#gender does not exist and gendering things is arbitrary

[genderqueerdykes]

stop worrying about whether or not queer identities "make sense". gender itself doesn't make sense. "woman" and "man" are arbitrary constellations of traits and features that don't reflect how people who fall into those genders actually think, feel and behave. the definitions we have for manhood and womanhood don't make sense, either. according to cisheteronormative society, feminine men and masculine women don't "make sense" either. the biological sex binary makes ABSOLUTELY no sense, with intersex people proving that it quite literally doesn't exist.

why do queer identities have to "make sense" in order for you to see them as valid? they shouldn't have to. let go and accept that identity is not a scientific theory. it doesn't have to "make sense". none of this does. stop running others' identities through such scrutiny and realize your identity doesn't "make sense", either. embrace it. it's a good thing.

[apas-95]

again, no, the goal of the lgbt movement is not to 'let people identify however they want' it is 'stop us from getting beaten and killed in the street'.

having consistent terminology to rally around and explain our collective interests is a tactic towards that end, and it is the reason these 'identities' were constructed in the first place! if the word 'trans', for example, does not exist as a consistent descriptor for 'people who are not the gender assigned to them at birth', then trans liberation struggle suffers a major blow - and, beyond that being the purpose of adopting these terms in the first place, that, in and of itself, is more important than individual freedom of expression!

the lgbt movement is a political movement within society, these are not simply arbitrary terms that exist above society! the issue with terminology is from the same basis as to why it makes absolutely no sense to call an ancient greek person 'bisexual', or a neolithic person 'transgender' - these terms refer to a specific social relationship; an objective, not subjective, position, relative to the society one exists in. these terms are not metaphysical categories, they are ways of describing social relationships towards social systems, like gender, and they are formed into identities only by political movements by which they are used to establish consciousness of one's common social position among those with a similar relationship to a given social system. they are not individual identities, they are social identities.

fundamentally, lgbt identities are not individual descriptors of feeling, but social descriptors of political, economic position. your private feelings are your own, but yes, lgbt identities mean something, and describe a real thing, and can be misused

[en-djinn]

I've been meaning to ask if you have any opinions about The Goddess. I feel like a lot of the more recent Warlock stuff is kinda trying to ignore that she existed :')

so i finally finished infinity crusade and am in the last stretch of infinity watch. finished it abt a week ago bt i wanted to let it marinate in my head a little before saying anything. this is the first time im talking abt smth so recent to me so this will be a lil undercooked wrt my thoughts and very meandering, but i think the act of writing this out will help me anyway loll, it usually does

right away. infinity crusade spoilers obvs.

first of all ill talk abt ur last comment there, and i wanna ask fr further clarification on what exactly u mean by that bt ill just cover both things i thought u meant anyway.

so its pretty obvious that the goddess represents the past, right. warlock is the present, magus is the future. thats why the goddess isnt present in things like the magus is. her stuff is already over. warlock isnt going to revert coz hes already here as he is, the man that he chose to be (transmasc W!).

the goddess is his previous incarnations that were a woman. now that itself is a very interesting topic i wish theyd touched more on bt i also think its good that its kept vague (or at least i hope it is) coz the room to speculate is what makes it fun to think abt. the goddess is a version of him that no longer exists. in fact i think theres a strong case to view this all thru the lens of transmasculinity in general, as a trans man myself i see it like the goddess being yourself before you Knew. i used to have thoughts like 'maybe she wouldve been happier. but it wouldnt have been me. it would have been someone else.' thats what the goddess feels like to me. and magus feels a lot like the childish toxic masculinity of throwing ur weight around as a man for the first time, compensating for what u cant quite believe u truly are.

warlock is the one who is comfortable with both halves, hes chosen to be a man but has accepted that these stereotypical gender roles are arbitrary and unhelpful.

anyway as for the other thing u couldve meant, her being ignored in the actual narrative as never having happened? to be fair im not sure how she would be involved unless it was part of the story of the other 'perfect humans' and i havent rly gotten to them yet! ive seen Her but not as she returns as ayesha, and i havent seen the others yet either. but i dont see why the goddess shouldnt be involved with them in the future (assuming she isnt already). adam and the goddess are technically the same being but theyre not the same person in the way that warlock and magus are. so i think broaching that topic w the actual women seems like the way to go? again especially seeing as Her is also very transgender. they are ALL trans to me btw because theyre nonhumans who are adopting to the human gender binary, which makes them inherently trans. but some will have a stronger case or allegory to project than others, is more what i mean. bt again, i havent gotten to them yet so i rly cant say a whole lot. id like to come back to this tho once i have.

anyway, that stuff aside... where to even start.

i DO love that they keep a balance w morality/intent even tho they say that magus is evil and goddess is good. magus wants infinite life and a deathless world, goddess wants pure nothingness and death for all. and both perspectives do make sense. what the goddess wants Would mean an end to all pain, and like the magus, shes lashing out in frustration at adam for not seeing and accepting all the sides of himself. though in her case, adam just didnt know she existed at all. generally i also love that adam's whole Thing is that hes obsessive and swings wildly between extremes and magus+goddess both represent these extremes. theyre him dialled up to 11. in that way the goddess is the perfect counterbalance to both warlock and magus. bt hey starlin's understanding of the character he essentially Made (obviously not made as a fictional character but Made him into who he is) is really impressive to see every time, love the way he writes things as character studies first.

i also love the implication that adam was Supposed to have a childhood. and that the gotg cartoon that i loved for its depiction of adams origins is actually way closer to canon than id thought!

it could be elaborate headcanon bt to me this means that every previous incarnation of himself grew up from being small, and his most recent birth at the enclave is an outlier. a sort of trapping of his soul or smth. which actually makes more sense considering later on when magus is also reborn as an actual child.

hmm i lost my train of thought cz i was watching vids w someone. bt honestly im not sure i have a ton more to say specifically abt her? the rest of my infinity crusade thoughts are ummm. predictably. about magus. i REALLY enjoyed it as a whole tho, it was fantastic. even tho i dislike the big teamup stuff in general cz it spreads the narrative too thin and u cant focus on any one char which means all the less important ones are gonna be ooc to some degree. hmmm. idk. my train of thought is totally gone wwww, if u wanted to ask abt smth more specific then go ahead bt ig thats my thoughts for now

