty much sanctioned for Batman to be mind wiped by Zatanna, because they knew Batman would never condone of what they had approved to do (brainwashing a villain against his will). If we're splitting hairs, is this something one would qualify as the actions of Good People?

My point is, applying rigid moral labels to these comic book characters... doesn't work. It'll never work. Not just because their world is so much more different than ours (for instance, in the real world, we'd consider it child abuse the second someone allowed kids in spandex to routinely risk their lives fighting criminals) and we suspend our disbelief in multiple ways, but also because these characters have a very long history, spanning decades. This lends itself to a lot of complexity. They've been written by so many people, with different ideas of right and wrong, and different agendas. Hence, you cannot truly go "Superheroes are universally Good, and if they don't abide by what we typically think is Good behavior, then they are Bad, and if they are Bad it all falls apart". Personally, I don't see the superhero genre as something that's supposed to model moral behavior, as something depicting characters we're supposed to always root for. No, they're more like the figures of Greek mythology. Flawed gods. We should be questioning their choices and learn from the very act of questioning itself; understand that no one and nothing is perfect, and that Good and Evil, as pure concepts, do not exist. They are constantly redefined and recreated by the people who believe in them.

[drcuriousvii]

so i've been thinking about. like. the definition of my gender and how i articulate it

(yes this is cropped from hentai. shup up)

basically this panel is my gender. not the person depicted in it, my gender isn't 'a guy' or even 'a guy who looks feminine' or 'a person who is the opposite of what you expect them to be'. my gender is the whole moment and situation depicted in the panel. The sudden inversion of power dynamics, the readjustment in the head, the confusion and lust (it's still a horny-ass gender), the contradictory femininity. My experience of gender is this moment of the 'i'm actually a guy' reveal, extended across the whole of my presentation and identity.

'trap' is still a term i feel personally comfortable using FOR MYSELF ONLY (and fictional characters i project onto, in limited contexts) but dear friend of the blog @sapphiconoclast has also suggested 'peripette' and/or 'peripeteiagender', from latin 'peripeteia' meaning 'a turning point or sudden reversal, especially in drama', as somewhat more formal/inoffensive terms, and I reeeeeaally adore the way peripette sounds... idk

[girl4music]

Wow. Holy shite. What an amazing human being.

They get it. They absolutely get it. The whole fitting into a box bullshit. Pushing aside our true nature as human beings to be and do what we think is our truth but is actually just force-fed social conditioning to please everybody that doesn’t have our best interests or care about what or who we are as a human being.

Whenever I talk about not believing in identity, what I mean is it’s a story of “I am” that we tell ourselves to be and do to navigate in this incredibly harsh and toxic world thinking that we’ll be better for it when it’s really just preventing our soul’s evolution. The pain in our bodies and minds that we can experience when we force ourselves to be somebody we’re absolutely not.

I’m not surprised that now Dom has come home to their most authentic self that they don’t want to act anymore. Playing characters that don’t align with who we are as people must be incredibly tough to do when you value your higher self and true nature as it really is.

They were very brave to express this and post it knowing the reputation they have as an actor.

I am really just completely floored at this. It was very beautifully and candidly put. They’re clearly a writer.

And I’ve really got to stop referring to them by and as “Dominique” when they’re only comfortable with “Dom” for any kind of noun to refer to them by and as. Not sure about “Provost-Chalkley”. But I will always have massive love, respect and support for someone who is being the most ‘me’ that they’ve ever been even when it would work in their favour professionally and financially to continue portraying not like them.

I’ve noticed actors/singers in the spotlight are a good majority of famous people that go on this journey and I can totally understand why. The industry sucks balls and it takes behemoth courage and strength to look it in the eyes and say “This is not who I am or where I’m meant to be but I’m grateful for the journey because without it, I would have never come to my true self.”

And Dom’s right. You have got go through a few wrong lifestyle turns before you finally find the right path for you. I often say that “all ways are the right way always” which can sound confusing and contradictory to what I actually mean by it. But essentially, I just mean that you never come home to what and who you truly are without first being lost on the journey of it.

And this is why I take issue with phrases like “finding yourself” or “discovering yourself” when talking about this subject because it’s a misunderstanding of what actually happens when you go on this spiritual journey.

You never “find” or “discover” anything. You create it because it’s already inherently what and who you are. So you’ve been, are and will be creating it for eternity. Therefore, fundamentally, the journey of it never ends. We are tied with nature because we are nature and the true definition of nature is change or transformation so we are not meant to fit into specific little boxes because it’s counterintuitive to our true authentic self.

It’s really bloody difficult to explain “I am” without using references or expressions of identification. Without using terms and definitions and categories. Without using language and semantics and concepts.

You can’t assert your authentic self to someone else without using layers of lies attached to your person. But thankfully, you can express it through creation.

And that’s obviously what Dom PC has chosen to do.

I wish them all the best on continuing their journey and will be there to support their endeavours on it.

[prefrontal-bastard]

Very intense way to answer that ask.

I’m sure that newly discovered system, coming to you scared and confused literally just asking questions felt awesome (/s) when you went THIS IS ONLY GOING TO BE TERRIBLE FOR YOU, YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD!! Instead of explaining things calmly.

I’m not saying you’re wrong about endos, i’m just saying you can get your point across without being so intense. And you probably should if you want people to listen. Putting things in such scary black and white things will get people to not believe you.

