#gender is hard a system and we think its a fitting label for our system rather than just wren

[sad-leon]

(good future) Finding Home Pride edition <3

Trans Leo pride is something I see a lot, but personally, FH Leo wouldn't celebrate his gender. He grew up around Gali, who went through a lot of gender struggles, especially in his younger years, and with the brothers being so accepting, it's just another part of his life

But his lack of romantic attraction? That's something that stands out to him. He sees the brothers with their own attractions and crushes and such and realizes he stands out. He's different. But that's okay because he's still him and he's still valid

anyways~ it's pride month, which means i get to be even more annoying about aro pride ^-^

that final shot without text:

[granulesofsand]

Escape the Tank

Our recommendation page is full of some hot takes we don’t agree with. Many of these are heavily based on the idea that group identity is binary, in or out, yes or no. Our collective has few boxes we fit, and even those require stuffing in or chopping off some stray bits.

We are queer. Our exact identities change with fronters, but to us, being a system is inherently not cishet. Some of us will be gay, bi, trans, nb, gnc, and we can belong in any of those spaces at any given time. Integrating front has left us with the equivalent of chewed Skittles, and this is the closest we’ve got to a collective label.

We are intersex. We don’t have the money to get tested for what kind, but our body is having a field day tossing out hormones with no apparent plan. Neither sex can tell ours, so we’re effectively excluded everywhere. We need support from all of them, especially as heavily traumatized as we are. There is no kind of pain that was closed to us, but no door that remains open to speak about it. Oppression might not be gender neutral, but language should include or specify to find its audience.

We are mixed race. Our body got its looks from the largest contributor, and we were lucky that the smaller percentages are less visible, even if they add up. We are lucky because people with those traits died young where we were raised. Less visible is not invisible, but we survived long enough passing for white that the later treatment was much easier on us. The culture that best matches our genetics was long abandoned, the last remains weaponized. The cultures we were brought into, the people we feel safe with might not feel safe with us. We resemble our perpetrators and theirs, but they are our people nonetheless.

We are a programmed collective. Our history rarely fits conversation amongst traumatized people, and certainly doesn’t among healthy-without-healing folk. We have the downsides of DID, but we don’t belong. Adaptive system, yes, but forged for another’s will. Different upsides, and more of a stretch. We refuse to heal correctly for a CDD — let alone a TBMC — system. We’re weird, and we’re doing better this way.

We are mixed origins. We have headmates of about every category, and we will care for their safety before anybody else’s comfort. Our life has been synonymous with trauma, it may well be all that we are, but we are also this. Our experience of our multiplicity and plurality are uncommon for both sides of syscourse. Instead of having access to both circles, we’re walled into the space between; not a lot of occupants in here.

We are disabled, both physically and not. Our symptoms vary by fronter, but there are some things our body keeps as a constant. We are all some level of hard of hearing, we can only get so far without a mobility aid, and our system is dysfunctional how we like it. But because we’re hardly seen as independent actors, disabled people look at what our body has — and we don’t know. None of us get the accommodations we need because we all have different needs.

I could keep going. You wanna guess how many of those terms we use for ourselves?

None of em.

Language is for understanding, and we introduce these concepts so we can be better known. But we don’t have any labels that fit us exactly. We are living, thinking creatures, and the intersections and details of our lives aren’t going to sit pretty in a paragraph description — assuming people even know what those words mean.

We are a lot of things. We’ll use the descriptors that fit, or we’ll make up our own phrases. The boxes are there for us, not the other way around. It would be so much easier if people would just hear us for our point of view.

[vouam]

Hi, I read a post you made and was curious, could you please expand on what you meant by this :

"I knew the world would be a better place with gender abolition rather than gender liberation. I came to the realisation that gender ideology enforces the socialised gender binary that was designed to oppress women."

What do you mean when you say the gender binary, like what specific ideas or examples illustrate the term "gender binary" in the context of an oppressive system meant to control for others' benefit regardless of the controlled people's wellbeing and best interest? Curious too what's the most important differences you see between gender liberation and abolition?

I'm not sure if I'm a gender abolitionist, don't know enough about it yet. As a woman I'm personally motivated in advocating for women, making shame for feminine/female stereotypes irrelevant or people being immune to it's effects. As a human being I'm invested in removing oppressive systems from everyone though I normally look at it from a stress/poverty perspective instead of gender, race etc. In any case I think huge cultural shifts take a long time and go through a lot of awkward phases as a normal part of the culture shifting and evolving into something healthy. I think it takes a lot of patience and making sure to bask in lovely things and not press too hard for perfectionism over progress. I admire that you care about these topics and are taking steps to be verbal about advocating for yourself and all women in general.

Thank you for your question!

So when I refer to gender ideology and the gender binary, I’m talking about socialised gender. Basically the gender roles associated with male and female (stereotypes that have been developed over thousands of years that generally favour men as strong leaders and intelligent while women are domestic, submissive etc.) Socialised gender is also referred to by transgender people when they are asked what gender means/what they define gender as. They say this because obviously they cannot say a woman is an adult human female, because then being trans wouldn’t be a thing. They constantly refer to this idea that sex and gender are different - where sex is biological and gender is social (ie gender roles)

This is the main basis of the gender liberation movement. Conservatives say that your gender role should match your biological sex, whereas the gender liberation movement says that regardless of your biology - you can be whatever gender you want because it’s a social thing.

I, as a gender abolitionist, see a lot of flaws in this movement. Because it thrives on the idea that social gender should exist. They acknowledge that there is a social difference between a man and a woman, that if you feel socially like a woman when you’re biologically male - that makes you a woman.

I think its misogynistic and confusing to label ‘woman’ and ‘man’ as a set of social roles/feelings/identity. It implies people who don’t conform to those ideas are no longer women/men, it implies that female oppression was based from an identity rather than our biology. It also implies that women and men are perfect social fits to their gender and that if you don’t match that, or aren’t comfortable with that, you’re non binary. Like what 😭 Especially when the ‘gender role’ of women is insulting and degrading NO woman feels fully comfortable being expected to act that way.

As a gender abolitionist I genuinely believe society would be better off without the idea of social gender. That man/woman refers to someone’s biology but you can still act/dress/present as however you want. Nothing would be considered masculine or feminine such as fashion, personality traits etc. And we can all just live freely without expectations to fit into a social role. In a gender abolitionist society, no one would be transgender, because gender would only refer to biology. Just as someone cannot be trans blue eyed, or trans racial. Instead, you could still present however you want, but you would not refer to yourself as ‘woman/man’ because you look or act a certain way.

Hope that all makes sense and lmk if you have any more questions!

[lunar-lair]

busts down the door fuck it. off the cuff gender/sexualities headcanons for the rise boys/whoever else i decide. i havent fully considered these/written these out so it might be a hot mess have fun (its also 1 am this is your warning)

see leos a little Special. surprise trans leo is my fav thing ever so what I like to do is ambs (assigned male by splinter, he didnt know the cloacas were in different areas or to start squinting when leos shell got more concave. no i did not know those facts before surprise trans madness/my egg doc i made a whole cloth new however the fuck you say it reproductive system for this fucking turtle so he and his bunny boyfriend could have kids and i could torture him with sliders being oviparous. thank you less-depresso-more-expresso for your leo egg post in december it changed me fundamentally) -> oh . those are eggs. ok *whistling sound as he continues w his life* -> wait gender is a construct. maybe this is a gift -> genderfluidity slaps the kid in the face when theyre abt 17. also hes gay cause it feels right. so does some form of demisexual or romantic but i have a lot of opinions on how his dating life would go and how it would impact his character (rhinocio gets it if u know them. were besties u see) so i think that woudnt hit until more like 18 or smth like that maybe idk

in much more basic terms. genderfluid gay leo ftw we love a trans leo in this house. this goes whether or not you believe in Egg this kid is not cis mark my goddamn words

raph has always screamed she/he to me as she has to most people. im feeling bi. double bi also feels both very right and very funny his siblings would have a ball w that

if mikey doesnt use neopronouns whats the point. gender is a game and mikey is winning. sexuality is also a game and mikey is Still winning. goes w pan but literally would nebulously date anyone as long as they seemed cool and he liked them well enough. they and leo are shaking hands except leo is hoarding like she, he, they, and maybe a couple other neopronouns meanwhile mikey is like im everything all at once fight me abt it. so nonbinary in the everything kind of way. maybe. i have no idea what the name for this is but i know exactly the kind of vibe im talking abt

and ofc donnie is in the absolute opposite direction. he/they, more nonbinary than anything else. rise apritello star lastknownstatus-alive has allured me with aroflux donnie and considering i know like two things abt the aro and ace label existence im absolutely listening. definitely think hes on that spectrum though, it just fits. think hed look at the sexuality thing and go ...none of these are right. and then forgo it entirely. their sexuality is whoever is hot and whoever they fall in love with die abt it

this is where i say that trans man draxum means everything to me and also that man simply isnt straight nor is he allistic (i mean allo as in like hes definitely on the ace/aro spectrum and i didnt realize until rereading a while later but he is also not allistic tbf)

also splinter is bi i rest my case. pretty normal gender on that rat though, even with the gnc everything

april is so . that gender is so everything. hoarding genders like mikey but less so and also less aggressively. less everything all at once and more somethings sometimes and sometimes not other things. shes a solid inbetween of mikey and leo. my brain clocked bi but i honestly dont know why. help i dont know that many names and also i havent been in love in 4 years idk how the sexuality half of this works

also as a disclaimer we as a system (not in our bio bc Fear) identify as genderfluid (not that i know what the flag looks like . look i keep forgetting to look it up ok) but thats because its easier. a lot of us are sort of genderfluid or use multiple pronouns but remembering those gender experiences is HARD . accordingly any discussion of gender and the experience might be totally fucked bc were only so many genders bc there are so many people in this brain. ok im getting off the stepladder w my megaphone where i make separate points now onto casey

my baby my little guy. think the fam wouldve given him the opportunity to explore that stuff as much as he could in the apocalypse. im feeling he/it. thinks gender is a construct. too busy to find a label. would probably like bigender or genderfluid. kind of like mikey, technically works w pan but would date literally whoever whenever wherever as long as there was a preexisting relationship. dont tell him but hes probably demiromantic

and casey sr!!! my girl my lady! i could go either cis or transgirl on her, or even she/they or she/they/he, she does whatever she wants any day of the week. absolutely a lesbian though thats undisputed. also feeling demiro And demiace

this is your last warning that i sussed half of these out based on vibes Right Now. except for leo theyre on my mind 24/7. and mikey mikey felt patently obvious. same for donnie but only gender wise

ok im done now prommy. may or may not fuck around and make a background + oh yeah! thats me!! style fic for these guys if i feel like it. probably wont come out during pride but hey. you dont stop being gay when june ends yk. either way tada ill come back if i decide i was talking bullshit and correct myself later. bc i usually decide i was talking bullshit eventually lmao. probably partially cause im like 18 its a natural side effect of growth occuring at a faster rate due to my younger age. anyways this has been your twice annually actually long and headcanons/fun filled luna post. ill see you in like, october probably, unless i get ballsy, see you then either way lmao

[the-amical-committee]

I mean, it could very well be like that for some?