[icyrambles]

of all my transformers takes, i feel like the one that'll get me sent directly to fandom hell is my feral hatred of the term "femme"

like genuinely it's such a stupid term. not because i don't think the robots can't have gender. because i do think they have some concept of gender. but because it's just woman 2.0

like you've got this super interesting alien species. they've got their own culture, their own language, their own ideas of sexuality and right and wrong, and their own religion. and to see most of the fandom look at that and go "but what if i just made man and woman but for robots" pisses me off

it makes me mad because it's fucking boring as shit. you've got all this cool worldbuilding and lore and you decide that the best thing to do when discussing robot gender is just to give them human gender but slightly to the left

"but icy, how to you distinguish the women transformers from the male ones?"

just fucking use mech for all of them. i use mech/mecha as a catch all term. it's my replacement for person or man or guy. like when someone says "you guys" they could obviously be referring to a group of all men, but let's be real here, "you guys" as it is used in colloquial english, is a gender neutral term despite having a more gendered term within it.

and it's specifically the term femme that grinds my gears. i don't have any issues with people headcanoning characters using she/her pronouns. i think that's cool as hell because pronouns do not equate to gender and in a fandom where like, 90% of the characters use he/him it's nice to see some switchups for pronouns because it gets a little repetitive after a while. but the term femme just tells me that you subscribe to the idea that the alien robot species who do not have the same concepts and ideas of gender as humans do, somehow managed to craft together the exact same gender concepts as an organic species halfway across the galaxy.

and i'm sure someone might be like "well it's not a gender thing" but i only ever see the term femme used to describe a canon character who uses she/her pronouns (like arcee or elita-1) or to describe a fandom headcanon that revolves around a character using she/her pronouns (like starscream or ravage) it has everything to do with how the fandom seems to cling to the idea that cybertronians have to have the same concepts of gender for humans

i've been in this fandom for a little over a year and despite going through forums and tumblr posts and even looking at twitter for a tiny bit, i've yet to see an actual attempt at exploring the concepts of cybertronian gender.

so here's mine; taken from my worldbuilding ideas that i'm sorting out for my in the works fan continuity

cybertronian gender, like a lot of their societal norms, is tied to one's altmode.

as taken from the marriam-webster dictionary: gender is - a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms

now applying that to a species that has the specific characteristic of being able to literally change shape with the assistance of an internal organ (ie the t-cog) leads me to the idea that instead of gender being based on the biological sex like it is for humans, gender is instead rooted in the altmode.

the terms of seeker and speedster are adjectives to describe the altmode of a cybertronian, but also can describe the gender. this isn't meant to be a direct 1-1 copy of human ideas of sex and gender but instead a theoretical worldbuilding exercise in how a species that does not reproduce in a sexual manner would develop similar concepts of personal expressions through their established canon biology.

within my worldbuilding. the common language packs of cybertron come with three sets of standard, altmode neutral pronouns. these roughly translated into english, are he, she, and they. notice how i said altmode neutral pronouns. that's because most altmodes have their own sets of established pronouns that crop up within the groups.

this particular idea ties in with how my versions of cybertronians communicate. basically cybertronians communicate both via verbal speech, such as talking using a vocaliser, but also via manipulating their EM fields, and attaching non-verbal alterations to their spoken words via radio waves and the EM field.

so the pronoun [He] when used in a sentence, might have extra attachments added onto it.

EX: [He (positive/neutral) went to my house the other day.]

So in this case the speaker is referring to someone in a positive or neutral manner.

Here's another one using pronouns on a personal level when referring to one's self.

EX: [Hello. (courteous) My name is Starscream (Vosian - Seeker). I use He/Him (Neutral) pronouns.]

This is a typical cybertronian style of greeting. It includes a hello to the other party/s, the title of the individual along with their region of origin/residence and altmode, and finally their preferred set or sets of altmode neutral pronouns. In this case, Starscream would tag his "Hello" with a neutral emotion, being courteous but not excited because the mech he's talking to is someone he doesn't know but isn't enemies with. He then attaches his region of origin "Vos" and his altmode group "Seeker" and finally caps it off with his preferred set of pronouns "He/Him" which has a neutral emotion modifier tagged onto it because while it's his preferred set of pronouns in the neutral sense, it's not what he'd like to be using all the time.

he/him, she/her, and they/them are all equally neutral and for all cybertronians they exist in a state of purely personal preference. there's nothing about arcee using she/her pronouns that makes her more woman gendered anymore than starscream using he/him pronouns makes him male gendered. that's just human bias. they're robots, so they don't view themselves in the same way. those sets of pronouns, again, are merely translated into english for the reader's convenience.

Now I've thrown around the term "altmode neutral" quite a bit so here's an explanation for that.

Cybertronians with the same or similar altmodes will often develop languages and cultures surrounding those altmodes, similar to how many cultures and identities are developed through similarities with each other. This varies from region to region, with many languages and cultures not meshing together even if those mecha have the same altmode.

A jet like Pharma who was raised in Iacon around primarily ground based altmodes tends to use pronouns specific to grounder based language families while someone like Starscream or Thundercracker, who are from Vos, use altmode specific pronouns indicative of language families developed by mostly flight frames.

The common language data pack exists as an easy way for mecha to communicate with each other without potentially butchering another individual's native language. While one could theoretically download a whole language into their brain module, their actual speech would likely sound distorted or unnatural due to the fact that the brain module only retains the information that was on the download and is unable to account for things like accents, region dialects, and other such nuances in languages

Altmode specific pronouns are often tagged with extra modifiers and would function similarly to the concept of neo pronouns in english.