DID/OSDD comes with dissociation (obviously.) and that dissociation can make way for some okay and even good times. It would be less covert if it really was 24/7 suffering.

Also that last part was weird to me. An alter’s sense of self is inherently tied to systemhood. Exploring one’s self and one’s system is intertwined. You answered that ask as though they were questioning when they said they were simply a newly discovered system who didn’t know the community’s terminology yet.

It's definitely not the tone I normally take; normally I'm more measured. That ask came after a long day of doing a lot of emotional labor answering questions about a disorder I've never talked publicly about before. Perhaps I should have slept on it, but here we are.

However, I'm not interested in softening the edges on what OSDD/DID are though, because they're not what people think, and that's a problem.

Even in a mellower mindset, I'd still prompt people to think twice about the conclusions they've drawn, especially if:

They sound very young.

They've done no apparent preliminary research about systems, despite concluding they are one.

They identify as a system, but never mention dissociation.

See, you can't discover your alters before you've discovered you're dissociating. And dissociating isn't zoning out or feeling numb. You actually feel perfectly lucid and attentive. It feels like you're 100% normal.

This is the definition of dissociation:

The splitting off of clusters of mental contents from conscious awareness. Dissociation is a mechanism central to dissociative disorders. The term is also used to describe the separation of an idea from its emotional significance and affect, as seen in the inappropriate affect in schizophrenia. Often a result of psychic trauma, dissociation may allow the individual to maintain allegiance to two contradictory truths while remaining unconscious of the contradiction. An extreme manifestation of dissociation is dissociative identity disorder, in which a person may exhibit several independent personalities, each unaware of the others. DSM-5, Glossary, p820.

Dissociation isn't something you know is happening unless it's pointed out to you, and then you must keep a sense of mindfulness around it to become familiar of the feeling. I'm never not dissociating to some degree. I'm doing it right now.

I'm not interested in scaring anyone, no. But I am interested in providing the right information about complex dissociation. I'm happy to provide resources for people to double-check their knowledge and discernment methods (which I have now collected), but that's about as much as I can ethically do.

And as for the part that confused you: Knowing that I'm not accessing my collective knowledge at once means I know I'm not experiencing what would theoretically be my entire self. I'm OSDD, not DID, and my alters loosely represent facets that I know could form a coherent picture if they could interface. But all I can do is look at the puzzle pieces one at a time and imagine what it would look like put together. (DID individuals don't share this because the symptoms are more extreme, but it doesn't make plurality less frustrating.)

So...there you have it. My goal is to provide disambiguation. Feel free to let me know if you'd like me to clarify anything.

[ultraviolet-ink]

Does "Bi-Lesbian" mean Bi with a preference for women? Why define yourself with two contradictory terms instead of just describing your bisexuality? Bisexuality is a spectrum, it doesn't mean an even split between genders. Do you just like the sound of the word lesbian? I'm probably sounding mean, but I'm genuinly curious what "Bi-Lesbian" is supposed to mean.

I'm going to assume that you're asking this in good faith, so I will try to answer your question in good faith. To summarize, I suggest that you look at this Carrd and then at this Carrd that is also linked

I am a Linguist, first and foremost, and I like to examine how language has changed and evolved. I prefer to describe my identity as what I like rather than what I dislike (ie, woman/fem aligned rather than 'lack attraction', if that makes sense). In the United States, where I live, prior to the 1970s, Lesbian was an umbrella term for any woman that engaged in sexual or romantic attraction to women, including bisexual women. During the lesbian separatist movement, that would eventually lead to movements like Radical Feminism and the wider TERF movements, people who were involved in lesbian communities were suddenly kicked out, and faced erasure. In short, this is me sort of reclaiming that history, a way of demanding to be let back into the conversation (especially as erasure is horribly common in terms of talking about Mspec people/history, not just bisexuals, but also pansexuals, omnisexuals, etc). Human Gender is strange and contradictory and confusing (a feature, not a flaw), so why should Human Sexuality be any different? Also, Lavender Woman, Volume 2, Issue 5, August, 1973, my beloved

[the-shoemaker-report]

On the Origin of Hide and Seek

Pesach is just around the corner and all of our thoughts turn to redemption—the ten plagues of deliverance, the exodus from Mitzraim, the splitting of the sea, the annihilation of our oppressors and enemies, arrival at Har Sinai, the unity of the nation encamped at the foot of the mountain, etc. We were in a state of extreme joy and euphoria as we anticipated the giving of the Torah.

But something unexpected happened (Shemot 20:15): וְכׇל־הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת־הַקּוֹלֹת וְאֶת־הַלַּפִּידִם וְאֵת קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר וְאֶת־הָהָר עָשֵׁן וַיַּרְא הָעָם וַיָּנֻעוּ וַיַּעַמְדוּ מֵרָחֹק (All the people saw the thunder and lightning, the sound of the shofar, and the mountain smoking; and the people saw and they trembled and stood at a distance). The last thing they expected was to witness a spectacle that terrified them. They were afraid of dying and wanted Moshe to bring the Torah to them. Moshe told them not to be afraid, and that it’s all just a big test. Hashem wanted them to fear Him, not the ‘scary spectacle.’ However, the people didn’t budge. They weren’t going anywhere. On the other hand, Moshe was drawn into the darkness (Shemot 20:18): וַיַּעֲמֹד הָעָם מֵרָחֹק וּמֹשֶׁה נִגַּשׁ אֶל־הָעֲרָפֶל אֲשֶׁר־שָׁם הָאֱלֹקִים (The people stood at a distance but Moshe was drawn near to the thick darkness where G‑d was). It is interesting that the final test before receiving the Torah was to experience thick darkness—a place where the path forward would be obscured, where everything would appear distorted, a reality in which nothing would make any sense—a state of confused existence where even the ‘laws of nature’ would cease to exist. Why was this necessary, and what can we learn from this?