There's enough hedging in that statement that on its face it seems quite reasonable, and I had trouble identifying the leap(s) of logic at first.

But when I considered it again, I realized that the connotations can be very important where labels are concerned, and for me "detach," "detached" and "detachment" all have very different connotations related to agency and causation. There's no way of knowing from this data alone what was resonating with whom.

It's also a suggestion that's easy to misconstrue, especially in isolation, so I agree that it would have been better if there were multiple possibilities presented, or at least a more generalized one. Maybe one (or both) of these?

The degree to which detachment is preferred and/or accessible as a strategy may be affected by an individual's assigned gender.

Professing and/or exhibiting gender detachment has different costs and/or benefits that may vary widely based on an individual's social context.

More generally, though, I've been very excited about this study ever since I first heard of it, because it feels very relevant to my own attempts at activist work in the odd little corner of the world in which I've been trying to make a difference.

(way too much more on why below)

It has been a crucial part of my activism to emphasize that this particular axis of gender identity exists. It's particularly helpful when when speaking with older individuals, wary potential allies, folks aware of but unsure how to come to terms with the discrepances of power/precarity at the intersections of their own identities, and/or (more generally) others who are struggling with how they can use their power and privilege well through their discomfort.

Some of the well-meaning skeptics I've spoken to in depth who struggle to update their stance on trans issues have ultimately seemed to be talking about this. They chafe under the labels of "cis," "nonbinary," and "trans" equally, even after genuine efforts to actually understand the evolving definitions of those terms. They have found no label in the set they were offered that fits.

As a queer person myself, I can't help but sympathize with that struggle. It's hard to accept a model for a system as aspirationally universal as "gender diversity"¹ when you can't find yourself in it anywhere.

(I agree, for similar reasons, with the usefulness of continuing to develop analyses of sex and gender that consider possible ways they may at times be experienced as inextricable from sexuality and romance. Yes, it has been absolutely vital that the queer community step away from such interpretations for various reasons, but doing so also left some folks behind.)

When thinking about "gender detachment" as described above, it seems as though the gender discourse/trans activism I've seen and been a part of could be doing more of the following:

Affirming people who want to be exempt from the gender system entirely, especially those who find labels such as "agender" unhelpful or inappropriate;

Affirming people who want others to pay way less attention to their gender(s) (assigned or otherwise), while having little to no desire to reject it/them; and

Affirming that the above people's desires and discomforts are not intrinsically damaging to our fight for the universal right to medical, legal, and societal gender affirmation, because they are in fact necessarily included in it.

Competing needs make activism difficult, but if we want to make the world better, it can really help to acknowledge the possibility and validity of clashes like these on an ideological level. If we have that knowledge to draw on, I'd like to think we can move more quickly beyond repetetive zero-sum turf wars and start looking for feasible paths to compromise and/or resolution.

When we get right down to it, all of the people I'm about to describe exist right now, are struggling right now, and are worthy of our respect and care:

People who need support to live as a gender not assigned to them at birth.

People who need support to live as multiple genders, simultaneously and/or in sequence.

People who need support to make their own gender by mixing and matching existing ones, and/or by creating new ones entirely.

People who need support in expressing themselves however they like, whether extravagant or understated, experimental or static, without whatever gender(s) they do or don't identify with being continually called into question.

People who need support in making their own and/or others' experiences of their gender minimal, neutral, and/or irrelevant, to degrees of their own choosing.

People who need support in living without any gender.

People who need support in avoiding the concept of gender to the greatest extent possible in relation to themself.

I do think the "need support" part is important to focus on when it comes to activism. Both need for and access to support can be highly personal and contextual, as well as systemic. Cis-identifying people are denied needed gender affirmation too, in an incredible range of ways that can and does include systemic barriers! And conversely, some of the people who exist in the ways described above and are not cis may neither need nor want any form of support whatsoever from the queer/trans community some (or even all) of the time.

Queer rights movements tend to focus on the systemic barriers specific groups face, because breaking those down can profoundly help a lot of people at once. Perhaps some of the people I've described above would not benefit much from the systemic changes we're trying to work towards at present. But there are good reasons to ensure that systemic change is not our only focus, especially when focusing on interpersonal and community relationships.

The work that I find myself gravitating to in activism is that of offering smaller supports in the form of emotional validation, individualized understanding, and the negotiation of competing needs. At first, this work only may only help one person at a time to reimagine their subjective experience not as a barrier to understanding and progress, but as a vehicle that can carry them forward. But if that reimagination gives them a sense of hope and solidarity, perhaps they will be moved to open their hearts to those they once would have rejected.

The more each of us can find ways to find joy, hope, and energy from activist spaces instead of merely spending them there, the more we will be able to do, both individually and as a community. Thus, I hope that the sort of individual support work I do can be part of a groundwork laid to cultivate a culture of belonging and solidarity that may one day be strong enough to overcome even the most terrible of systemic obstacles.

¹ Gender-critical terminology for trans-inclusive queer theory is often quite toxic, so after some debate I've elected to use a fairly innocuous phrase in scare quotes here. However, I do believe it's important to acknowledge that some current mainstream gender-friendly ideologies claim to comprehensively model, if not outright explain, the existence of cisness as well. And, well, maybe they shouldn't.

i feel so seen!!

(twitter thread)

[thehealingsystem]

The problem with multi-gender and nonbinary identities in Gay and Lesbian spaces is honestly more complicated than either side gives it credit for and I think needs to be talked about in a different way? Like the thing is - what we have currently is a system where every sexual preference and form of attraction aside from MAYBE Asexuality and Pansexuality (kinda sorta) are related via the lens of the person's gender. EG: if you are a Lesbian, you are a person who identifies as female, you are only attracted to - people who identify as female. It's a specific definition but it's entirely gender-relative. In order for 'Lesbian' to accommodate people who don't fit within the binary or are on multiple places within the binary, the definition of what a Lesbian IS needs to change to be compatible with that. But the problem with doing that is the definition of ANY identity becomes a lot less meaningful, and homogenizes a LOT of people with very different needs having very different experiences into one group - and makes it really difficult for ANYONE in that group to get any traction on talking about what they need. You have a tonne of people under one label who are experiencing that label in fundamentally different ways, and speaking about the experience of having that identity becomes basically impossible for anyone - because every experience is so radically different that no one can be heard. Which is why I feel like Instead of having less labels with broader definitions, We need more labels that are more specific and allow people to say "This is who I am, this is what I need." At the very least - we need a new lexicon for defining attraction WITHOUT the gender of the person experiencing the attraction being determined up front, it's maybe not WHOLLY relevant to multigender people but it would just be good if Nonbinary people had a way of expressing who they feel attraction for without ALSO having to gender themselves.

Oh yeah I totally get what you're saying. Honestly I'm glad we've been open to nonbinary identity in gay and lesbian spaces but I think the way we've been going at it is completely wrong

About changing definitions - I think regardless of how a specific group of people use it, the general idea of an identity does not need to change. I think the idea of a lesbian being women attracted to women is completely fine, despite nonbinary identities being allowed to be lesbian. I say this as someone who is way less connected to a fem-aligned identity who is lesbian

I don't think these definitions need to be completely rigid, or just have one definition. Honestly lesbian can be a completely personal experience. I've seen someone talk about colloquial vs personal definitions, and how this is relevant to queer labels. I think the IDEA of what a lesbian is, what we normally think of when using the word lesbian, can just stay the same

The thing is with people trying to change the COLLOQUIAL definition of lesbian, things get tricky. "Non-men attracted to non-men" well what is a non-man? Where did this term come from? Are people okay with being grouped by something they're not? Are all nonbinary people non-men? What about people who are women and men? Is it okay to say that lesbian is all about not being associated with men on any level, at the expense of these people's identity and womanhood?

I don't think it's a good idea to erase lesbian as an orientation involving women. Hell, even just "women and possibly nonbinary people attracted to women and possibly nonbinary people" is way better, though that is a mouthful and has its own problems. I think even if we say lesbian is "non-men," our concept of lesbian generally involving women has not changed at all. I've even seen people say non-men is 'typically women,' so all I see is it defeats the point essentially. It's SUPER hard to change a colloquial definition, it will take probably decades or even a century for people to generally see lesbian that way

There is a history of nonbinary, genderqueer, and gender non conforming people in gay and lesbian communities. Nothing is going to change that. But these are also very personal experiences. Allowing those who may not fit the general idea of what a lesbian is to be lesbian doesn't mean that general idea needs to change, just that we should accept that these are not strict boxes we need to put people in, and rather tools for people to help understand and express their experiences.