Megatron as an example has a tank altmode and his specific altmode pronouns are chk/chiks and using them in spoken dialogue would require one to either create a noice similar to a tank canon loading with their vocaliser, or in another tank's case, would simply have them use their own tank barrel to produce the noise.

flight frames often clank their wings together or whistle as their altmode specific pronouns. speedsters will revv their engines. smaller cars like bumblebee or cliffjumper will beep their horns, and ambulances like ratchet will whoop their sirens.

going back to my "pharma raised in iacon" example. he's a jet, but rather than clanking his wings together, he'll utilize his inbuilt siren (installed while he was in medical school) as his altmode specific pronouns. it, roughly translated to written form is wheep/whoop

this also extends to preferences for partners. i've seen people joke about how ratchet has a thing for speedsters because of his thing with drift and rodimus, but genuinely i do think that within the idea of altmodes being tied to gender, mecha would develop preferences for certain altmodes.

and when i say preference, i do mean just a preference. altmodes are fluid things within cybertronian society. megatron, as an example, is a gun, a tank, and a heavy bomber plane across varying continuities, yet at the end of the day, he's still megatron. his altmode is not what defines him as a character.

therefore i think changing altmodes is purely a thing that's tied to economic status. it's very expensive to have the whole exoframe completely reformatted so those who regularly change their altmodes either have shanix to spare, or have saved up enough money to have the procedures done.

this is even touched upon within idw's version of cybertron, what with the existence of relinquishment clinics, where mecha will go and donate their frames for money, and then those shells can be bought so another individual can have a new altmode.

when a mech decides to have their altmode changed they'll often shift up their altmode specific pronouns too. a smaller car changing altmodes into a bigger vehicle will instead honk their horn instead of beeping or maybe they'll revv their engines louder just to signify that they've changed altmodes.

going back to my sentence examples. here's one with ratchet and pharma introducing themselves to a patient

EX:

Ratchet: Hello (positive/friendly/welcoming) My name is Ratchet (Vaporex - Ambulance - Medic) I use He/Him (Positive) and siren whoops pronouns.

Pharma: Hello (kind). My name is Pharma (Iacon - Jet - Medic). I use He/Him and clanks wings/whoops sirens pronouns.

like i said, this isn't meant to be a direct 1-1 with human genders. cybertronian altmodes within my fan continuity defy more than just how another individual views them. they can signify occupation, social standing, and economic class. and some mecha even choose to disregard their altmodes entirely when it comes to their personal expression, sticking exclusively to the gender neutral pronouns.

anyways this post is half rant half worldbuilding so if ya made it to the end i'd be happy to hear your thoughts. and as always, if you liked this post please feel free to reblog :]

[thehellnoelle]

It's that time of year for trans man/transmasc/he/him lesbian discourse that only exists online and is solely perpetuated by jobless teenagers who have never interacted with a GNC queer person

God forbid a community built on gender-nonconformity and the dissolution of arbitrary, binary boxes includes people that don't conform to gender roles or fit into arbitrary binary boxes

He/him and transmasc lesbians have existed longer than a lot of us have been alive, and our progress as a community would be a fraction of what it is now without them

"It invalidates lesbians and trans men!" No it fucking doesn't because everyone's relationship to gender and sexuality is different and no one is the Supreme Arbiter of Queer Identities. Your existence and identity are not invalidated by someone else living their own life in a way that you don't understand. Sometimes it's ok to not understand things, you need to learn that and kill the cop in your head

"That means cis men can be lesbians!" Even if this argument wasn't a blatant strawman (it is), so fucking what. Again, how does it affect you? It doesn't, you just are so obsessed with labels that you think everyone has to fit in your little boxes for them to be valid

"Lesbian means women loving women/nonmen loving nonmen!" Lesbian is an identity with nuance and history and culture. It's not a fucking dictionary definition thay exists in a vacuum. Just because it might be cut and dry for you doesn't mean everyone has to fit in your constricted worldview that's influenced by cisheteronormativity and assimilationism

"If we don't maintain a strict definition for lesbian (meaning woman-loving-woman), anyone can be a lesbian!" First off, why do you hate having more lesbians? Examine that. Second off, apply this argument instead to "same sex marriage" and realize how fucking stupid and bigoted this argument is. If someone says, "if we don't maintain a strict definition for marriage (a holy union between one woman and one man), then anyone can get married!" It's literally the same talking point that bigots use to deny our personhood, rights, and equal treatment as queer people

This shit is so exhausting, especially nowadays when queer people (ESPECIALLY TRANS PEOPLE) are being systemically attacked and historically erased. Like we have bigger fish to fry, can we as a community like take a break from the infighting until our lives aren't literally in the fucking crosshairs of a fascist dictator

Fellow trans people, I love you and you're valid. Transmascs, I love you and you're valid. Transmasc lesbians, I love you and you're valid. If anyone has an issue with that, in the community or not, fun fact: ACAB includes the cops in your head, so shut the fuck up and learn a thing or two about queer history, butch lesbian history, and trans history. If you're not attracted to transmasc people, then you don't have to date them. That doesn't give you the right to exclude them from spaces they've occupied for longer than you've started taking up oxygen in utero

Christ, we can't keep doing this y'all

[leohtttbriar]

(u.s. v skrmetti)

no idea if an equal rights amendment would've helped in this case since they're clearly just deciding this isn't about sex anyway, but i can't help thinking about the fact that we don't have an equal rights amendment.

and dobbs has already done a wild amount of damage to the equal protection clause and judicial precedent--this is piling on exponentially, it feels like, putting it in the judicial record that certain scrutiny isn't necessary and sometimes a "spade" isn't a spade, so long as scotus can frame it so. what laws can now do, so long as scotus can frame them, is to impose a gendered reality that necessarily will discriminate against anyone affected by its dogma, which definitively deprives certain persons of liberty, but scotus can just reframe it as nondiscriminatory bc it affects both boys and girls, see.

as if the underlying principle, the state's apparent interest in children "appreciating their own sex", does not point directly at a hierarchy of gender and gender expression. which betrays the irony of their values--if gender were such a natural thing, why do gendered aspects of the body need to be so regulated with the heavy hand of the state. why does the state need to regulate an appreciation of a child's sex. why do they feel the need to step in where they think a natural process exists. the existence of one transgender person puts them on the defensive for what they think is naturalized. protecting a person turns into protecting a gender dogma. so they can frame it however they like because a) we're still in the process of understanding "liberty" and their understanding of "liberty" is about protecting their arbitrary social values and b) 6 > 3.