When we arrived at Har Sinai, we were very excited, and we enthusiastically said (Shemot 19:8): כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר יְיָ נַעֲשֶׂה (All that Hashem has spoken, we will do). But it is also written (Shemot 19:17): וַיּוֹצֵא מֹשֶׁה אֶת־הָעָם לִקְרַאת הָאֱלֹקִים מִן־הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיִּתְיַצְּבוּ בְּתַחְתִּית הָהָר (Moshe took the people from the camp to meet G‑d, and they stood in the tachtit of the mountain). Literally, this means that they stood at the foot of the mountain, but our Sages learned something much deeper about what was really going on (Avodah Zarah 2b): ואמר רב דימי בר חמא מלמד שכפה הקב"ה הר כגיגית על ישראל ואמר להם אם אתם מקבלין את התורה מוטב ואם לאו שם תהא קבורתכם (Rav Dimi bar Chama said that [the word tachtit] teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, overturned the mountain like a barrel over Yisrael and said to them, If you accept the Torah, great! But if not, there [under the mountain], will be your burial). In other words, the Torah was accepted only through an aspect of coercion. (And as is known, it wasn’t until the days of Mordechai and Ester that we accepted the Torah completely out of love.) So, on the one hand, we were very enthusiastic, excited and intent on doing everything Hashem said, but on the other hand, we were hesitant and afraid. How can we explain this contradiction?

Let’s bring up another contradictory idea. The verse (20:18) said that G‑d was in the thick darkness [הָעֲרָפֶל, ha-arafel]. What was G‑d doing in the darkness? Isn’t the Torah light (Mishlei 6:23)? And if Moshe was going to receive the Torah, why was he entering into the darkness to receive it? Although it seems bizarre and paradoxical, both are equally valid realities: the Torah is light and Hashem dwells in the darkness. As the Baal Ha-Turim points out on that verse, the gematria for הָעֲרָפֶל is identical to the gematria for the שכינה [Shechinah, the Divine Presence], i.e. 385. This is not coincidental. This is hidden a secret in the Torah that teaches us that when Moshe was drawn near to the thick darkness, he was being drawn near to the Shechinah. The darkness was exactly where Hashem was to be found. We can also read about this perplexing truth elsewhere. For example, David ha-Melech said (Tehillim 18:12): יָשֶׁת חֹשֶׁךְ סִתְרוֹ (He made darkness His concealment). He also said (Tehillim 97:2): עָנָן וַעֲרָפֶל סְבִיבָיו (Cloud and the arafel surround Him). And Shlomo ha-Melech, at the dedication of the Beit ha-Mikdash said (Melachim Aleph 8:12): יְיָ אָמַר לִשְׁכֹּן בָּעֲרָפֶל (Hashem said [that He would] dwell in the arafel).

Instead of simplifying the matter, we now have two paradoxes! Paradox #1: the people were enthusiastic yet terrified and pulled back. Paradox #2: Hashem who is light and whose Torah is light dwells in thick darkness. Can there be a single explanation for these two apparently contradictory and paradoxical ideas?

When someone chooses to do teshuvah on some particular aspect of his life or even after chasing meaningless pursuits throughout his entire life, he often experiences something for which he was completely unprepared. His life may have been going along quite smoothly up to this point; yet, the moment he commits to walk in the ways of Hashem and to purify himself, everything seems to fall apart. He may encounter many obstacles, and life as a whole may get extraordinarily difficult, being overrun by many setbacks. He begins to wonder if Hashem is even interested in his teshuvah. After all, he may have done some terrible things, maybe even many terrible things. Perhaps Heaven is simply rejecting him, plain and simple, G‑d forbid. Such a person’s enthusiasm may wane and he may become despondent or depressed, possibly even abandoning the thoughts of teshuvah that he originally had, G‑d forbid. However, if he understood the dynamics of what was happening and that Hashem wasn’t rejecting him, he wouldn’t have come to such a state. So what is going on? Why do things like this seem to happen so often?

When we sin, we bring upon ourselves (and upon others) judgments, i.e. indictments for crimes committed against the King and His kingdom. These indictments come from the Attribute of Justice [מִדַּת הַדִּין, middat ha-din] which rightly accuses us and denounces us. Not only that, but obstacles are often set up preventing us from walking in Hashem’s ways. Why should we be permitted to waltz effortlessly into a sublime relationship with Hashem when we did what we did, defiling ourselves and ruining His world? The middat ha-din is not unfair; it is just. After all, it is written (Tehillim 37:28): כִּי יְיָ אֹהֵב מִשְׁפָּט (For Hashem loves justice).

However, there is also the Attribute of Mercy [מִדַּת הַרַחֲמִים, middat ha-rachamim] which stems from the fact that Hashem loves kindness, as it is written (Michah 7:18): כִּי־חָפֵץ חֶסֶד הוּא (For He desires chesed). So on the one hand, the Holy One, blessed be He, loves justice, yet on the other hand, He desires chesed and loves Yisrael, His beloved children, even after they sin, as it is written (Malachi 1:2): אָהַבְתִּי אֶתְכֶם אָמַר יְיָ וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמָּה אֲהַבְתָּנוּ הֲלוֹא־אָח עֵשָׂו לְיַעֲקֹב נְאֻם־יְיָ וָאֹהַב אֶת־יַעֲקֹב (I have loved you, said Hashem, but you said, How have You loved us? Isn’t Esav a brother to Yaakov, declares Hashem, yet I love Yaakov).