And not all nonbinary people are comfortable being put under the definitions of gay and lesbian, despite their experiences being seen as falling under it. I think being a nonbinary gay or a nonbinary lesbian is a personal way of being gay or lesbian

And about making new labels, that totally makes sense. People have already done that! I'm sure if I tried I could find the exact label for the specific experiences these people are trying to describe. Some prefer to use those ones and feel they fit them more

The problem lies in that words like lesbian and gay are already popularized and already well understood by most people. It's easier to say that you're gay than to say that you're toric. And there's also that these people have lived experiences that connect to what its like being gay or lesbian - and that asking them to cut themselves off from these experiences is a cruel suggestion to make

I don't think it's fair to say that a man attracted to men cannot be gay, regardless of woman-alignment. I don't think it's fair to say that a woman attracted to women cannot be lesbian, regardless of man-alignment. This is because of the colloquial idea of lesbian being what it is. They can say it's non-men or non-women all they want, but this is just how people have lived their lives. Not everyone is going to align with one strict definition of lesbian, one that is fairly new and puts people in a box. They have lived their lives as this gender identity, and is attracted to this gender identity, so therefore these are the words they describe that with

So how do we fix this issue? I think just allowing nonbinary people to describe themselves how they want based on personal experience is what's key. No making rigid definitions, or a "one size fits all."

Now I see where you're coming from with saying that if there's so many different kinds of people using gay or lesbian to describe themselves, then there's issues with expressing what that specific group needs. That it would be hard to be more connected to each other, or have a one understanding of everyone under that group. And this COULD possibly be an issue, but I also personally think that the reason people use gay or lesbian to describe themselves universally falls under one aspect - a non-straight, marginalized attraction.

I don't see much of a problem with having a lot of diversity under one label, because the basic idea of the label is the same. I think of course, depending on the person, there are things that they can and can't relate to. A trans gay will not have the exact same experience with being gay as a cis gay. An asexual lesbian will not have the exact same experience being lesbian as an allosexual lesbian. A multigender gay will not describe themselves the same way a monogender gay would. And that's okay! There's beauty to find in diverse experiences and new things to learn about other people

TL;DR: We should allow nonbinary people to define their attraction by however fits their personal experience, without trying to change something about the general concept of that label and keep changing it based on more and more personal definitions. We also shouldn't force them to use or make new labels if they dont want to, as it can feel othering or contradicting to their life experiences

[sometimes-men-need-help-too]

What does modern feminism do that you don't agree with? This is genuine btw

A couple things before I start: 

- This is not meant to bash all the feminists out there unless they fit into what I’m saying. I know there are good feminists out there 

- When I say ‘you’ I’m not meaning you, I’m saying it in a general way 

-I hope I get my point across and it’s clear. I sometimes struggle with that 

Also I’m sorry this is so long and it’s in no particular order and I hope none of this comes across as being aggressive or anything

~~ 

A lot of my issues with the movement boils down to attitudes. To me, that is very telling of its true colors. And I do try not to necessarily judge an entire movement from just the bad people because I know that isn’t fair, although I do feel like the bad feminists have taken over the movement and end up drowning out the good voices and that’s why we hear more negativity than positivity. 

One thing that I have issue with the lack of respect towards those that disagree whether it’s with the movement itself or it’s a particular thing. For a movement that preaches about a woman’s choice, I don’t feel that really happens like it should. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong here but depending on what the topic is I get a general impression like you’re not really supposed to disagree with what’s being side. You do and you might have someone lash out at you (that’s another point I have). Or if you say you’re anti feminist, you have people coming up with these reasons why they think you are; one being internalized misogyny  and you get called a pick-me which I find a bit insulting.  I should be able to have an opinion without someone assuming I’m trying to get a man’s attention or I can’t think for myself or I hate other girls. That isn’t it! Wouldn’t you think that is misogynistic? 

And if it’s not  internalized misogyny, then there are other factors; her being white (which usually then goes on to sound racist)  or it’s because she has money or  internalized racism or whatever they come up with. And it sounds condescending and that just bugs me. Hey, maybe instead of some underlying reason, we just don’t agree. 

or you have people try to stick the label on anyway. 

‘If you believe in equality you’re a feminist’

The label means nothing. I don’t understand why some will focus on this so much. I don’t want to be called a feminist. I don’t need to. In the same way, it’s not necessary for me to refer to myself as an MRA (men’s rights activist). And yeah, I know this says it’s an “MRA blog” that’s what I had when I started. But ultimately, the label isn’t important. I’m all for equality. It’s cool, it’s great. But I see this sort of thing (online that is) being forced on people and the thing is, with that wording it makes it sound like the movement is all inclusive when it’s not. You have to have certain politics and for the most part (unless you’re a religious feminist) you have to be pro choice otherwise you’re not a ‘real’ feminist. 

My next issue is all the aggression. You can just tell sometimes with how people respond online or if you catch a video that someone posted. And not only that, but how quickly people fall into name-calling or just all around acting like a child. And for the most it seems pretty acceptable to some because it keeps happening. It’s not hard to find on this site or otherwise. If you can’t communicate your opinions about something without having a fit or blocking someone (excluding if they just keep harassing you) then you’re not mature enough. That shows me you don’t really care about having a real discussion. And some can say that it happening on here is probably done by teenagers and to an extent they’re probably right. But it happens on other sites and in real life as well and it’s more than just teens. It’s people my age and older and that’s not cool. 

And then we have  how some like to ignore the differences between men and women. Sure, yes, there are many things a woman can do just like a man but we also have to acknowledge our differences.  I don’t see a lot of that with some forms of feminism. STEM, for example, is something I would attribute the differences more to just how men and women tend to be rather than sexism. Could there be certain circumstances where it is sexism? Sure, I suppose you can’t rule it out entirely. Otherwise I would say it’s just what they’re happy doing. I know girls who are doing science stuff or business things but I also know girls who are going to be teachers or psychologists or nurses. It’s not that they're actively being told by everyone that they can’t do it(I suppose unless they live in some other country like that). That’s just what they want to do, you know, their choice. Just like how some men go towards a job like with computers or farming or they’re pre-school teachers or gynecologists.

 I found an interesting fact (source will be posted below) that said women are actually preferred over men two-to-one for faculty positions. The study was done by psychologists from Cornell University with professors from 371 colleges/universities in the US. It also noted that: “recent national census-type studies showing that female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply for tenure-track positions, yet when they do they are more likely to be hired, in some science fields approaching the two-to-one ratio revealed by Williams and Ceci.” 

Yet, we need to ask ourselves honestly, how often do facts like these get passed around vs the idea that women are suffering from misogyny and therefore are unable to fully represent in STEM jobs? 

The next thing I want to address is misandry. Now there are a good portion of people who don't think it exists or if it does, it's really not much of an issue because of the "power" and the "privilege" men have within society. And to me, I have a problem with that. If feminism is supposed to be for men as well, I would think they would want to combat misandry as well as misogyny. If someone really doesn't think it exists, I would suggest that the person really take a look at what goes on in real life and online that's directed towards men.

There's the whole "male tears" thing which is on coffee mugs and t-shirts. There's the kill all men/yes all men thing. All of which are supposed to be jokes and if a man says something about it he gets mocked for his "fragile masculinity"

That's just not okay. They're being immature and a bully which they usually try to justify (men have done this and that throughout history to women) but you just can't.

I found this article, this really really atrocious article. It's one of those open letter things and found on this feminist website (feminisminindia) and I almost believed it to be satire with how.... stereotypically Tumblr it was. I did research and looked at the info regarding the site and nope, it's a serious site. I'll post the article below but I'll also summarize it:

Basically this woman is telling the men in her life that she will not stop saying "men are trash or other radical feminist opinions." She's saying it because women and others have suffered so much at the hands of the patriarchy because they're not straight white men. She goes on to say:

So let’s establish: misandry isn’t real. Just like unicorns and heterophobia, misandry is a myth because it isn’t systematic or systemic. Unlike misogyny, cis men don’t face oppression purely based on their gender. While they may encounter instances of racism, homophobia and ableism, they are not dehumanised as a function of their gender identity (read: cis privilege).

That is wrong. Absolutely wrong. Misandry is real. "Cis" people do face oppression purely based on their gender. Anyone can. To deny that lacks understanding.

And the rest is just saying that: It is time to start hating on men-as-a-whole and starting celebrating the men that you are.

And: Because at the end of the day, feminists need men. Whether it’s because you wield structural power or because we genuinely value your existence, we need to band together to destroy ‘men’ because men are trash, but you, if you made it to the end of this, are probably not. Prove me right.

I would imagine this is a common viewpoint. And it's not a good one. If you genuinely think a whole group as a whole is bad you need to reexamine your thoughts. It's not "men" that are bad, it's the sexist people.

To wrap this up (I'm sure you might be tired of reading this lol); like I said, the attitudes play a huge part of it. Modern feminism, in my opinion, is just not good enough for me to say I agree with it and want to identify as one. I just can't

Here is the link to the feminist article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/feminisminindia.com/2020/09/23/men-are-trash-and-other-radical-feminist-opinions/%3famp

And here is the link for the STEM thing: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

[old-daemon-farts]

Daemonism Survey

I wanted to see if I could summarize my experience. I know I have long winded thoughts on many of these subjects. Figured others may enjoy reading my answers. Survey found at the bottom.

What is a dæmon to you? The subconscious speaking through inner monologues.

What makes a dæmon, a dæmon? A daemon provides a positive change in their person while also intrinsically being a part of who they are and their identity. You cannot have one without the other. I feel this being needs to be tied to the subconscious (or soul) and will use our inner monologue to communicate.

I am of the belief many different beings can play the role of a daemon. Tulpa, alters, other headmates, and spirits can match these qualifications. "Daemon" has always felt more like a job title or other very personal labels like pronouns or familial titles like "daughter" or "father". I think daemons can stem from too many things and how they connect within the mind to say for sure what is and is not a daemon.

What does dæmonism mean to you? Daemonism is cultivating our inner-self to be a companion who supports us, and in doing so we are learning how to support ourselves.

What is the purpose of dæmonism? To provide a healthy mindset. Can be focused on mental health or cognitive thinking. A healthy mindset for one may be self-improvement; for another it may be companionship and self-compassion; or perhaps they just need someone to help recall information. What daemonism is varies from person to person but to me the base line is you get into daemonism seeking something you feel is going to improve something about your life.