[themaveriqueagenda]

I don't get what you mean by this (https://www.tumblr.com/themaveriqueagenda/752851132509978624/if-i-see-maverique-described-as-being-outside-of), would you want to elaborate? /gen

I think of the gender trinary as like how it's described for outherine, so masc fem androgynous neutral, and everything between those. So isn't it outside the trinary? (as well as not being genderless)

firstly, "outherine" has nothing to do with the concept of a "gender trinary", you've already said in the definition it explicitly lists 4 things that it is not, rather than 3. if anything, it would be non-[whatever the 4 version of this is]-nary.

the thing is that there is no such thing as a gender trinary. a gender trinary implies that there is a third gender that is legitimated the same way (binary) male and (binary) female. this gender however does not exist, because nonbinary gender identities simply are not recognised that way. the "gender trinary" is a deeply exorsexist concept as it implies that there is a single nonbinary gender out there that is more legitimised than all the others, often said to be a neutral gender.

but society does not recognise neutrality as a gender at all. it looks at neutral genders with the same ridicule as any other nonbinary gender identity.

what people say the third gender in the gender trinary is is also very arbitrary - i've seen people say neutral, i've seen people say "'none", i've seen people say androgynous. they can't make up their mind because the gender trinary does not exist.

just because some exorsexists say that all nonbinary people must be neutral, the only way to be nonbinary is to be genderless or that nonbinary people have to be androgynous doesn't mean that any of these identities are recognised, accepted and legitimised like binary genders are. at the end of the day, they see all of us as the same neither-binary-gender invalid soup.

outherine, abinary and nonbinary are all perfectly fine umbrella terms to define maverique under, as none of them reference a "gender trinary".

i don't want maverique to be associated with the "gender trinary" because i don't want maverique to be associated with a deeply exorsexist concept.

[lifeafterpsychiatry]

I don't quite know how to put this, i guess we're saying "those like us for whom schizo-experiences is a spectrum exist, and our existence holds relevance to schizophrenia and how its treated, do with as you will", since we see far less discussion of this. but uh.;

We don't know our neurotype; We have met others with our neurotype, albeit few, however have no name for it or "medical description". We've had to make our own.

In effect we have a form of "controlled schizotypy"; As in, so long as our mental health isn't *severely* bad , we have the capacity to much more easily train ourselves to both experience and control schizo-symptoms (we theorize by way of fluid internal boundaries between concepts and things)

for us this is predominantly thought connectivity, thought acceleration, delusions, and " 'sixth sense' perception of ghostly forms and beings".

Outside of this ability, and our plurality which likely arrived as result of this neurotype when we were young, we can be to all appearances 'neurotypical' if we wish- so long as we 'train' this ability properly.

However- this is only so long as our mental health isnt severly bad, and/or we train this properly. Hard to tell which is more neccesary, since up until recently both have been a worst-case scenario.

Fortunatly we managed to claw our way to safety and some stability and are healing. But, it is not hard for us to imagine the situation if we hadn't.

and given how our neurotype works, we imagine often if one thing fails.. it all does. one thing would cascade into another as we lacked the will to control our internal boundaries whatsoever and everything collapsed like dominoes.

We can't help but wonder- how many has this happened too? How many with 'psychosis' are actually like us- experiencing the symptoms of trauma as beings with minds like ours?

As well, how diverse and varied is the spectrum of this?

For us while we've yet to achieve anything substantial we can't help but see our neurotype as purely beneficial, in marginally decent conditions at least.

You've said many with schizophrenia aren't harmful,

but given diagnosis is, itself, often arbitrary we would also ask- how many gifted beings may have been lost as a result? How many who could have helped, immensly, in ways possibly never considered?

and of course , how many would fall into a grey area, needing support for some "unusual" things but filling in societal gaps that otherwise wouldnt be filled?

I know there are often issues with seeing any neurotype as a 'gift', but if nothing else, we don't even have a name for ours. We don't have a name for 'our community'. We're not sure what we'd give it, and given we've met so few anyway we can't feel justified in naming it.

our community, whatever we are, could 'help' i guess? - like nonbinary and plural beings (as a nonbinary and plural being :p ) assist in disrupting the gender binary.

Absolutely like all schizo spec and psychosis spec experiences are real and valid and the categories of psychiatric diagnoses are just arbitrary attempts to categorize and label a lot of very varied experiences. Also I'm anti psych so I don't think you need a psychiatrists validation to be valid in any atypical experiences of yours. I talk a lot about the reality of living life with the official diagnosis of schizophrenia but that doesn't mean it's the only relevant and valid experience of being psychosis spec

[witchynyx]

So I'm currently reading Culpeper's Medicine: A Practice of Western Holistic Medicine by Tobyn Graeme (2013) (while I work on my edition of Culpeper's Herbal), and his discussion on the classical elements and their properties has me thinking about the role of gender in Western witchcraft.

Now people much smarter than me have been talking about the completely arbitrary ways in which a chunk of folks use gender in the context of modern witchcraft practices - specifically the stuff that largely seems to come from (or be influenced by) Wicca (idk how present it is in the Western Occultism that preceded Wicca, it's mostly also pretty problematic so I give it a wide berth) - but my brain is having thoughts and I must share them!

So there's this tendency (you may have noticed if you've read almost any witchy book ever) to assign a binary gender property to basically anything in existence. And if you ask someone who does this about it, they'll often start tripping over themselves trying to explain how it's not sexist or transphobic or gender-essentialist, it's just a natural polarity that absolutely doesn't carry any of our cultural baggage around gender!

Because, actually, things that are 'male' are 'hot' and 'active', and things that are 'female' are 'cold' and 'passive/receptive' (but also we can't just use those words, because 🤷🏼‍♀️) - and, as you can clearly see, there is nothing sexist or gender-essentialist about it! Those are facts! And this is how folks have always categorised things, so who am I to argue with the Really Important People who say this is the way of things?!

And, I mean, if there's one things humans love, it's understanding the world by organising things and grouping them into categories. And one of the common frameworks for understanding, organising, and categorising things from Ancient Greece up until modern science, really, came into its own was Empedocles' system of the 4 elements (then built upon by Plato and Aristotle, and Hippocrates in the medical context). As a result, this framework is still used pretty heavily in occultism and witchcraft, albeit a little more metaphorically than literally.

Now we can see that hot and cold are both terms we might use here to describe the properties of something, which is cool, it checks out, and they're opposites, because we love a binary. But this concept doesn't really map with the descriptions folks have used (male=hot/active, female=cold/passive/receptive), because this system labels both 'hot' and 'cold' as active forces. Which makes sense: Hot things (or spaces) can make other things hot, and likewise for cold. They're both properties that actively impact on other things. As Graeme says, "the active qualities hot and cold can also be seen to denote the dispersive and aggregative aspects of energy, respectively. So, the heat of the Sun, for instance, evaporates and disperses moisture while cold will condense it into ice." Cool, love it. Science.

So maybe we look at the active/passive binary, then?

"Similarly the passive qualities dry and moist describe the resistant and receptive aspects... respectively."

... Because 'the feminine', you'll note, is celebrated for its passive/receptive nature. Specifically.