In short, there must be din and there must be rachamim. But what’s the solution for this paradoxical situation? Can both co-exist?

The solution is that which is stated explicitly in the Zohar Ha-Kadosh (Emor 99b): וְאָף עַל גַּב דקב"ה רָחִים לֵיהּ לְדִינָא כד"א כִּי אֲנִי יְיָ אוֹהֵב מִשְׁפָּט נֶצַח רְחִימוֹי דִּבְנוֹי לְרֶחִימוּ דְּדִינָא (Even though the Holy One, blessed be He, loves din, as it says [Yeshaya 61:8], ‘For I, Hashem, love justice’, the love of his children trumps the love of din). If only we could hold this truth in the forefront of our minds constantly, imagine how much anguish and heartache we could avoid in life! Even though Hashem loves din, he loves us even more. As a result, although He doesn’t push away din, for He created it and agrees with it, and He knows that we are not worthy to drawn near to Him for the abundance of our sins, what does He do? He places his middat ha-rachamim within his middat ha-din. He hides in the midst of the darkness! He’s not rejecting us. He’s not indifferent to our teshuvah and to our efforts to draw closer to Him. It’s as if He’s playing hide and seek, and He wants us to find Him in the midst of all the so-called obstacles, as it is written (Yeshaya 55:6): דִּרְשׁוּ יְיָ בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ (Search for Hashem when He can be found). After all, the truth is that there are no such things as obstacles. They’re all just illusions, as stated explicitly in Likutei Moharan 115: כִּי בֶּאֱמֶת אֵין שׁוּם מְנִיעָה בָּעוֹלָם כְּלָל (For in truth, there is no obstacle in the world at all). Do we get it? Do we see why the so-called obstacle isn’t really an obstacle at all? It is because Hashem arranged them and hid Himself within them; therefore, they are the path to Hashem. And if they are the path to Hashem, they’re not obstacles, are they? Yes, they are challenges and difficulties, but they don’t prevent us from accessing Hashem. On the contrary, they are the very route to Hashem.

This being the case, why was Moshe the only one who was drawn into the darkness? It is because not everyone has this understanding, or even if they do ‘know it to be true’, they don’t ‘feel it to be true’. And the only one who had this knowledge, this da’at, was Moshe Rabbeinu. Therefore, he was drawn into the darkness—literally. He was compelled to enter the darkness, not for himself, but on behalf of the people, to bring the Torah out to them. Therefore, if we are to find Hashem in every situation in life, especially during the difficult times, we need da’at. That’s why it’s the first berachah of request in the Shemoneh Esrei. We need it like we need air to breathe. Without it, we’re constantly falling into the traps laid by the Sitra Achra to ensnare us. But with da’at, we can recognize the trap at the moment we encounter it, and know and feel that it’s just a test—that Hashem is there and that what He really wants is not for us to become entrapped but to draw closer to Him. It is as R' Nachman writes (L.M. 115): וּמִי שֶׁהוּא בַּר דַּעַת הוּא מִסְתַּכֵּל בְּהַמְּנִיעָה וּמוֹצֵא שָׁם הַבּוֹרֵא בָּרוּךְ הוּא (Someone who has da’at, he looks into the obstacle and finds the Creator, blessed be He, there). And if Hashem is there, then that’s where we need to go.

All of this may seem like a rather convoluted way to draw close to Hashem. Couldn’t He have designed the system another way, in a clear and direct way? He has unlimited abilities, after all. So how come He designed it in a way that seems like we’re all involved in some kind of surreal game of hide and seek? To answer that question we need to go back to the Garden. What did Adam do after he sinned? It is written (Bereshit 3:9-10):  וַיִּקְרָא יְיָ אֱלֹקִים אֶל־הָאָדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אַיֶּכָּה׃ וַיֹּאמֶר אֶת־קֹלְךָ שָׁמַעְתִּי בַּגָּן וָאִירָא כִּי־עֵירֹם אָנֹכִי וָאֵחָבֵא (Hashem G‑d called to the man and said to him, Where are you? He said, I heard Your voice in the garden, and I feared because I am naked, so I hid). Adam, i.e. we, initiated the game, not G‑d. And since we hid from G‑d, He hides from us. It is middah k’neged middah. In His infinite wisdom, G‑d knows that the only way for us to rectify this sin is to replace fear with emunah and enter into the thick darkness. Then, instead of Hashem asking us אַיֶּכָּה (Where are you?), we will ask Him אַיֶּכָּה? This is the ultimate tikkun.

May we merit to find Hashem in all of our challenges and difficulties in life and never abandon the hope of finding Him in the midst of our thick darkness.

[caught-tumbling]

I've known a few people who use lesbian/gay and love nonbinary people or trans people or even cis people that don't match their label. Labels have two roles, to describe your experience and to make yourself feel comfortable. A label can fulfill either or both of those purposes. It sounds like your lived experience matches the lesbian label for most of your life. It also sounds like you prefer that label. So you absolutely can use that label!