What is/are your dæmon(s) like? What is your dæmon's personality like? What are their likes and dislikes? This is the space for anything you want to share about how your dæmon behaves, thinks and feels! Thats a lot to put. So I will place what may make them different from other daemons. They are very self-focused on me. No matter their personality its always focused around what is best for me. What needs to be done for me. Their world revolves around me and they do not question nor hate it.

How did you meet your dæmon(s)? Inspired by His Dark Materials. Finished the 3rd book, tried to see my daemon, he laughed and the rest is history. I thought we were the only human/daemon pair at the time.

What is/are your dæmon(s)? Dæmons can be many things; a gateway to the subconscious, a personification of your conscience, the other half of your internal dialogue, a spiritual entity, or many other things besides. What is the nature of your dæmon? They are me. They are how I connect to my inner self/subconscious. At the moment they are a gateway rather than the full personification of my subconscious. Please see the answer for "how they are connected to me" for more examples.

What is/are your dæmon's gender(s), and how do they relate to and differ from your own? Mostly female. I use to think my daemons gender was my opposite, then I though I was the outcome of their genders, then I thought their gender supported my own. Now I think it just is another outcome of what my brain needed to be happy and healthy, and while my daemons genders never change future daemons may be influenced by the same factors.

How autonomous is/are your dæmon(s)? How independent and free-thinking is your dæmon; how much do they rely on you in order to exist and function? Autonomy is an illusion. Myself and my daemons will always be influenced by my subconscious and factors surrounding us. Their identities rely on my focus but who they are at the core and how they function is thoughtless. I can personify my heart and it can grow independent but as soon as I stop talking to my heart it doesn't stop beating. It just returns to what it was prior and continues its constant task of keeping the body going without needing any thought on the matter.

How is/are your dæmon(s) connected to you? Subconscious, inner monologues, and even intrusive thoughts. Anima/animus. ID/Ego/Super Ego/ Shadow, split-brain ... Basically if there is a term for connecting with any inner part of yourself or piece of our mind my daemons encompass or build upon that.

How do your dæmon(s) differ from you? They are very goal oriented and driven involving my life and health.

What are the similarities between you and your dæmon(s)? They reflect key parts of myself (good, bad, and desired). We all like and dislike similar things, look for similar things in life and friendship, share taste in fashion, food, and entertainment. Only time things vary are when my daemons reflect an extreme. Like Tess who loves physical activity. I'm not a fan of exercise or sports but I wish I was and so does my body and mind. So her favorite activities are not mine by choice but I know on a subconscious level I need to enjoy these more. There is always a connection so there will always be similarities.

How have your dæmon(s) changed since you first met them? They have changed as much as myself, as they grow the very same as I do effected by my surroundings and experiences. Cayde started just as childlike as myself and grew into an adult. My more recent daemons started based around emotions or specific traits and then grew to be far more complex. This is the nature of living, remaining static is nearly impossible.

Can your dæmon(s) front? Fronting: taking primary control of the physical body. I believe with practice they can but since they have very strong opinions about fronting will refrain from doing so. We have co-fronted to allow my daemon to speak louder and to use "mind-over-matter" to stop pain. But during co-fronting there is no physical control. It is only causing a shift in where my daemon lies on my consciousness.

What are your dæmon form(s)? They have many. Both animal and human.

What do your dæmon form(s) mean to you? Some represent who I am on a subconscious level, a deeply analyzed level, and a more surface level.

How did you find your dæmon form(s)? Some through created systems, others through daemon's choice, and one picked completely out of my or my daemon's control.

What do your dæmon form(s) say about your personality, if anything? One describes my behavior and how I interact with others. The other portrays how I am seen and my narrative in life.

How does your dæmon feel about their form(s)? They love all of them and the more meaning behind a form the prouder they are taking it.

What does it mean for a dæmon's form to be settled? Represents who I (or they) are for a set moment in time. Finding and being content with who we are and our identity.

What kind of forms has your dæmon taken in the past? A variety, mostly animals.

How did your dæmon(s) get their name(s)? Chosen together or they picked one they liked.

What do your dæmon(s) names mean to you? Not much. One of my daemons shares my name which is pretty cool but there is little meaning behind everyone's name.

Has your dæmon's name ever changed? If so, feel free to elaborate! Yes! My first daemon has gone through 3 name changed. First one didn't fit right, second lasted years but he got tired of seeing other people with it, so now he's on his third.

How did you first learn about dæmonism? I learned about daemons through His Dark Materials and daemonism through The Daemon Page.

What motivated you to try dæmonism? Loved the companionship daemons gave in the books

Has your experience of dæmonism changed since you first discovered it? If so, how? I take it far more seriously now as a tool for mental health and self-awareness. I just wanted a unique friend that was a talking animal in the beginning.  

How do your dæmon(s) affect and influence your everyday life? Hm, its so hard to say after living over half my life with one. But I'd say they influence my day just by helping me process everything?

How has dæmonism helped you? My daemons have taught me self-love, self-worth, pride, and acceptance.

What does the dæmian community mean to you? They are my home. Sometimes you leave home, and sometimes family upsets you, but you still feel drawn back no matter where you wander. The community is a family I have chosen and I will always feel a part of.

The survey this came from can be found here “ Daemon Survey “. If you are interested in sharing your thoughts please consider completing it, I know the creator would greatly appreciate it.

[sevdrag]

so im pan right? and it took me forever to find that identity bc i didn't grow up in a community with good if any lgbt+ resources. and even then it was a bit to figure it all out. bc at the end of the day bi was a label that was better than straight but never fit quite right. im not stupid enough to think that bi means two=only men and women or other biphobic shit but simply labeling myself as pan sometimes feels like thats what other people think im saying and its exhausting. the bi/pan split is all personal feelings and nuance but being on the pan side means i often feel less included and it can be hard not to feel bitter esp when people are accusatory just because i identify with pan rather than bi. (not really looking for an answer you just seem like a safe person to confide in)

Hey, honey, me too -- kind of. I live somewhere in the overlap between bi and pan and have never really bothered to figure out which one because, luckily for me, my brain isn’t really having a crisis over finding the exact label (I know it’s different for others). 

and biphobia/panphobia is real. is being bi/pan different than being gay/lesbian? yeah, of course. but it’s all in the queer family, and there’s definitely overlap in the experiences. and yet you get all kinds of really rancid discussions about being “queer enough” or “straight-passing” or “faking it” (which is always like .. who would .. fake the kind of thing that you get shit on by society for?) and it’s more of this TERFy gatekeeping bullshit trying to segregate the queer community into strictly-defined boxes which just isn’t how being queer works.

but yes, in addition, there’s a lot of dialogue about bi “vs” pan (like it’s a contest! tonight in the boxing ring, bi vs pan, three knockouts makes a win! i don't know anything about boxing?). some people like bisexual because it’s more familiar to the world in general; others like pansexual because it might feel more encompassing; and there are a million other reasons you might prefer one or the other.

and yet people still shit on each other over it. folks that choose pan, like you said, get accused of thinking bi means binary gender system. people who choose bi ...get accused of not accepting nonbinary people. it’s all so fucking stupid and can we please stop yelling at each other.

in my opinion all bi people and pan people and gays and lesbians and queers should stop shitting on one another over their identity and spend our time talking about who we find hot instead. for ace and aro folks, we can discuss soup recipes. the end thanks for coming to my ted talk

[sacrilegious-skeletal-scribe]