And you might notice that the two titles assigned to women in society (based on their actions) are generally receptive (aka submissive), or 'bitches/witches/frigid/wh*res' should they dare be resistant to their rightful masculine overlords.

It's almost like passivity has a 'good' (receptive/pliable/acquiescing) side, and a 'bad' (resistant/stable/fixed) side... But when we apply those same properties to our (completely objective) gender descriptors, somehow the passive property that we find undesirable in women... just magically disappear?

Masculine is hot, feminine is cold.

Masculine is active, feminine is passive:

Feminine is passive: Receptive (yes, good), but never resistant (bad).

It's just objective fact. That's what the genders mean, and there's no other way to express the properties of things without applying gender descriptors to them with those (absolutely-not-at-all-biased) descriptions/definitions. But it's got nothing to do with sexism or gender essentialism.

🙃

(Why did that take an instant to think, but an hour to write? Also apologies for any lack of clarity on the phrasing, my seroquel was kicking in as I was writing this, so here's hoping my words say to other people what I intended them to. Clicking 'post' anyway because I know it'll never be seen again if I pop it in my drafts)

[varsex-pride]

How do you define sex identity? Is it a synonym for sex? If so, how would you define them in relation to varsexness?

So far I've came up with this, but I don't know if it is good or not:

Sex Identity: An identity formed based on one’s assigned sex/gender at birth, their current/desired/planned sex characteristics, their body, being gender-diverse/variant, a result of injury/illness, and/or aspects associated with varsexness.  

Just like gender modalities, gender identities/expressions, genders, and attraction-based identities (including m-spec and a-spec), sex identity and sex exists on a spectrum along a continuum. Meaning, someone can have one or more sex identities or lack one and it may be fluid or static for one or more reasons or no reason at all. 

Sex Identity (or sex) should NOT be conflated with gender modality, gender/sex sonance, sexual identity (or other attraction-based identities or the lack thereof), and gender identity/expression, although it can be interconnected and influence with one or more of them. 

I appreciate that you're trying to define it and want us to comment about it. I'm going to comment and try to define it by myself.

sex identity could be multiple things, just like the meanings you listed. however, since it's scope is so ample, when we use sex identity solely and the context talks about the body, it's often to show that the physical body exists regardless of the words we use to denominate or classify it. does that make sense?

sex identity is used less formally than gender identity, and it's more common to see the noun phrase "sexual orientation identity" than the univocal concept "sex identity", at least when used among mainstream activism. because in media and nowaday lectures aimed at people who don't understand much about the community, or from countries where the word gender is unusual, "sex identity" can appear as synonymous to "gender identity". tbh it's confusing to use this term deliberately, and I've seen people using the word "status" instead of identity. however, in the official languages of my country, "status" is more associated with the law, documental things, or computational stuff. that's why I don't use it a lot.

"intersex status", for once, is a term to refer to intersex as an identity, while "intersex variations" to refer to bodily traits (internal/external, and internal here means inside the physical body, and external refers to the apparent traits) or given condition or a set of conditions. status can be recognized by oneself and by others.

about your definition: sex identity in our blog is used totally separated from gender. you can gender your sex traits, and gendering one's sex can be a form of sex identity (eg. I possess a male nipple and a female nipple; I have male genitalia despite producing female gametes). when you gender your sex traits, it's about bodily autonomy and identity self-determination. it's an option to use specific language (eg. my nipples are differently sized; I have a cavernous large phallus despite being oogenic/macrogametic). it should be noted that when using specific language, not everyone will know what those words mean, typically usual to medical studies, and some of them are opt-in like referential language, because it's arbitrary or biased to talk about a indeterminate quantity in a given population. not everyone with a phallus will perceive it as penile or clitoral, or call their pectoral parts as chest or breast, for example.

is sex modality an identity? it can be a descriptor and an impermanent identity that one avoids using situationally, for example. but it definitely can be an identity, or just a relation between how one previously was and how one currently is, between the desired sex traits and current sex traits. it can be about sex sonance too, if one interprets it's tied to.

varsex is sex variance, meaning that it's a dispersion from the expected sex traits. in simple terms, in encompass intersex and altersex statuses. does this stand beyond status? certainly! a group of two people is sex-diverse, regardless of their sex identity. how does that make sense? because even twins are different, so is our genitalia, they all appear dissimilar. except when we talk about groups of people classified by identity or defined with more ample criterion or wider scope. for instance, these two individuals can both carry vulvar tissue. but that depends on how we interpret the word diversity. oh, and there are protsex/protosex people as well, they may or may not be varsex I guess.

sex identity is sex? it depends, it can represent sex. but they are different things. if sex is defined by gametes we produce, are sterile/infertile people exempt from it? it really varies of the context you're using the word sex.

spectrum may not be the best analogy. and: gender & sex can be the same thing for some people. for once, intersex is the gender of many people, and man is the sex of many people too. despite that, they can be distinguished and therefore different things. we can say they can be interconnected or influence each other, but the names/labels/terms are often used documentally and it's inescapable to use them interchangeably sometimes. it's understandable to use only one word for both things, especially when there's only one word in a given language for either sex or gender of theirs.

questions: is "result of injuries" applicable to endogenous traits (since you mentioned illnesses) or specifically about artificial/surgical intervention (therefore mutilation)? would physical changes apply? would it include willingly wanted/planned modifications?

[insaniquariumfish]

A significant portion of people nowadays do not have even a basic understanding of what gender is or what the phrase “gender is a social construct” actually means, and this lack of understanding is poisoning all discourse on the subject of sex and gender as well as semantically mangling the language that we use to discuss these things.

“Man,” “woman,” “male,” and “female” are not genders. “Masculinity” and “femininity” are genders. People are not assigned male or female at birth. People are assigned masculinity or femininity at birth. The state of existing as a man or woman is not determined by gender and has nothing to do with gender. Gender is everything that is culturally associated with men and women besides the state of being a man or woman itself. Gender is “boys don’t cry” and “girls wear dresses.” Gender is not “boys are male and girls are female.” That is sex, which is a biological category, and not a social category, like gender is. A gender is not something you can identify your way into being, because gender is a social phenomenon that is socially constructed and socially imposed, and therefore has nothing to do with your personal internal thoughts, feelings, or desires. Gender is an act you perform, not an identity you feel. How gender applies to you is something that the people around you determine for you, because that is how social constructs work. You are only a feminine/masculine person if the people around you perceive you to be feminine/masculine. Whether you are male or female, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with how you are perceived by others, or even by yourself. You are the sex that you are even if people mistake you for being the other sex, just like an amputee is still an amputee even if people can’t tell that their leg is prosthetic.