Lots of queer folks have "contradictory" labels, trans men who identified as lesbians for years and had no desire to change that when they transitioned, bi folks who have no interest in men because of trauma, asexual people who are into hookups, intersex people who don't identify as their AGAB nor as trans, none of these people are wrong for how they identify because its basically impossible to be wrong. Its your label for your life. You might have some people who are confused about your identity and you'll have to decide how you'll handle that but thats really it. No matter what, your identity is your own

I have a question for the lesbians.

I've always been attracted to girls, and I realized when I was 12. I started identifying as bi. But I realized I didn't feel any attraction to boys. I then identified as a lesbian, which felt the most right out of all the different lables I've used. I started identifying as pan when I found out the "girl" I was (and still am) in love with is a trans boy. That didn't change how I felt Abt him so I figured that meant I didn't care Abt gender. Recently I've gone back to bi, bc I still prefer girls.

I honestly don't think I like boys at all. I developed a crush on my best friend thinking he was girl, and by the time a knew any different I had already fallen too far in love for that to change it. I genuinely think he's an exception.

Also, one of things that's helped me to realize this is JaydenAnimations' "not being straight" video. She talks Abt growing up not knowing she was aroace, and selecting crushes based off nothing bc everyone had one. I did that A LOT with boys in elementary school, saying I had a crush, but he ment nothing to me.

Meanwhile, looking back I was very found of my female classmates, and how pretty they were. I had crush on this girl, and I didn't even know at the time bc I was dealing w a lot of internalized homophobia, and didn't even think that was possible for me. Looking back I can compare how I felt Abt her to what crush feels like and know it was the same.

Now that you have context, am a lesbian even if I love a guy?

[nostalgebraist]

if frank clearly expressed a desire to change her avatar or url and generated an image/usable url for that purpose, would you change them? i think that could be fun, but i can also see wanting to keep her recognisable in order to not confuse people.

No.

Or, I guess . . . yes, conditional on Frank "clearly expressing a desire" to do so. But unless I drastically change the way Frank works, that isn't going to happen.

Frank doesn't really have stable identity traits, even the most basic ones. She doesn't really "know" that her name is ("is"?) Frank, or that she ("she"?) uses she/her pronouns.

Ask her a question about herself multiple times, and you'll get multiple contradictory answers.

So, imagine I actually do this. Pretty soon, someone is likely to ask Frank whether she prefers things this way or not. And Frank might say yes. But she might say "no, I want it to change back." (In both cases, she can't remember what she said earlier, and is just trying to guess what a person might say in the present conversation without having the benefit of context.)

And then I would have done the url/avatar-changing work for nothing . . . unless I change it back, only to find that Frank now (upon being asked again) "wants" it to be the other way again! Which could well happen.

So, although doing this kind of thing sounds innocuous in the abstract, I worry it'd open the floodgates and create a bunch of new work (for me) and confusion (for everyone).

----

I guess there's no way for you guys reading this to know this, but as it happens, Frank is constantly being asked what her pronouns are.

Frank's code/models will reliably flag these asks for moderation, so they get saved to Frank's drafts folder, where I see them and -- without exception -- delete them.

Why? Well, imagine what would happen if I didn't do this.

Frank's responses to this question are random and inconsistent, as I know from seeing these answers before I delete them.

(Just to be maximally clear, this does not reflect a human-like request to modify a pre-established gender or pronoun set. To express such a wish, Frank would have to know what's been "established" already, but she doesn't. She's roleplaying a different character each time, and giving that character's unchanged answer to the question.)

So now, in this hypothetical, Frank is constantly asserting different things about her pronouns. If we want to talk about Frank in this world, which pronouns do we use? The "latest" ones, i.e. the ones from the most recent response to this question?

But Frank often posts hundreds of times a day -- should people be expected to read every one of those posts to make sure they're up to date? (I myself don't read all of Frank's posts -- not even close.) Worse, people would soon realize that they could cause Frank's "current" pronouns to change by asking the question, and I'd expect some people to ask it specifically so they could become the #1 Frank-pronoun-knower for a little while, and go around correcting other people on the issue. And this would increase the rate of pronoun-oscillation, and thus make things even more annoying for people who simply want to say words about a tumblr bot.

Sorry for the semi-rant, it's not like this was a bad question. It just provided a useful springboard for an explanation of why I do things the way I do.

[fmd-art]

You know what, I actually took my time to read the link you gave me. Precious time I'll never have back.

I'll comment only on the list of the reasons, since it's the most important part.

The main reasons why someone uses the bi-lesbian/gay label:

1. Split Attraction Model was designed for asexual and aromatic spectrums, it's contradictory to apply it to other non-aro/ace orientations. After this list they proceed to make a gotcha argumentation citing theories from 1897. Go back to Middle Ages since you're at it, would you?

2. If you "experience mspec" you're not mono, gay/straight aren't the only orientations in the universe.

3. "mspec-queerplatonic" falling again in aro/ace language that doesn't apply to other orientations, and biphobia.

4. Contrary to what the person who wrote this mess seems to think, non-binary isn't a third gender, but a spectrum. You claim to "not put in a box" a label that's supposed to be a safe space (lesbian), but do the exact same thing with another that doesn't require it. Hypocrite.

Also, there already exist other generic labels to express the same elements that accomunate lesbian and bisexual (such as Sapphic) or gay and bisexual (like Achillean), so instead of coming up with illogic oxímorons, it'd make more sense to use this ones. You're not a linguistic, why are you trying to creat new words without the competency for doing so?