i'm hesitant to speak/ about myself personally/

i guess it's a habit/ hard to kill terminally/

some infomation/ is simply not to be shared/

but mostly/ to be honest/ it's more than i'm scared/

i write/ as a profession/

though i suppose/ it's not much a confession/

i don't try to hide it/ though i could do it more/

some things/ i'm allowed to keep close to my chest/

name/ location/ you can fill in the rest/

information to retain/ we agree/ for the best/

though rather/ it's emotion/ i fear to share/

and you may disagree/ if you've seen me before/

or think/ wait/ hold on/ and continue to implore/

you pour out your feelings/ like an amateur whore/

which/ i admit/ has truth in the meaning/

and the noun/ i assure/ has no intent of demeaning/

for the widely regarded insult/ is more intervening/

lest i stray too far/ from self-deprecation/

to admit to my issues/ i haven't a problem/

excepting/ of course/ the right words to call them/

and thus i'm afraid to speak how i would/

lest i overrule/ those misunderstood/

this doubt is not a flaw/ not in its entirety/

but in absolutism/ it does peak my anxiety/

i am afraid/ of talking over those who have it worse/

or somehow devaluing them/ i want the reverse/

so it is with this sort of/ preemptive apology/

will i ever discuss/ the rough terms of my psychology/

but/ i admit/ this has grown out of hand/

this all had a point/ i'd still like to make stand/

i am/ a writer/ as i have told you/

a musician/ sometimes/ although it is bold to/

ignore my artistry/ this/ in the traditional sense/

for i enjoy it also/ having resumed the action/ in a more recent tense/

i sing out of tune/ though it's not on purpose/

and laugh far too loud/ it would seem on the surface/

but i've been holding it back/ with my system of nervous/

for far/ too many years/

this is a greeting/ of sorts/ i suppose/

though i did not intend to deliver it/ in my glorifled prose/

however/ there is a message/ i wish to propose/

about today's date/ or rather the month/ and the meaning enclosed/

there are several more months/ whom hold special power/

to those they are for/ to lift through the hours/

and we should take time/ to listen and let flower

those who encompass our anthropology ranks/

but this one is close to me/ i hold it dearly/

a place to be proud of myself/ a place not nearly/

afforded to many/ enough/ over-yearly/

and i would like/ to propose/ a toast/

here here/ to the gays/ who fit in the letters/

here here/ to the ones/ who sit in between/

here here/ to the trans/ agender/ and nonbinary fellows/

here here/ to the ones/ unsure if they make the team/

here here/ to the members/ of the alphabet mafia/

here here/ to the ones/ who can't say it yet/

here here/ to the young/ open and fighting/

here here/ to the ones aged/ with love/ and regret/

here here/ to the labels that finally fit you/

here here/ to those who don't live it/ but love and respect/

and here here/ to you/ o traveling soul/

here here/ to the decisions/ still only in silhouette/

here here/ to the mixture/ of human variation/

here here/ to the questioning/ the 'what am i' roulette/

you do not/ have to fit in the letters/

you do not/ have to struggle/ unseen/

you do not/ have to know your own gender/

you needn’t have one/ to live out your dreams/

you don't have to fly colors/ of the alphabet mafia/

you don't have to tell anyone/ to deserve love/ and respect/

you don't have to have known since you were six years old/

you still don't have to know anything/ yet/

so glory to you/ you queers/ made of stardust/

and glory to you/ made of earth/ and rain/

glory to you/ with partners you care for/

and glory to you/ whom alone/ remain/

i hereby mark this/ the first day/ of gay pride month/

with abundant and unrestrained love/

platonic and flowing/

and hopefully showing/

through the many/ words above/

and for those struggling/ know that so many love you/

it's okay/ you're allowed to exist/ to thrive/

to expect more/ than the right/ to merely survive/

and to the undecided/ the queer/ who don't quite know how/

to express their feelings/ with the labels allowed/

you too/ are permitted/ to simply exist/

to not quite know/ what titles fit/

you'll find them/ or make them/

and however it happens/ know/

it's alright/

we're/ all right/ behind you/

and finally/ to me/

to gift you some context/

i won't get too graphic/ i've said most of what i want/ yet/

there are things/ i would have said/ to the world/

most of you don't know me/ but some of you do/

and i would like to give you/ some more intimate clues/

i am asexual/ this one is straightforward/

the concept of sex doesn't really appeal/

there is a spectrum/ i fall somewhere neutral/

which is to say/ the inclination/ i don't feel/

i find women attractive/ i don't much for men/

and for those neither/ or all of above/

it's much like women/ sort of/ case by case/

i had called myself lesbian/ not so distant past/

just considered myself open/ to those less rigidly cast/

but along comes a problem/ though only to label/

in the form of my gender/ which i'd always thought stuck/

but now i tend to find/ in more of a flux/

somewhere between/ a they and a she/

some days hard-lined/ and some clouded/ fuzzy/

so do not despair/ if your gender or sexuality/

is no more specific/ than a shrug/ and a laugh/

you're feelings are valid/ no matter how vague/

and i daresay/

and no-one/ not anyone/

will ever be/ allowed/ to take them away//

[calypsolemon]

I’ve read ur post abt non-binary people and sexuality like five times now bc I just can’t stop thinking about it. Your comment about non-binary people never being included as more than an asterisk in binary-centered definitions of sexuality really hit me hard. I think it exposes some of the mechanisms by which the binary system of sexuality excludes us and makes us feel like we cant be found attractive when that’s just not true. your post as a whole also helped me better understand why i have never wanted to/felt right identifying as a lesbian.

The whole conversation sort of reminds me of how now it’s become the norm for many surveys that take demographic information to include an “other” option for gender— but for class, I had to read a paper about an environmental survey which did just that, and in their statistical breakdown of responses by demographic, they simply threw out all the responses marked “other” and took a very gender essentialist look at the ones from men and women. It speaks to the speaks to the same sort of refusal to look at us as a group, as a demographic, at all.

Anyway, thanks for making that post, sorry for the long ask 😅

well, im glad my post could help you articulate some feelings!

and yeah, keep in mind all this is coming from me, who proudly identifies as gay and transmasc while also being nonbinary, its not like I don’t find binary labels useful to me. But I often feel like we have to meet binary ppl halfway and never the other way around, like... we have to insert ourselves into THEIR spaces and fight to be included into binary identities and categories, while binary people are never expected to adjust for US or consider us as a separate category of genders that stand on their own, equal to women and men as genders. And the worst part is a lot of nonbinary people right now are... weirdly on board with this, happy to insist that we can’t possibly have any queer culture or labels separate from binary ones, sometimes even arguing that putting a label on our unique experience with gendered oppression is wrong. I don’t really know what it is, besides maybe a desperation to feel accepted by the community manifesting as a rejection of.. basically everything that might make us different from binary queer folk. But i think we are doing ourselves a disservice by cutting out our flag, our words, and trying to fit ourselves exclusively into binary boxes. We can have community, be a part of binary labels when we wish to be, and still have our unique experiences with gender and sexuality acknowledged and accepted.

[dominiqueprovostchalkleynews]

Out Is The New In

I think it’s fair to say that we are often scared to shine.

And when I say shine, all I really mean is the state we find ourselves in when we are truly happy.

When we’re happy, we shine.

At the ripe old age of 30, I have come to realize that the “journey to happiness” is in fact a lifelong balancing act. There is no perfect final destination, but a series of wonderful milestones we collect along the way.

For me, these milestones appear when I take the time to observe what does and does not bring me happiness, and then have the courage to make changes in my life to align that which isn’t working.

It takes a great deal of introspection, whilst staying open to evolution and change. I have to periodically check in with my values, my morals, my passions, my creativity and ultimately make sure that I’m living in alignment with my true authentic self.

It certainly isn’t a walk in the park…

But when I’ve had the fortune of meeting others who live from that place, I find they sparkle so very bright – like these shining stars, illuminating the way to a better, happier place and I’m drawn to join them.

I feel we’ve created a world that doesn’t encourage us to explore who we are; to experiment, look inwards, work out what shoes fit, and then express freely.

We have created a world that tells us we should be a certain way; that we must fit into categories and live under labels.

It seems to me that we live in judgement, in fear of judgement, from the collective mentality derived from the controlled and repressed systems we’ve created for ourselves.

It doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, and yet we’re stuck in these backwards ways that no longer serve us.

Much of this “conventional wisdom” is revealing its cracks.

We are starting to wake up and see the truth.

We’ve been taught that having more stuff will make us happy.

That the climate crisis is less important than the economy.

That gaining likes on social platforms gives us value.

That money is power – creating a brutal hierarchy to humanity.

And that we are everything but equals.

That we are anything but ONE.

The world also teaches us that fluidity in gender and sexuality is in some way wrong.

As a queer woman that is a really heartbreaking and confusing “truth” to get my head around.

As soon as I became sexually aware, I was attracted to all shapes and genders.

But unfortunately, before long it became clear to me that my sexuality was viewed in a very complex and largely negative light.

I should add – I’m incredibly fortunate to come from two open-minded households, but nonetheless, the word on the street (and the world as a whole) clearly viewed this aspect of me as “different”.

That scared me.

I did NOT want to be different.

Because being different got judged, and standing out for being different, to me, was absolutely something to be feared.

So I suppressed it.

Wanting to be liked outweighed wanting to be being me.

Having no representation of bisexuality or pansexuality, I feared I must be gay.

I was attracted to girls… but I also liked boys?!

Well, confusion is an understatement – and confusion brought me right up into my head – to a voice that wasn’t always kind to me.

So I just focussed really hard on the “boy part”, hoping that the “other part of me” would eventually go away.

Imagine if we lived in a world where everything was accepted and met with love.

Even the hardest of things met with compassion.

Perhaps I wouldn’t have been scared to say, “I like girls, but I also like boys. Huh!? Is that different from you?”

Perhaps we’d use our differences to bring us closer, rather than separating and isolating us, and I wouldn’t have been scared to be me.

As I grew older, the fear of being me also grew.

I left the nest at 16 years old, having no idea who I was, and moved swiftly into an industry that I found to be particularly toxic for developing self-worth.

Naturally, I became more and more affected by these collective world views and though they didn’t make sense to me, I thought it would be best to just shut out my little queer voice, for in some ways it seemed easier.

But it wasn’t easy.

Hiding such an integral part of who you are causes incredible anxiety and fear.

Though I did a damn good job of masking my confusion to the world, over time it ate away at me through countless doubts and insecurities.

Then, cut to 2015 – Oh universe, you magically aligned, sneaky old bugger you!

I was propelled into a job that made me face my greatest fears.

Emily Andras took a chance on me and cast me as the beautifully positive bisexual representation that is Miss Waverly Earp.

Through this incredible, enlightening journey of playing a queer character and meeting the fans that are drawn to her, I guess I’ve reevaluated how I am to face this part of me.

Hanging out with the community over the past few years allowed me to see, time and time again, people achieving mini milestones and stepping into their light.

It has made me more certain than ever that I also have to at least try being brave and hopefully contribute to the positive ripple effect that is caused when we step up and live authentically.

All of these moments help change the way our world views sexuality.

For I believe we are each mini representations of the choices we make.

Simply put, I don’t want to be part of a world where we can’t be colourful.

Where we can’t shine bright and where we can’t love who we love, freely and confidently.

Though this is one of the scariest things life has challenged me with so far, I know now that by slowly speaking my truth and living in alignment with my morals and values, I will be happier.

And I will likely shine brighter.

Because being queer is a fucking colourful and magical journey and because I am happiest when I am my AUTHENTIC QUEER SELF.

And that’s okay.

In fact, it’s actually beautiful.

I truly believe from the bottom of my heart that the force of love can move mountains.

So without judging and perpetuating the problem, I meet those who think same-sex couples are in someway wrong with as much love and compassion as I am capable of mustering up.

We are in a system that tells us lies, developed over years, creating patterns that are challenging to break.

But nonetheless, I encourage you to take a second and really examine why you think the way you do.

You have an opportunity to do things differently.

And then, if this still doesn’t give you pause and nothing changes, I ask you to please at least leave others to choose the way they would like to live.

Each and every one of us should be allowed to work out what shoes fit, without unnecessary restrictions that no longer serve us.

It is a fundamental human right to be able to live life with love.

For Love is Life.

In this lifetime I choose to represent this incredible community and stand up for the things that I love.

I am one of the fortunate ones that can, hopefully without too many repercussions, which is sadly not true for everyone.

So I find the strength within myself to pave the way for others – as many have done before me.

And as I thank those who evolved humanity and got us where we are today, I take the baton and run forward fearlessly.

My ultimate wish is for all of us to be able to love freely, honestly, and boundlessly.

In a world that embraces our colours.

I guess in some way this is a call to all queer rainbows out there.

By coming together in pure abundant love, we can gently guide those who are not yet awakened to a healthier, happier, and safer way for all.

So, here goes…

I am queer.

I am into ALL humans.

I guess maybe I am just really into love?