Gender is not objectively real, because it is based in subjective and arbitrary social norms that differ depending on culture and time period. No one is innately a gender by virtue of some psychological or neurological property present at birth, any more than they are innately a criminal or a geek or a celebrity or any other social category by virtue of some psychological or neurological property present at birth. Sex is objectively real. You would still be the sex that you are even if no one alive, including you, understood the concept of sex or had the means to determine it, just like you would still be the height that you are even if no one understood the concept of height or had the means to measure it. Meanwhile, you would not have a gender if there was no one who understood the concept of gender, because gender exists only as a concept, and a highly subjective one that is constantly in a state of being redefined, at that, and gender does not describe or indicate any property of objective reality.

[circlejourney]

re: last reblog

OK, yet another hot take from Tumblr Blogger Circle Journey: I truly don't get the tendency to try enticing others into a story based on the fact that it has LGBT+/POC representation alone.

To be clear, it's mostly well-meaning and does very little harm. It's just, as someone who has been recommended stories on the sole basis that it has An Asian Main Character or A Nonbinary Character—or even A Nonbinary Asian Character—several times (which betrays a lot about how they see me, too) I want to ask people to consider and highlight other features of the work when making these recs. please.

(hell, even music. even food. especially these things, actually. why would I like someone's music more because they're queer)

if the representation accompanies good writing then absolutely, it can be a garnish that makes a good dish great. but if the only thing worth highlighting about a work is that it has this one specific arbitrary class of human/relationship, that tells me very little about whether I'll actually enjoy it. Because I have a taste, and among the things that define my taste, "what ethnic/romantic/gender experiences are shown onscreen" ranks pretty low.

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, the existence of representation in itself is never the primary reason I read something. Representation doesn't signify nor substitute quality. I love good stories, and sometimes, exploring facets of identity/experience that are relatable is even a part of their goodness (see: Everything Everywhere All At Once). I'm also fully capable of enjoying fiction with a full cast of straight white men, with a couple of straight women love interests - in fact, some of my all-time favourite works may be described in this way! I enjoy them because they resonate, bring catharsis, or are simply well-crafted first and foremost. A good story that checks my boxes just cannot be denied.

Conversely, if I can't tell that a work of fiction has a plotline or themes I'm likely to enjoy, then I'm not actually gonna read/watch/play it, no matter how diverse the cast. In fact, a work of fiction can be good and have good representation but if it's of a genre I'm not interested in, I'm still not going to read/watch/play it!

so please start helping out your friends whose tastes include a lot more than just representation. By all means please mention if a story has characters and relationships that aren't white/cishet/normative in general, but don't let that be the sole basis of a recommendation.

sincerely, a person who has heard "you'll love it, it relates to this one single facet of your identity" too many times

[smol-and-scared]

G/t Analysis: Gods Among Mice

Before I begin, I want to say two things:

This post is not meant to disparage anyone or question their value as people, all of this is exploration of linguistics, its cultural implications and potential narratives that could arise from them.

It is not a statement of fact or a claim I’m making.

Also… Let’s put aside the “Step on me Goddess” bullshit that has unfortunately plagued much of the g/t community’s DMs (It deserves to be called out, but not what this is about)

I will be using ‘God’ as a gender-neutral term here.

The God-like power of Size💪

Throughout history, Gods have often been depicted as being physically massive. This makes sense, as physical power is the most easily understood form of power. Likewise, a creature's size is one of the most universally recognized sign of one's physical power. So it's a good way to instantly depict the strength of a God. And these depictions have had a weird memetic side effect: The idea that 'massive size' makes a creature 'God-like'.

This does have a bit of psychological merit. If mountain-sized Giants actually existed, (without our arch-nemesis: 🔥the fucking square-cube law🔥) their full size and strength would be so hard for humans to understand that their power is basically arbitrary. At which point it becomes indistinguishable from Godhood. Also, our primitive lizard-brains evolved to fear much larger creatures. And fearing your gods is a major part of many religions.

Because of this there are dozens upon dozens of G/t fics, comics, etc; where the larger party is compared to or (metaphorically) referred to as, a God. In the case of actual giants and characters growing larger, this makes complete sense and is usually well-suited to the narrative.

But in my eternal quest for more angst™ I’ve recently started to question it’s use in Human/tiny stories. It feels kinda… lazy? I mean, not in the context of the story, many fantastic fics do it. But it just feels like it was copied over from the giant fics and never fully questioned or explored.

Okay, but what if: 🤏 smol.

Now obviously, all of this depends on the exact size difference, scenario and world-building of the story. But I still think it applies to a huge amount of fics who play up the Human/tiny size difference as ‘God-like’.

I personally think If a tiny views their resident human as a God-like figure (with all of the fear and awe that entails) …then they are optimistically delusional.

Because Gods are, in most cultures, special.

I have yet to see a fic where the Tiny is struck by the simple and harrowing realization that the humans they view as unstoppable, God-like entities are... in fact, painfully average.

It’s one thing to live in terror of the massive entity that could kill you in an instant. It’s an entirely further step to realize that there are dozens, if not hundreds of them between you and the nearest human-free environment.

And what if the Tiny realizes that their human isn’t even average? Imagine their horror when they realize that the person who is so big and powerful that they can barely even grasp it… is some 4’ 3” (~130cm) little stick? And the average human could snap ‘their human’ in half like a stale fuckin’ Cheeto.

Objectively, the Tiny knew this. They knew that the human they live with was small and weak compared to the others. But they never had an opportunity to actually understand it. And nothing gets that message across like seeing the 'God' of their tiny little world casually picked up and playfully carried on someone’s shoulder.

And It still gets worse...

Depending on the setting, the Tiny may not know or feel connected to any kind of civilization (A borrower colony, a scavenger camp, etc). This is especially true if Tinies are rare and/or oppressed.

And if that Tiny were to realize how average their 'God-like' human was? It would break them in the most pitiful way.

Because that ‘God’ isn’t a god. They’re average. They have a job. They have hobbies and friends. Things that this Tiny could never even dream of having. And that’s normal. That’s expected. They get to live, instead of just survive. Because they’re a person and that’s what people do.