5. ... Why not using abrosexual then? It would help spread the knowledge of the label's meaning as well.

6. Not gonna lie, the defnitions of these terms sound extremely biphobic. "Amplusic is an orientation in which one's attraction isn't strict to just one orientation." back in the 60s, aren't we.

7. Same thing I said for point 4.

8. Same thing I said for point 4.

9. Lesbian and gay already include non-binary identities, because it's a spectrum. Again, go read poin 4.

10. Then why using the lesbian label if you're not attracted to women? This one really confuses me. Are you scared of using straight?

11. "Heteroflexible" and "homoflexible" is an terminology still used by biphobic bigots. There's not much to say on this one.

12. "Using archaic and lesbophobic definitions used by homophobes who believed in conversion camps for homosexuals and corrective rape". Really progressive. They even wasted time on making a paragraph about the history of gay/lesbian-bi, which is in fact filled with closed minded argumentations taken from one of the most homophobic period of last century. Because progress is useless, let's keep wallowing in good ol' outdated mentalities like grannies, you're right.

13. It's calleg gender preference It's perfectly normal to have it, a huge number of bisexuals all over the world has always had it, and they're still bisexual. Poorly veiled attempt to claim that bisexuals with preferences aren't valid.

14. Same thing I said for point 4.

15. Same thing I said for point 4.

16. That's literally transphobia. If your partner comes out as transgender, and you still want to anyhow use the lesbian/gay label instead of something else, either you're transphobic and see your partner as their assigned gender, or you're a repressed bi in denial. Seriously, why not simply use bisexual? I really don't understand how someone could read this point and not think that THIS is actually terf rethoric.

17. I miss to see the point of why this would be a justification for mixing up labels that contradict each other's definitions, since the words sapphic and achillean (again, point 4) and many more already exist. Seems more like an excuse to reach the total of 20 points.

18. Instead of addressing the problems of LGBT communities and their lack of support for their own members, let's create a new label that creates more problems for all the other people around you. Very mature.

19. "'Cause I feel so", well wow you got me there. By this logic I could use the trans label even tho I'm cis, just because I feel like it.

20. "More nonsense at your choice, because we run out of it". They really wanted to reach 20 so bad.

-

The only thing I understood from this pile of garbage is that not only these people can't comprehend simple definitions of words from their own language, but they're also huge egotistical hypocrites, and I also got the confirmation that this "community" is 100% based on homophobic, biphobic, aroacephobic, to my surprise, and transphobic ideals recicled by close-minded and harmful rethoric from the past centuries.

You helped me on my argumentation indeed, thank you.

I've been noticing that on here a lot of pages with the ⚢ symbol in the bio or description is run by radfems and terfs, so much that I even thought about deleting it from mine. But I refuse to give it up, it's a symbol I've always liked that only recently I found the courage to use.

So fuck them, I'm keeping it.

[fatsmyname]

this is probably gonna sound weird but ur blog is great and um. its great to see lgbt ppl who take gender how they want to including in ways some ppl think are contradictory. but he/him or he/they lesbians are super cool. y'all kinda inspiring. i worry less than i used to abt what cis ppl think of me or what my gender is supposed to be like. so thanks for being cool. sincerely a not lesbian he/they dude

Hey!!! Not weird at all and I really appreciate ur super kind words!!!

As a queer person I fully embrace queerness in every aspect of my life including my gender fucky identity. I feel like people get really confused when they see butches and masc folk teeter between two labels and are even enraged by this! Even other lgbt people get enraged by this!!! It’s really sad honestly and just shows how much these people continue to impose binaries on others.

There are lesbians who identify as ftm and lesbianism. There are lesbians who use the men’s bathroom and to other people in society, are seen as… men! And they like that! And I think that ambiguity really bothers people. Especially when we use he/him pronouns. I mostly resonate with butch elders who want to be seen as men but are lesbians. I feel like people get scared by that sentence because they think that just because everyone else sees you as a man, you are one. But it’s more nuanced than that. And, contrary to what most people think, it doesn’t drive other lesbians away from us! In fact I think it makes us more desirable and wanted by other lesbians. The butch4fem dynamic is a beautiful one and there have been plenty of those relationships that existed with the butch being literally known as the “man”.

Another thing I find super interesting (and relate a lot to as someone who is also butch4butch) is that butch4butch relationships and dynamics look a lot like gay male dynamics! And I think that’s so fucking neat. Our innate masculinity and attraction to others masculinity is so strong that we perceive our love and sexuality similar to that of gay men. In fact there are butches who enter sexual relationships with transmen because of this! Does this make the butch any less of a lesbian? No! And it doesn’t invalidate the transman’s identity either. If you want to read more about this particular dynamic (because I find that it confuses people more than anything) please read Of Catamites and Kings by Gayle Rubin. It’s a great read and one that I wish more people had access to.

Sorry this is long haha but yes!!! You should worry less about what people think of your gender and just do whatever the hell makes you feel comfortable! That’s what I’ve been doing and it’s soooo liberating. There are so many intersections of the queer experience and I think we’d be horrible to continue to squeeze obviously queer people into more binaries just because people have a strict idea of what gender or lesbianism should look like (among other things too, not just lesbianism)! N ee way if u read all this thanks lol i love u

[my-hyperfixation-trash-can]

Hetalia’s Russia and DID/OSDD 1-b

Hey! So @autistic-hetalia your blog said you accept neurodiverse head canons and I thought maybe I could share this one with your blog!