Who knows?

But finally…

I am OUT.

#OutIsTheNewIn

[perfectirishgifts]

8 Leading Women In The Field Of AI

New Post has been published on https://perfectirishgifts.com/8-leading-women-in-the-field-of-ai/

8 Leading Women In The Field Of AI

These eight women are at the forefront of the field of artificial intelligence today. They hail from … [] academia, startups, large technology companies, venture capital and beyond.

It is a simple truth: the field of artificial intelligence is far too male-dominated. According to a 2018 study from Wired and Element AI, just 12% of AI researchers globally are female.

Artificial intelligence will reshape every corner of our lives in the coming years—from healthcare to finance, from education to government. It is therefore troubling that those building this technology do not fully represent the society they are poised to transform.

Yet there are many brilliant women at the forefront of AI today. As entrepreneurs, academic researchers, industry executives, venture capitalists and more, these women are shaping the future of artificial intelligence. They also serve as role models for the next generation of AI leaders, reflecting what a more inclusive AI community can and should look like.

Featured below are eight of the leading women in the field of artificial intelligence today.

Joy Buolamwini: Founder, Algorithmic Justice League

Joy Buolamwini has aptly been described as “the conscience of the A.I. revolution.”

Her pioneering work on algorithmic bias as a graduate student at MIT opened the world’s eyes to the racial and gender prejudices embedded in facial recognition systems. Amazon, Microsoft and IBM each suspended their facial recognition offerings this year as a result of Buolamwini’s research, acknowledging that the technology was not yet fit for public use. Buolamwini’s work is powerfully profiled in the new documentary Coded Bias.

Buolamwini stands at the forefront of a burgeoning movement to identify and address the social consequences of artificial intelligence technology, a movement she advances through her nonprofit Algorithmic Justice League.

Buolamwini on the battle against algorithmic bias: “When I started talking about this, in 2016, it was such a foreign concept. Today, I can’t go online without seeing some news article or story about a biased AI system. People are just now waking up to the fact that there is a problem. Awareness is good—and then that awareness needs to lead to action. That is the phase that we’re in.”

Claire Delaunay: VP Engineering, NVIDIA

From SRI to Google to Uber to NVIDIA, Claire Delaunay has held technical leadership roles at many of Silicon Valley’s most iconic organizations. She was also co-founder and engineering head at Otto, the pedigreed but ill-fated autonomous trucking startup helmed by Anthony Levandowski.

In her current role at NVIDIA, Delaunay is focused on building tools and platforms to enable the deployment of autonomous machines at scale.

Delaunay on the tradeoffs between working at a big company and a startup: “Some kinds of breakthroughs can only be accomplished at a big company, and other kinds of breakthroughs can only be accomplished at a startup. Startups are very good at deconstructing things and generating discontinuous big leaps forward. Big companies are very good at consolidating breakthroughs and building out robust technology foundations that enable future innovation.”

Rana el Kaliouby: CEO & Co-Founder, Affectiva

Rana el Kaliouby has dedicated her career to making AI more emotionally intelligent.

Kaliouby is credited with pioneering the field of Emotion AI. In 2009, she co-founded the startup Affectiva as a spinout from MIT to develop machine learning systems capable of understanding human emotions. Today, the company’s technology is used by 25% of the Fortune 500, including for media analytics, consumer behavioral research and automotive use cases.

Kaliouby on her big-picture vision: “My life’s work is about humanizing technology before it dehumanizes us.”

Daphne Koller: CEO & Founder, insitro

Daphne Koller’s wide-ranging career illustrates the symbiosis between academia and industry that is a defining characteristic of the field of artificial intelligence.

Koller has been a professor at Stanford since 1995, focused on machine learning. In 2012 she co-founded education technology startup Coursera with fellow Stanford professor and AI leader Andrew Ng. Coursera is today a $2.6 billion ed tech juggernaut.

Koller’s most recent undertaking may be her most ambitious yet. She is the founding CEO at insitro, a startup applying machine learning to transform pharmaceutical drug discovery and development. Insitro has raised roughly $250 million from Andreessen Horowitz and others and recently announced a major commercial partnership with Bristol Myers Squibb.

Koller on advice for those just starting out in the field of AI: “Pick an application of AI that really matters, that is really societally worthwhile—not all AI applications are—and then put in the hard work to truly understand that domain. I am able to build insitro today only because I spent 20 years learning biology. An area I might suggest to young people today is energy and the environment.”

Fei-Fei Li: Professor of Computer Science, Stanford University

Few individuals have left more of a mark on the world of AI in the twenty-first century than Fei-Fei Li.

As a young Princeton professor in 2007, Li conceived of and spearheaded the ImageNet project, a database of millions of labeled images that has changed the entire trajectory of AI. The prescient insight behind ImageNet was that massive datasets—more than particular algorithms—would be the key to unleashing AI’s potential. When Geoff Hinton and team debuted their neural network-based model trained on ImageNet at the 2012 ImageNet competition, the modern era of deep learning was born.

Li has since become a tenured professor at Stanford, served as Chief Scientist of AI/ML at Google Cloud, headed Stanford’s AI lab, joined the Board of Directors at Twitter, cofounded the prominent nonprofit AI4ALL, and launched Stanford’s Human-Centered AI Institute (HAI). Across her many leadership positions, Li has tirelessly advocated for a more inclusive, equitable and human approach to AI.

Li on why diversity in AI is so important: “Our technology is not independent of human values. It represents the values of the humans that are behind the design, development and application of the technology. So, if we’re worried about killer robots, we should really be worried about the creators of the technology. We want the creators of this technology to represent our values and represent our shared humanity.”

Anna Patterson: Founder & Managing Partner, Gradient Ventures

Anna Patterson has led a distinguished career developing and deploying AI products, both at large technology companies and at startups.

A long-time executive at Google, which she first joined in 2004, Patterson led artificial intelligence efforts for years as the company’s VP of Engineering. In 2017 she launched Google’s AI venture capital fund Gradient Ventures, where today she invests in early-stage AI startups.

Patterson serves on the board of a number of promising AI startups including Algorithmia, Labelbox and test.ai. She is also a board director at publicly-traded Square.

Patterson on one question she asks herself before investing in any AI startup: “Do I find myself constantly thinking about their vision and mission?”

Daniela Rus: Director, MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL)

Daniela Rus is one of the world’s leading roboticists.

She is an MIT professor and the first female head of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL), one of the largest and most prestigious AI research labs in the world. This makes her part of a storied lineage: previous directors of CSAIL (and its predecessor labs) over the decades have included AI legends Marvin Minsky, J.C.R. Licklider and Rodney Brooks.

Rus’ groundbreaking research has advanced the state of the art in networked collaborative robots (robots that can work together and communicate with one another), self-reconfigurable robots (robots that can autonomously change their structure to adapt to their environment), and soft robots (robots without rigid bodies).

Rus on a common misconception about AI: “It is important for people to understand that AI is nothing more than a tool. Like any other tool, it is neither intrinsically good nor bad. It is solely what we choose to do with it. I believe that we can do extraordinarily positive things with AI—but it is not a given that that will happen.”

Shivon Zilis: Board Member, OpenAI; Project Director, Neuralink

Shivon Zilis has spent time on the leadership teams of several companies at AI’s bleeding edge: OpenAI, Neuralink, Tesla, Bloomberg Beta.

She is the youngest board member at OpenAI, the influential research lab behind breakthroughs like GPT-3. At Neuralink—Elon Musk’s mind-bending effort to meld the human brain with digital machines—Zilis works on high-priority strategic initiatives in the office of the CEO.

Zilis on her attitude toward new technology development: “I’m astounded by how often the concept of ‘building moats’ comes up. If you think the technology you’re building is good for the world, why not laser focus on expanding your tech tree as quickly as possible versus slowing down and dividing resources to impede the progress of others?”

From AI in Perfectirishgifts

[tptruepolitics]

LGBT Thoughts

Netflix has recently decided to push transgender ideologies in their Babysitters Club series – a show directed at adolescent girls. While Netflix – an independent company that should only have to answer to itself and its shareholders – is perfectly within their rights to air such shows, the fact remains that this is a deeply damaging topic to be showcasing to the most vulnerable and malleable among us. I think it’s time we finally address the enormous elephant in the room: the LGBT community. Here I will break down my thoughts on their rights, their roles, and their realities in our society.

For much of history, there have been documented incidences of same-sex encounters. Even the Bible makes reference to same-sex relations numerous times. The word sodomy is actually originated from one such text from Genesis in reference to the city of Sodom. Shakespeare is even rumored to have been gay by some scholars. However, for most of human existence, these individuals were forced to live in secret – outcasts of society, ostracized by their own people. To be perfectly fair, religious extremism has only contributed to the past 2-4 thousand years of ridicule. Before that, it was still frowned upon (at best) by most cultures simply because it went against the laws of nature. Male and female animals and even plant parts reproduce in union with one another. There are no same-sex reproductive organisms to my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong). There are asexual organisms that reproduce by themselves, but certainly no major animal species that reproduce in any extraordinary way. There is a certain species of bird, I believe, that lives in Hawaii (once again, correct me if I’m wrong) that sometimes chooses a same-sex partner for life in the absence of a proper mate, but this is certainly an exception, not a rule. To add, they do not reproduce together.

But what does all this mean for humans? How should the “laws of nature” or even God’s laws apply to humans in this age of constant progressivism and an increasing detachment from religiosity that we call secularism? Well, thankfully, in our country and many around the world we are allowed the freedoms to live our lives as we see fit as long as they don’t infringe on the rights and liberties of others. So, if someone chooses to live outside the bounds of religious or natural laws, they certainly should be allowed to, as long as they are minding their own business. This concept of allowing homosexuality was highly contested up until the late 20th century, and is still somewhat contested today in 2020. The original founders felt that upholding moral and ethical truths in our school systems were an integral part of maintaining our precious union. As a matter of fact, the often-misrepresented “separation of church and state” clause did not mean that religion could not be learned about in schools, but that the federal government had no right to establish a State religion (capital S). Most of the founders actually encouraged religious teachings and values in schools. The more modern interpretations of the separation of church and state are due to an influx of not only secular ideologies, but also religious beliefs that were not prevalent during the time of our founding. While I am a firm believer that no harm can come from learning about religious values in schools, in this age of progressivism it is reasonable to note that certain contentious religious principles need not be forced upon others. This would be a clear infringement of the separation of church and state.