And if their ‘God’ is just a person-

“Then…what does that make me?”

In conclusion:

I believe a character referring to someone as a God/Goddess implies that the speaker is a ‘person’ and they are looking at something greater. It’s ‘Normal’ looking up at ‘Godhood'.

But given the right story, plus a healthy amount of fear and awe. I think many Tinies would start to understand how small they are. And that they’ve been looking up at ‘Normal’ the whole time.

[lillified]

What’s your thoughts about gender in Transformers specifically because I really love your take on the characters

that’s a good question! I’ve given a few different answers about this in the past, and I guess the simple answer would be I want people to interpret it in whatever way is most meaningful to them. The long answer is it’s complicated!

personally I believe that human gender dichotomy is entirely arbitrary. gender doesn’t preclude a set of behaviors or characteristics, but it affects how people treat you, and, in many cases, how you’re taught to view yourself.

One of my biggest pet peeves with how gender is handled in stuff like Transformers, where you’re dealing with things like sci fi or fantasy non-humans, is how literal and inherent it often is. Because we as people are writing from the perspective of a society where gender is taught as an immutable social framework, a lot of our art reflects this. However, when the issue of gender being arbitrary is brought up, instead of acknowledging its presence as an oversight, or an intentional thematic parallel, the go-to response is usually to codify it into canonical rule.

An example in Transformers would be how “female” Transformers were made into a subclass or subspecies to justify why they existed and why there were so few of them. Though you can argue from that as a technically sound retcon, this obviously does not solve the real life issue of why those creative decisions actually happened. It’s a fantasy excuse to justify a disinterest in engaging with “women” characters (while obviously the transformers are not human women, if it quacks like a duck, yknow?)

there have been other explanations of robot gender in the past, but I’ve never really been a fan of any of them, personally. The one I can think of that is most recent is the explanation that the gender dichotomy came about from the transformers learning about gender binary from other alien species (which they effectively colonized). While I personally think this is a step up, both as a writing decision and from a thematic perspective, my main issue with this is that this explanation says the “male” transformers are the essential “default.” The girls have all opted in/transitioned into their gender (which I think is cool, and should be something that happens more in transformers!). that being said, though, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that masculine and genderless should be inherently synonymous.

Femininity or girlhood (which are not inherently the same either, but I digress) being seen and portrayed as secondary is, surprisingly enough, not a very feminist or gender-abolitionist friendly idea! Of course this isn’t the biggest issue facing the women of the world, but I think it is essentialist in its own way, and is a fine example of the tricky nature of deconstructing gender in something that is fundamentally tied to it. On a side tangent, it also pretty much completely eliminates transmasculine representation, which I feel is unfortunate when having a gender binary in the first place only really serves to symbolize the range of human expression. Point being it’s imperfect and while I’m not claiming to have the perfect solution to this problem, I want to at least open the doors a little more for other people, potentially.

In my work I choose to make the genders as close to human as possible because ultimately they are humanoid robots, and I think if you are going to account for anthropocentric bias at all it wouldn’t hurt for there to be more representation overall. The robots are inherently sexless and their gender is inherently arbitrary, like humans (it is also partially the result of cultural imposition, also like humans), and though they lack many of the issues of a gendered society, it affects them and their social lives in a way people can probably relate to. “Man” and “woman” aren’t the only genders that exist, either, and, like humans, there are a range of different identities they can freely transition between.

I’d honestly rather not care too much about the specifics of why. There are reasons, purely social/societal ones, but I think that’s less important than the fact that they experience the consequences. I want people to be able to see themselves a little where they have not been allowed to previously where “humanoid” aliens and creatures have been concerned. If you exist, a robot can have your gender, I promise :)

Anyway, that was a very long winded response! I hope this answered your question, at least somewhat. Thanks again for submitting!

[why-am-i-not-fictional]

Things to script - nature or status of realities

This is something I recently started inputting into my DRs to make them better and safe. I got much help from ChatGPT too to categorize all these things. I wanted to share it with you guys too :) feel free to use anything for your scripts. Happy Shifting!!!

All of the below discriminations does not exist in any of my DRs

Misogyny

Racism

Homophobia

Transphobia

Classism

Ableism

Ageism

Xenophobia

Islamophobia

Anti-Semitism

Colorism

Nationalism

Casteism

Environmental injustice

Sexism

Sizeism

Religious discrimination

Ethnic discrimination

Discrimination based on immigration status

Discrimination based on language

Discrimination based on nationality

Discrimination based on indigenous status

Discrimination based on political beliefs

Discrimination based on marital status

Discrimination based on parental status

Discrimination based on veteran status

Discrimination based on HIV/AIDS status

Discrimination based on neurodiversity

Discrimination based on mental health status

Discrimination based on physical appearance

Discrimination based on cultural practices

Discrimination based on regional or geographical origin

Discrimination based on caste or social status

Discrimination based on educational background

Discrimination based on housing status

Discrimination based on criminal record

Discrimination based on economic status

Discrimination based on access to healthcare

Discrimination based on access to education

Discrimination based on access to employment opportunities

All of the below issues have been solved many years ago and they do not exist in the times of any of my DRs