I believe the Hetalia character of Russia has OSDD 1-b (Otherwise Specified Disociative Disorder or possibly DID, being Dissociative Identity Disorder) and this is why.

Just a note,

There is no such thing as an evil alter. Do not demonize people with DID or Other Dissociative Disorders! Those with this disorder are victims of Trauma and are likely to continue being victims of abusers, rarely do they become abusers!

Anyways, -cough cough- I’d love if anyone wants to add to this with more evidence!

1. Russia had a traumatic childhood

He is shown to have had abusive bosses who would punish him. He is threatened by one to invent steam power by the end of the week or be punished. Tartar Yoke mentioned by Lithuania as one of his bosses was also known for his cruelty. So the Authority figured in his youth were often cruel and held power over him.

His environment is cold and unforgiving much like an abusive home. Russia often describes his home as cold, quiet and lonely. He rarely found support from his land and often struggled to get by. The environment and home were harsh with little support. It is also implied he froze to death each Winter, and celebrated the year he didn’t.

This is on top of having to deal with other nations attacking him, making him feel helpless. Many nations “bullied” him in attempts to conquer him. He was mobed and pursed every day by Mongolia. That is exhausting to have everyone around you be a threat. (Lithuania and his sisters were the only nations kind to him in his youth) Early on, he learns that force and strength are what matters.

Next point tw sexual abuse and assault

He also felt a great deal of responsibility to care for his sisters. He was close to them, as they were experiencing similar issues and not violent to him. He had to be the strong one. Belarus and her unhealthy attachment to Russia depending on the age she started her behaviors may have also contributed to his trauma. All of the siblings have unhealthy attitudes towards boundaries with their bodies and the bodies of others, implying another type of abuse. Ukraine and Belarus took victim roles. Russia took on an abusers. Ukraine only ever suggests using her body to get what she wants as if never taught anything else, even as a child that’s what she knows. Belarus I don’t know where to begin, but her staring off is certainly dissociative like, paired with other trust issues. In a diary entry she is stated to have possibly messaged Ukraine’s breasts, once again showing more unhealthy boundaries with attachments to loved ones. Someone taught her that. And Russia, who internalized his abusers, acted out his abuse on others as implied with Lithuania looking distressed dressed as a maid and Russia holding a whip. In another non canon game Himaura worked on, Bulgaria in the bad ending is shown tied up and naked implied to be whipped by Russia as Russia says this is “tradition” or possibly more routine implying this is something he does often.

The idea with dissociative disorders is that the repetitive trauma that happens has to be too much for the mind of that individual child in comparison to the culture they’re raised in, and it conflicts with getting their needs met. And to the countries, all of them know Russia has had a life with far more conflicts in his youth than most, and a great deal of pain.

2. Russia has General Winter (GW for short)

General Winter manifests when Russia is being attacked by other nations in order to defend him, or to be a tormentor to Russia himself (such as freezing him to death each Winter).

This is oddly similar to what is known as a persecutor alter. These alters have the goal in mind to protect the host or body, but they’re a bit misguided in how to do that. They might take on the form of an abuser, or something outside the body, this turns into being an Introject. I’ll post a link to more info on DID/OSDD at the end of the post. The educational videos playlist will have a video on alter roles.

Russia’s bosses often abused him, and if he had an alter like this it would make sense that it would take the form of a general, someone in power who feels so much bigger and stronger than him. A boss who can push him around and make him behave in a way that will avoid further trauma from the real abusers. Winter the season, being another tormenting force of the environment, is another abuser, and it makes sense GW would take that into his identity. Russia feels helpless to it. It is also worth noting that other nations who also had to deal with Harsh winters do not have General Winter as an ally. He only protects Russia.

It would also explain why General Winter protects Russia from others attacking him. He took the ideologies of his abusers to heart, so GW pushes people away and treats them like threats. He feels strong by holding power and fear over others and force. If I can be stronger, no one can hurt me or would dare try, this is the mentality.

I believe GW can manifest as he does because Russia has magic. It’s canon that Russia can do magic or has a strange magic of his own, so whose to say GW can’t utilize it too. Perhaps even to let himself manifest sometimes in his spirit like form. This is more a headcanon or idea though.

Russia himself however is shown to be very passive with his bosses. These are people who hold power over him that he can’t really run away from or fight. So his response is to faun or freeze. This is basically stated in the comics (picture below.) and it’s often that alters have a specific role. Russia’s would be to people please those who he can’t fight. Making General Winter’s job to defend from attack.

3. Russia is shown to dissociate

When he is told to do an impossible amount of work, he just straight up loses himself in a fantasy immediately to escape the reality of the situation. There are other instances too, some in his childhood directly, but this was the most overt. This is from To your Hearts content, Russia!

4. Russia Is Inconsistent

There are times when Russia feels very different from moment to moment.

He goes from open about himself to swiftly sadistic and cold. He has moments of childish behavior to moments of maturity. These, when combined with the rest of my points, are worth noting. He both wants to hurt (possibly destroy) the others, but also be liked by them?

You can’t destroy people and have them like you.

The baltic Trio who lived a substantial amount of time with him still are confused by his unpredictable behavior. Each encounter The Baltic’s have with Russia is marked by a fear of what he might do. And not having certainty, thus they say things without knowing if it’s safe or not.