So, to get specific, let’s talk homosexuality. A common misconception in the eyes of secularists is that the Church (I’ll speak specifically about Catholicism here) preaches that homosexuality is a sin – that simply being gay is a sin against God. Well, this isn’t true. The Church expressly teaches that acting out homosexual fantasies is a sin. Let’s say, you are a man who is attracted to other men, but in your devotion to your religion, you find a woman whom you love, marry her, and live your life without having sex with another man. Is this man sinful, because he finds men attractive? Of course he is not! When you feel like strangling someone, but then you calm down and don’t, are you guilty of murder? No. So, simply being gay is not a sentence to Hell. As a matter of fact, even in the eyes of the Church, acting on your homosexual impulses isn’t a death sentence. There is reconciliation and forgiveness in the eyes of the Lord. If you confess your sin and repent for it, you are seen as forgiven. Not to mention, there are people who sin in every aspect of life: liars, swindlers, thieves, murderers – and I’m not even just talking about big sins. Small sins add up, and if you are not repentant of them, you are not any more likely to get to Heaven. However, I will paraphrase this, but I believe there is a Scripture saying that says you will be judged by your worst qualities. So, if you work hard your whole life to be a good Christian, and your only flaw is that you are a wonton whore, a light will be shown on this most vulnerable area.

You might be thinking to yourself, “but it’s a genetic mutation that causes some people to like members of the same sex. God would not have built natural urges in us if he didn’t want us to act on them.” Well, that’s just ridiculous. We have natural urges and desires that are built into us that we are meant to fight off all the time: anger, greed, and jealousy to name a few. Lust is just one more urge that is built into our nature, and it happens to come in all shapes and sizes. Our animalistic desire is not only to have as much sex as possible, but to have it with as many things as possible. Evidence of this is your dog, if you have one. Dogs will regularly hump humans due to a natural urge they have. Should the dog be doing this? Should humans all of a sudden be accepting of bestiality? Maybe don’t answer that one. Now that I’ve gotten a bit off topic, I’ll try to bring this all back. Yes, acting on your homosexual desires is a sin in many Christian churches. However, your homosexuality does nothing to harm me or my church, and as such, I believe firmly that if you wish you act on those temptations, you should be legally allowed to.

Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual peoples should not be deprived of their right to happiness, which can include uniting themselves in lawful union. That being said, I would like to advocate for an alteration in the name of the union. With the full rights, advantages and privileges of a married male and female couple, I would like to revoke the name “gay marriage” and return to the previously used “civil union” terminology. Marriage is a religious term that has been secularized over decades to include all unions whether inside or outside of a church between a man and a woman. I propose that all unions made outside of the boundaries of a religious ceremony be labeled civil unions, reserving the term marriage to those unions made within the boundaries of a religious ceremony. Civil unions will differ from Marriages in name only as to lay to rest the disagreements of many over this divisive issue. Thus, men and women, women and women, and men and men united solely by a judge will no longer be “married” but “united”. Those churches that allow gay marriages in their communities are by no means precluded from including them or precluded from calling them whatever they wish. However, legally, in the eyes of the state, a same-sex couple “married” in their churches will be viewed as “united” under the law. This is a semantic issue, as opposed to a legal issue. The semantics are clearly important on this issue and have been increasingly becoming more important as time goes on. I may not feel it is right to legally prevent people from enjoying their lives in whatever manners they please, but I do feel it is within my purview to define terms in order to ease tensions.

With regards to the transgender community, I have immense sympathy and respect for your feelings. Feeling like you don’t fit into the gender roles that your biology dictates can be frustrating, confusing and upsetting. I know. During my high school years, I often noted to myself that I had feminine characteristics that I didn’t understand. In some ways, I felt that I didn’t share many of the masculine interests of my friends. However, because I was surrounded by many fine men who were very accepting of my differences, I never felt that I didn’t belong with them. Here is the reality of the situation. Many people are not surrounded by these positive influences, and thereby feel that they need to re-identify themselves in order to fit into their social environments. This is not the case. Acceptance, toleration and understanding are the keys to solving this problem. Our attention with regard to the gender debate should be redirected towards Gender Stereotypes. At one point, I was under the impression that we were heading in the right direction. In a very enlightening high school class, I was challenged to think about what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. When I did this, I came up with many gender stereotypes that not only did not describe many of my peers, but also did not describe myself. Instead of concluding that I did not belong to my gender, however, I concluded that the stereotypes were the crux of the inconsistencies. At one point in history, gender roles were necessary for survival – the strong (men) went on the hunt, and the tender (women) cared for the children. They were important distinctions. This is not the case anymore! Over time, as technology and society developed to the point where strict gender roles were no longer necessary, women’s rights and roles in society began to change. This was a good thing and is a testament to how incredible our society has been for the less advantaged. These roles still play a part in our daily lives and still affect who we are, but they do not define us exclusively. Take Apples for example. The stereotype of an Apple is a red, juicy, sweet fruit. However, there are apples that are yellow, juicy and sweet. There are also apples that are green, juicy and tart. Is the yellow apple a mango now? Is the green apple a lime? No, their genetics limit them to the fruitful existence that they are. Nevertheless, biology dictates what type of fruit they are and not their characteristics; their characteristics don’t change the underlying biology.

To solve the issue of gender, some people on the progressive aisle have attempted to remove gender. I instead propose to remove the stereotypes/roles! This of course leads to inconsistencies in the Pride movement as a whole. For example, an exclusively lesbian woman might marry another woman who decides later that she is a man. Is this first woman heterosexual now, or should she be upset and betrayed and break off the marriage? Are you confused yet? This removal of gender is not only confusing to adults, but it’s confusing to children, and for them, it is dangerous. When you pose a child with the option to choose his/her gender identity, they will ask you what the differences are. Your response will undoubtedly be gender stereotypes. You are doing no one any favors by perpetuating these gender roles. The child will treat this as something fun, like a game. However, once you begin to treat it as something serious, the child will begin to treat it seriously. This is what major networks and schools and parents are beginning to do. Once you begin to treat your child as if they are not their biological sex, they will begin to accept that reality, more so to please you than anything else. This could have unimaginable consequences on their sense of self later in life, which could lead to self-esteem issues, learning disabilities, depression or worse. And making life-altering changes to your children i.e. long-term gender therapy, hormone treatments, or surgeries could permanently hurt them mentally and physically.

Conversely, if your little boy tells you one day that he is a girl, tell him, “No, you’re not a girl, you’re a boy. As a boy, you can be whoever you want to be, like whatever you want to like, and all of those characteristics will make you who you are.” If you tell your little boy that, there is an increased likelihood that he will have a more accepting view of others who are different from him, and will have a more positive outlook of himself. You can be a man who loves to sew, wear frilly clothing, and fixes his own car. You can be a woman who lifts weights, works on a construction site, and watches soap operas. They are not mutually exclusive. This also includes those members of our communities that wish to fully engage in their historical gendered roles. Women, who want nothing but to read, write, sew, be homemakers, and do the multitude of other activities that are considered feminine, should not be shamed into thinking that their choices are not valuable, are backwards, or are in anyway damaging to womanhood. Women who have no interest in science should not be shamed into believing that their lives are a waste and that they are giving in to the patriarchal oppression of women. This is not productive. Similarly, this standard applies to men, who should not be shamed into thinking that jobs that only use their hands are not worthy of respect because they do not require a college education. They should not be shamed into the common misconception that men are brutes, only caring about power and control. Men who are not interested in fashion design or cleaning are not uncreative or lazy. All humans have different interests and strengths.

The characteristics we have as human beings are largely taught to us. Generosity is taught, openness is taught. Negative things, as well: greed, sloth – they are learned. Selfishness is a learned characteristic. As a society, we have failed our younger generations. Parents, teachers, the government, and the media have all failed. To teach a child that they are so important that they have the ability to defy nature and choose their gender breeds self-centeredness and pride beyond compare. How selfish of us, how pompous! We are not that important. We are not able to create our own meaning. Our meaning is a gift bestowed upon us by a higher power. Who or what that higher power is, is for each and every man and woman to decide on their own, but a society based on the premise that they determine their own worth is doomed to fail because it is founded on the ideal that the self is the most important entity. This is not to contradict our founding principles concerning the individual. Those principles concern how government should act in relation to its people. The concept of self-importance, to which I’m referring, concerns how individuals view themselves and act in spite of the government.

 So, no, I don’t think that Netflix or schools should be teaching students, especially against the wills of their parents, that being a boy when you’re a girl or vice versa is acceptable. We should not be teaching children that biology can just be ignored. If we allowed this aspect of biology to be ignored, other aspects of biology may be ignored in the future (like age!). Nor do I think that sexual preference should be celebrated in public schools. This goes against the separation of church and state in a different manner, because teaching children that their religious observances of sin are incorrect is a direct interference with the practice of a religion. This would be a world where secularism becomes the state religion and that would be no more acceptable than some form of theism. Have no shame for who you are, but don’t put down other peoples’ views to make yourself feel better. Respect should be taught of all our children before they leave the home for school.

Here is my final message. Acceptance of self, love of one another, and understanding of our differences, should reign supreme.

[stoiccthulhu]

Update time...actually, why should these be titled? I mean, whats the point of writing a title to these if all I’m going to do is ramble on and on with no specific topic of discussion, just several things on my mind?

Election day 2020 happened yesterday and I voted for nobody. And if I would have voiced my polling choice I would have voted for the candidate I see as being the best option in line with my thoughts and opinions concerning the state of the world at the moment as well as the future.

You can insert whomever you want to believe that would be based off an assumption and a look at my internetting footprint, but you would be wrong, but that’s part of the fun of interpreting what I’m writing down for you in the future. Trying to figure out what I’m actually saying. While it makes complete sense to me, because you don’t have the hidden key phrase you can’t decipher what it is that I am putting to digital paper.