Poverty

Economic inequality

Environmental degradation

Climate change

Pollution

Deforestation

Political instability

Armed conflicts

Civil wars

Humanitarian crises

Global health challenges

Infectious diseases

Pandemics

Inadequate healthcare systems

Lack of access to essential medicines

Educational disparities

Limited access to quality education

Illiteracy

Child labor

Child marriage

Gender inequality

Women's rights violations

Child labor

Human trafficking

Forced labor

Modern slavery

Corruption

Lack of transparency

Ineffective governance

Authoritarian regimes

Suppression of free speech

Violations of human rights

Arbitrary detention

Torture

Persecution

Indigenous rights violations

Land grabs

Cultural appropriation

Technological and digital divides

Ethical dilemmas in technology

Privacy concerns

Data breaches

Cybersecurity threats

Food insecurity

Malnutrition

Water scarcity

Access to clean water

Sanitation issues

Homelessness

Housing affordability

Urbanization challenges

Aging population

Elder abuse

Mental health stigma

Lack of access to mental health services

Substance abuse

Addiction

Disability rights violations

Accessibility barriers

Stigmatization of disabilities

LGBTQ+ rights violations

Discrimination based on sexual orientation

Discrimination based on gender identity

Family rejection

Reproductive rights violations

Access to reproductive healthcare

Maternal mortality

Child mortality

Access to clean energy

Energy poverty

Fossil fuel dependence

Renewable energy transition challenges

Wildlife conservation

Endangered species protection

Animal rights violations

All the DRs I shift to are abundant of the following things 

Compassion

Empathy

Cooperation

Collaboration

Sustainability

Environmental stewardship

Peacebuilding

Conflict resolution

Dialogue

Reconciliation

Education

Knowledge-sharing

Critical thinking

Cultural diversity

Cultural respect

Inclusivity

Equality

Justice

Ethical leadership

Integrity

Accountability

Service to others

Health promotion

Well-being

Healthcare access

Mental health support

Social support systems

Innovation

Creativity

Social justice

Fairness

Equity

Human rights

Freedom of expression

Freedom of assembly

Democratic governance

Rule of law

Transparency

Accountability mechanisms

Community empowerment

Grassroots activism

Civic engagement

Volunteerism

Philanthropy

Sustainable development

Responsible consumption

Renewable energy adoption

Conservation

Biodiversity protection

Animal welfare

Gender equality

Women's empowerment

LGBTQ+ rights

Disability rights

Indigenous rights

Racial equity

Anti-discrimination policies

Social welfare programs

Poverty alleviation

Economic empowerment

Access to education

Access to clean water

Sanitation infrastructure

Housing rights

Food security

Global cooperation

International aid and development

Humanitarian assistance

Conflict prevention

Diplomacy

Multilateralism

Solidarity

Tolerance

Forgiveness

Resilience

All of the DRs I shift into are currently successfully overcoming the following challenges as they rise

Sustaining Progress: Maintaining the momentum of positive change and preventing regression into previous discriminatory attitudes and practices.

Ensuring Equity: Addressing lingering disparities and ensuring that the benefits of progress are equitably distributed across all communities.

Adapting to Changing Circumstances: Remaining flexible and responsive to evolving societal needs, dynamics, and challenges over time.

Balancing Interests: Navigating competing interests, values, and priorities among diverse stakeholders in society.

Preventing Backlash: Mitigating potential backlash from individuals or groups who may resist or oppose efforts to eliminate discrimination and promote positive change.

Addressing Unforeseen Consequences: Anticipating and addressing unintended consequences or side effects of interventions aimed at addressing societal issues.

Managing Complexity: Dealing with the complexity of interconnected social, economic, political, and environmental systems, which may require interdisciplinary approaches and collaboration.

Maintaining Engagement: Sustaining public engagement, participation, and support for ongoing efforts to promote equality, justice, and well-being.

Ensuring Accountability: Holding individuals, institutions, and governments accountable for upholding principles of fairness, transparency, and ethical conduct.

Resisting Entrenched Power Structures: Challenging and dismantling entrenched power structures, systems of privilege, and institutionalized forms of discrimination.

Addressing Global Challenges: Collaborating internationally to address global challenges such as climate change, inequality, and conflict, which require coordinated action across borders.

Cultural Sensitivity: Respecting and accommodating diverse cultural norms, values, and perspectives while promoting universal principles of human rights and equality.

Managing Resources: Efficiently allocating resources and managing competing demands to sustain progress and address ongoing needs in society.

Promoting Inclusivity: Ensuring that marginalized or vulnerable groups are included in decision-making processes and benefit from positive changes in society.

Building Trust: Fostering trust, cooperation, and solidarity among individuals, communities, and institutions to sustain positive social transformation.

Addressing New Challenges: Remaining vigilant and adaptive to emerging challenges and threats to equality, justice, and well-being in an ever-changing world.

[lokavisi]

Happy New Year! That's the hope, anyway. It can be hard to see what's ahead of us, especially in the darker, colder months. The old year has died, it's life behind us, and we did the work we needed to in that time. But in this season of inner work, we discern what the work we'll do out in the world is going to be as the sun's light returns. We're choosing the seeds we're planting once the ground has thawed just enough to plant them. What's important to remember is that what we grow needs to sustain us. Just as important, we need to be able to sustain its growth. Whether it's a hearty wheat that we make into nourishing bread or a beautiful flower whose beauty and fragrance brings us joy or relaxation, whatever you grow should serve you as much as the people around you. (Remember that simply taking care of yourself so you can be well and your best 'you' has an impact on others, even though you might not be intentionally doing something for them.) When we're able to sustain its growth, we're likely to grow more, and when we grow more and have an abundance, we can much more easily share it with others.

I know this is perhaps more metaphorical than usual. These are the visuals I'm getting as I contemplate the rune for the reading. I wanna keep them in case it resonates with folks. However, if you're neurodivergence is of a flavor that doesn't process metaphors well (or you're just generally confused by it, which is valid), here's more directly what this means: We're not doing resolutions. We're doing goals. Goals that are achievable and sustainable. Goals that better our lives and the lives of others. Something that challenges us enough that we put effort into it, but not so challenging that we can't achieve it. If we can't see any progress in our efforts, it's all the more difficult to sustain momentum through the year. We need to be specific, but broad enough that we can expand it as we make progress.

For example, say you're goal is to fight for reproductive justice. Solid goal that helps everyone, even yourself (regardless of your gender). So what does that look like? Maybe you make a regular donation to Planned Parenthood, so the work for you is to keep a job that allows you to afford that. Maybe you get a promotion and make more money, so your donations increase. Or maybe your job gives you enough free time that you can volunteer with your local Planned Parenthood.

Or, perhaps your goal is building and participating in a community around a shared interested. First, look for what already exists. A lot of times the things we're looking for already exist and we don't need to go through the rig-a-ma-roll of creating a new thing. So get involved doing what that community is already doing. If you get there and find that something is off in that group, but you still want what they're offering, you can then start your own group - but now you have an idea of how to manage that kind of group (or not manage depending on your experience). Be realistic about how much time and energy you commit, adjusting as needed for whatever is going on in your life. Just maintain connection. Be there for people and let them be there for you.

There are just a few ideas. These don't have to be your exact goals. What matters most is that we choose things that allow us to show ourselves grace when we can't quite do it the way we hoped. That little steps towards progress are still progress and something positive, as opposed to not living up to an arbitrary standard we've set for ourselves (like a resolution) and then feeling discouraged and then giving up. Remember rest is a necessary part of growth, too. Make space for that as you choose your work for the year. We've got this. You've got this. Let's show 2025 what's up.