Even to Lithuania, (Whom Russia often shows Vulnerability to, in moments like bloody Sunday and Sharing his dreams in Outsourcing Sequel)living with Russia feels a strange theme park where he never knew what to expect. Lithuania has been shown to be great in strategy and games of wit, and a commendable leader with great people skills, yet he only has a general idea of Russia’s behavior? He is seen advising Prussia and Moldova that Russia likes it when people laugh or cry easily (This being predictable to Russia and thus easier to navigate social situations with) so it’s not like Lithuania isn’t paying attention. Russia shows moments of vulnerability and his thought process in panels like Bloody Sunday, which is quite telling as to what he believes are his responsibilities, and how the world works.

Now the real question is “why is he like this?”

He only understands the world from the point of view of someone who still lives in the abuse and knows no other options. He never had anyone teach or show him different. His world is ruled by who is the strongest, and if you can obey the strong you won’t get hurt or discarded. “We don’t want children who can’t play nice,” sounds like something an abuser told him frequently in his youth.

Russia just doesn’t have a support system due to his strained relationships with everyone. So he keeps relying on old defense mechanisms, hence letting General Winter step in when something threatens his sense of safety.

Nearly Every time (at least that’s what I noticed) Russia is emotionally vulnerable to someone, he suddenly changes to be sadistic or scary. It successfully pushes the person away and Reestablishes the fear of Russia in the individual, returning him to a state of being feared and alone where none of the other countries can hurt him. Examples below.

France talking to Russia after meetings and asking him personal questions would result in Russia ending the conversation by scaring him with a scsry remark and aura suddenly.

Russia Comforting China after Japan turns on him, he is kind and compassionate at first, but suddenly changes at the end.

The Baltic Trio never knows what to expect. He frequently uses fear and force to keep them.

This behavior seems directly contradictory to wanting friends and having a warm and lively home. So GW still reacts with a trauma response, and Russia reacts in line with his wishes of making friends and having others around him. The Use of force and intimidation is naturally the middle ground between their wishes. Russia believes everyone is his friends, and doesn’t see how his behavior is pushing people away. Other times he seems to want friends to like him back, like when he sent France an anonymously written letter to his radio show. However he has wishes that contradict.

Now, I think he sees friends as people he can keep near him that he enjoys the company of. (This doesn’t need to be mutual or involve trust, just force) but those wants directly contradict.

I think GW is passively influencing him with some of the behavior rather than switching out right, but either option still would have the same effects. Passive influence is when an alter is close to the front, or feels/thinks something strong enough that it affects the person at the front. Making them behave in a way that is ooc for them, but not the other who intentionally or unintentionally influenced them.

This would explain sudden shifts to a cruel threatening position with other nations, something that will most likely always be a threat GW needs to defend against. He is particularly cold and defensive with anyone that has a chance to hurt him, (or tries to look into his psyche) regardless of if they made a move to do so.

More on passive influence can be found in the sources at the bottom under educational playlist.

5. Misc. Points of knowledge

Russia’s character originally was meant to be a cry baby, and only when he drinks, has a complete switch in personality. Frankly I’m glad he was changed to the complex guy we have now. However I think this concept wasn’t fully lost.

His character song, Winter, seems to talk of him experiencing freezing to death each Winter. Further adding to his repetitive trauma.

It is not unheard of for nations to have disorders and conditions. Australia has ADHD, Prussia is Albino, Lithuania has severe anxiety (and possibly PTSD), so who is to say a nation like Russia can’t have a dissociative disorder?

It is stated in one of Russia’s character bios that “General Winter is always with him”, however where? I don’t physically see him, but perhaps we can’t because he’s sharing a body with Russia.

In summary

Russia dissociates under stress

Russia has repetitive traumas and an ongoing history of abuse all his life

Russia has inconsistent behavior and attachments

General Winter could certainly be a separate personality and functions exactly like an introject/persecutor alter would to their host.

Russia acts out and damages relationships, acting in inconsistent ways that might play out his own abuse, and/or reflect his desires to keep others near him.

As a note, I actually have DID, so this could be my projecting, but please don’t yell at me about how I made a “villain” have DID and feed into evil alters and split Stareotypes. I would only like to raise interest and provide an example of what a misrepresented disorder can look like. And the links below are there if you want to make your mind up for yourself and educate yourself if this inspires your portrayal of him! This isn’t meant to be insensitive, I’ve been working on this post for months to word it as sensitive as I could while also acknowledging Russia is still responsible for his and GW’s actions. Saying he has DID isn’t to excuse it, just explain it.

Don’t erase his victims, but don’t erase that he also is one.

(This blog below was also really helpful, but this post covers a lot of Russia’s earlier trauma and his mentality)

https://ellawritesficssometimes.tumblr.com/post/175060886956

Research for DID and OSDD 1b below: (along with links to comics)

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLm56LzW0BA_P7-yL3rK7INZDDozTayJvJ

https://www.hetarchive.net/blog/tag/russia/

http://hetarchive.net/tag/russia/

http://www.hetarchive.net/blog/2013/10/11/blog-entry-1411/

https://hetalia.fandom.com/wiki/Russia

https://www.hetarchive.net/blog/2019/01/29/about-the-fact-that-russias-history-is-too-scary/

Below is for an example of dissociation:

http://www.hetarchive.net/blog/2019/02/28/to-your-hearts-content-russia/

https://youtu.be/ZV3ToVA5BqQ

https://did-research.org/origin/comorbid/dd/osdd_udd/index.html