I get it, I’m an asshole.

And this isn’t, completely, a justification towards my actions but a direct result of your intervention within my life that has caused this behaviour. Think of it sort of like a self-fulfilling prophecy. You interpreted me, came back, and intervened in any little way imaginable. Negatively or positively, but no matter your justification, it was still an intervention that didn’t need to happen because, as Malcolm once said, “Life, finds a way.” And just like destiny, it will find a way. But enough of all that crazy talk, you’re here because you want to hear all about my political leanings and to unravel the mystery as to this anonymous random on the internet’s preferred presidential choice in the election that has already passed.

But before I do that, let’s get some shit off my chest because I tend to swear and if you don’t like it, go the hell away. I’m sick of people being sensitive over everything. As if they’re looking for any reason to complain or get offended nowadays.

“The internet has given everyone in (the world) a voice, and evidently everyone in (the world) has chosen to use that voice to bitch about (anyone they find offensive)” -Holden McNeil (with some modern revisions)

And that’s why I’ve chose not to be PC in this thing, whenever I feel the urge to put pen to paper, relatively speaking.

Like, let’s see who I can offend right off the bat.

Women need to start getting punched more and treated like human beings instead of china dolls. If you’re a pro-gender equality advocate, and you’re a woman, you need to be willing to be punched in the face for doing ANYTHING a man would otherwise be punched in the face for. They also need to be held accountable for the shit they do to everyone. I am a strong supporter in believing that no matter what women say about women controlling the government and such, while women have great communication skills, they have the worst track record when it comes to not being aggressive, biologically speaking.

In the wild, whom are normally the more aggressive of the genders? Whom is usually the one more protective of the young? more willing to go out to hunt?

To be fair, I have a very limited knowledge when it comes to the animal kingdom. But, I mean, the Black Widow is normally depicted as being a deadly female, the female preying mantis devours the head of her mate after they’re done mating. There are so many, example, of females being worse than males in nature its hard to ignore. And, to add religious believers to the list of people offended, if you’re not ignorant to science and knowledge, or at least the pursuit of it, we evolved over a long period of time from apes, which, by nature, makes us, humans, not white people, black people, yellow people(to stick to the color scheme), brown people(gotta throw the other Asian people’s in there as well), animals. Highly evolved and communicative animals, but animals none the less. Was that supposed to be one word? Nonetheless?

Doesn’t matter. So, if you stick with my logic, you’ll see that women are terrible. Terrible. But, because men like to have sex with females as opposed to men for the most part in today’s society women have a stranglehold on the pelvic reason of an entire world, which means they can make anyone, for the most part, do anything they want and see things their way, even if they’re saying the sky is as green as the skies of Namek. An example of this is perfectly laid out in a clip from That 70′s Show. Kelso and Hyde prove women can’t play fight because they’ll turn it real, for whatever reason, just because they’re girls. To prove this, Kelso and Hyde play fight, and it looks bad, but they stop, laugh, and hug it out. Then Jackie and Donna play fight, starting out playfully, but then turning it into hair pulling and needing to be pulled apart. Both visibly angry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUwxxJvtQnI

(OK, my memory was bad, it was Eric and Hyde, and it was set up differently, but the concept is still there.)

And I get it, they’re actors, being paid to do what the script is telling them to do, but it is true. Girls are worst during puberty as well, from what I’ve heard. And I get it, I have a biased standpoint being a male, but in today's culture that shouldn’t matter, it’s about what’s being said, not my gender.

Now that women are out of the way, lets also as black people, but not specifically black people, its more of a systemic form of racism that I believe shouldn’t exist. In which, if you are not of that specific race, you are not allowed to say the n-word. What makes me giggle right now is that with just that sentence every single person reading this probably got a bit riled up. A bit ruffled in the feathers because I’m not a black person. And if you weren’t, you are now, knowing what you know now.

So let me provide you with some context so you can understand how I’m not racist at the same time as saying what I said above.

I enjoy rap music and hip-hop, as do a lot of people throughout the world, black or otherwise. Which, in this current climate, would be considered one of the forms of cultural appropriation we tend to sweep under the rug because it doesn’t fit our narrative of being offended about something. Because I like rap music I tend to learn the word to all of the songs I enjoy listening to. Because I learn the words to the songs that I enjoy listening to I sing along. But, because I’m not black, I have to ruin my flow to edit myself just because the artist chose to use nigger in their song. Which, as an artist, is their choice.

Now, why should I have to edit myself? I have tried to replace it with “wigger”, but because of the closeness of the words, I felt that would still be offensive if I was ever overheard by the wrong black person who, understandably, would be mad if they heard a pasty white boy say the word nigger without any context.

I just think, unless the person is using the word in a hateful way, directed at the person the speaker either personally knows or is conciously speaking about, as in “i hate that nigger” or “you’re a nigger”. If it’s something like that, totally beat the shit out of that racist.

But if you’re singing along to Wu-Tang, and you say:

I be that insane nigga from the psycho ward I'm on the trigger, plus I got the Wu-Tang sword So how you figure, that you can even fuck with mine? Hey, yo, RZA! Hit me with that shit one time! And pull a foul, niggas, save the beef for the cow I'm milkin' this ho, this is my show, Tical! The fuck you wanna do on this mic piece, duke? I'm like a sniper, hyper off the ginseng root PLO Style, buddha monks with the owls Now who's the fuckin' man? Meth-Tical It shouldn’t be labelled as being racist.

There is more rattling around in my head right now, things that I’ve been thinking about for years, and things that have been bothering me for just about as long, but for now those were the two that fell out when I vomited all over my keyboard.

And if you’re offended. Get over it. You need to start.

Oh, I almost forgot. I was going to tell you whom it was I was going to vote for yesterday if I had voted for anybody. Jokingly I wanted to write-in “Obi-Wan Kenobi”. But in truth I was going to vote for Biden. Not because I thought he was the better candidate, but because there was not a good option at all, he was just the lesser of two evils. This election has made me decide I want a third option when it comes to my politicians, or at least, get rid of political parties all together. We spend so much time infighting and holding each other back instead of up no real change has happened in the past decade? Longer? And whatever change that does happen gets nitpicked apart so much it becomes a shell of its former self. But, enough about that. I have a baby demanding eggs and waffles and I still need to tag this.

[arcticdementor]

The only thing that outraged the leftist elite, their cackling media Renfields, and the Fredocon sissies more than Donald Trump’s stubborn refusal to die was his stubborn refusal to cower in fear. Think of the collective climax they would have had if he had been wheeled out to the chopper or looked anything but mega-butch in the face of the virus? Once again, his courage has defied them, and that they cannot forgive. Now they are gripped with fear, the fear that the rest of us will stop being afraid too, because if we are not afraid then there’s no reason to let them run our lives. And without fear, there is nothing to protect them.

So, they never stop fearmongering.

Oh no, the flu is going to kill you!

Or the Proud Boys are coming, all 23 of them!

Or NRA people with guns will get you!

Or Mike Pence is gonna handmaid you!

Or Russians!

There’s always something you have to be afraid of, and always something they promise to protect you from – if you only obey. That’s why Trump cannot be allowed to show that you don’t have to live like a simpering wuss. You might follow his example and that would be a disaster…for them.

…

Trump refused to show fear. In doing so, he put the lie to the nonsense about “the New Normal.” Remember, the liberal elite wants a society where we shiver and sob. That gives them power. Cowering wimps are much easier to control than uppity citizens. This is why Midwestern kids enjoying spring break are worse than the ravages of Tamerlane, but never mind those rioting Biden voters – the #science teaches us that leftist tantrums confer immunity, don’t you know?

…

It’s always been Trump’s gift to act as the avatar of normal Americans, a symbol of resistance to the #resistance. He’s not afraid to reject their rules. He refuses to confine himself to the invisible mime box that the left wants to trap us in. He violates their rules by talking about things we are told are off limits – illegal aliens, criminals, the right to worship as we see fit, and the right to pack heat to defend our lives and liberty. The elite worked so hard to coordinate the media, big tech, and the Democrat Party to build a soft tyranny, to create a gender indeterminate Big Sibling so normal people like us could be pressured, intimidated, and nudged into conformity and obedience. Then Trump came along and turned all their plans to Schiff. He refused to play by their ever-changing and self-serving rules. He’s not afraid of their fussy wrath.

You’re supposed to be scared of getting sick so you give up your rights. You’re supposed to be scared of rioters so you elect Grandpa Badfinger and he’ll call them off before they get to your suburb. You’re supposed to be afraid to say what you think to avoid being cancelled and losing your job.

But Trump is not afraid, nor should you be. That is not to say that the threat posed by the elite is not real. They can hurt you, but it is the fear of being hurt they use as their tool. Fear is their ally, the fear of losing something – your health, your safety, the life within our society that you have built up. It is the fear of loss that exists when you have something to lose that keeps you in check.

But let’s look at what happens if they make your fears come true and you find yourself with nothing to lose. It could happen, and you need to prepare your mind for it in case it does. But if they actually do to you what you fear, you become more powerful because you become more fearless. See, if Oldfinger gets elected, the organized left will infest the government and do its best to make the fears come true. It will threaten your reputation and your livelihood in conjunction with their corporatist pals. We’ll see what amounts to a social credit system where “racists” and “sexists” and all sorts of other false labels will be affixed to you to wedge you out of society. Criminals will run free to intimidate you, while the government will take your money via taxes and even steal your freedom – we attached them to frame Lieutenant General Mike Flynn, so do you think they will hesitate to do that to you if you cross them.

Your fears could come true. What then? Is the answer to submit?

No.

The answer is to embrace those fears. Accept that you have nothing left to lose, because that means they no longer have anything on you, no leverage, no power. When your fears come true, you have complete freedom of action to respond. There is nothing more dangerous than someone with nothing left to lose because that man has no fear. Their success in making our fears come true will lead to their own downfall – after all, as the elite, with power and prestige, they still have everything to lose. Those of us with nothing left will take it from them.

Just ask Marie Antoinette. They should be very, very frightened of the people they are talking about when they say “Let them eat kale.”