#i am the only person in the overlap on a venn diagram of people who have read AOTG and people who like bellhands

[nyanbinary-perineum]

I get a lot of "wlw, lesbian, sapphic" people flirting with me and it makes me ask a lot of questions ranging from "are they disrespecting me and pigeon holing me as the gender they like so they can flirt?" to "Do they respect me but haven't fully confronted gender's role or lack-there-of in their attraction yet?" to other nonsense like "Do I even care?" because honestly, heck if I know.

I like women, is a thing I regularly say because "on average" that implies the kinds of people I most often find attractive, but I figured out over time that's not a complete picture for me. I like some men. I like cuties of so many different types. I love trans people of such a wide range of genders and the more I thought on it all I realized "The fuck do I even call this? Bi? That seems kinda open-ended enough?" and sat it there because I didn't have the mental bandwidth to figure out what the 700 different venn diagrams overlapping each other all titled "What I am attracted to" even meant.

Because the answer isn't "everyone :3". I can SEE the attractive qualities in everyone and I get so fucking hype about all that, but I'm not attracted to everyone. But then neither is a straight person, or a gay person, or a lesbian, or someone who's bi- so with all the different labels that are supposed to answer that question failing to actually do so- I say bi and leave it there because it says "about as much as I can on the subject without telling Every Single Person what I think of them" and why would I do that, no one does that, that's weird.

Anyways, I'm not exactly a woman except when I kinda am except when I'm not so when pretty "wlw / lesbian / sapphic" people flirt with me I more often than not just think "I guess I'm either in the overlap of their pile of venn diagrams and they recognize that the titles they claim aren't all encompassing- or- they think of me as just a woman I guess which is a decision I suppose."

I HOPE it's the first one. Perhaps I give the benefit of the doubt too much because I often just assume the first one because we're all complicated and hey, maybe seeing someone outside of the limited range they told themselves they only found attraction within will give them some questions to ask themselves. Who knows.

[nshtn]

I just wanted to say that the symptoms you mentioned, kinda border on anxiety and paranoid schizophrenia which are VERY serious issues if not treated - I hope you’ll get the help you need! Too many of my favorite creators didn’t get that help and nothing good came out of it so I hope the matter will get solved for you 🙏

Also, have you considered only the psychotherapy (after finding the recommended psychotherapist to avoid any more trauma) for now at least? I personally can’t rely on drugs either (they’re too strong for my body) and I know that sometimes the psychotherapy can help a lot ❤️

I think that's really sweet of you to write. Thank you for taking the time to write it to me.

I was professionally diagnosed with O-OCD (but worse/weirder), autism, episodic akathisia and C-PTSD.

Personally, my symptoms are endemic to me. The overlap is not two circles on a venn diagram - it's one; it's "positive" when I finish reading many studies in a night of obsessed reading, but it's "negative" when the obsessive mind ruminates on moralizing delusions. It's "positive" when I can remember & recall vast swaths of information down to the receptor, "negative" when I can remember people down to predictability. It's never hurt anyone, but it's who I am.

I self-describe as someone with an obsessive personality. I don't think it needs further embellishing; sometimes people who I meet through my written works confuse the contents of portrayed romantic relationships with this descriptor, but it's not related at all - I don't stalk people or develop exponential bonds.

I do know and have known people with paranoid schizophrenia (and schizoids!) and while I can relate to experiencing delusions, I don't have it. I can tell you with 100% absolute certainty that I do not at all have paranoid schizophrenia.

The part of my brain that creates habit, the part that cements what is important, the part that filters out the thoughts normal people have of being poisoned or their own moral compass's chatterings - these are broken, and the result is this. (Plug OFC / striatal circuitry in OCD in Google Scholar... it's a whole thing!)

They are compounded when I have akathisia or stress. They've always felt like delusions to me, but to call them delusional is my own self-description. You can only say "obsession" and "compulsion" so much - I like to refer to them broadly as delusions of intent.

It's pretty normal for people with OCD to, for example (not necessarily myself):

Feel like they're being watched or judged, even by "mind readers" on the streets (the illusion of a crowd/mind reading)

Feel as if others they do not know already hate them before they've met and are poisoning them or that they are poisoning themselves (contamination ocd)

Feel as if others they do or do not know are incapable of following precise food safety instructions and must be closely monitored Or Else (contamination ocd)

Feel as if they are secretly not the sexuality they proclaim to be, that their labels are a falsehood, and that they do not love their partners (so-ocd)

Feel as if their deity will be upset if they do not pray hard enough or in a specific way or angle, and as if they must make up for it with rituals (r-ocd)

Feel as if every thought they have must be classified as Good or Bad, or even Good or Dangerous, and that they are secretly reprehensible (moralizing ocd, scrupulosity)

Feel 'ready to kill' or 'bloodthirsty' and morally ruminate w/ intrusive thoughts of harm, causing them to hide or shrink, feel physically ill, and neglect hobbies and hygiene (harm ocd) ('do it!' thoughts)

Experence intrusive thoughts about or regarding children with themes best undescribed, which causes them to feel physically ill and avoid children (p-ocd)

...and yet psychologists do not describe these as delusions. I do, though. It's only flavor. Nobody has to agree with me or my portrayal of my own illness - I am not a doctor and I do not speak on behalf of everyone with OCD.

OCD isn't just neatness, it's not just sorting things by color or pattern or time of day. It's not lining things in rows all the time or obsessive deep-cleaning. It is a terrifying disorder that tends to coincide with autism and disorders that are already considered to be psychospec.

To answer your question...

Most of the reason I can't get help from therapists and psychologists is because they're kind of a C-PTSD trigger. It's like if soldiers abducted you for a year and forced you to do horrible things, and then someone told you that you can go to the army to get better with soldiers.

Thank you though.

[joy-crimes]

A while ago I came out as being bisexual, & while it does feel amazing and liberating can I still be attracted to nb people? I the definition of bisexuality is to be attracted to men & women only & while I technically fit into pansexuality I don't necessarily identify as it. The point is can I still be bisexual if what I am contradicts the definition? I figured somebody like you could help me.

Aww hey hey that's okay <3

I'll shed some light onto my thought process, as I'm a firm believer that bisexuality does NOT exclude nonbinary people.

So, everyone has their own way of defining their sexuality. It just so happens that bisexuality and pansexuality have a lot of overlap, but the distinction is still important to people, and that's okay

Personally I identify as bi/pan because the distinction between the two is largely negligible to me. I believe that the overlap on the venn diagram between the two is where my sexuality falls. I tend to just say I'm bisexual cuz like. it tends to be the aspect of my identity that gets erased the most, but it's important enough to me to where I like to assert it as much as I can to deny that erasure.

Some definitions i've heard for inclusivity's sake are as follows (but whether or not you want to follow these definitions is flexible to your own comfort level):

Bisexuality CAN be defined as attraction to both YOUR gender, and genders that differ from your own (hence the "bi" meaning 2). This is a little less rigid than saying that bisexuality is strictly an attraction to MEN and WOMEN, so some people tend to prefer it.

Pansexuality CAN be referred to as loving anyone REGARDLESS of gender, where gender doesn't actually come into consideration at all. This definition is good, but also, people who identify as bisexual COULD have largely the same thought process.

Do these sound similar?? yes! It's because they ARE similar, and they also aren't rigid definitions that everyone has to follow. The overlap is inherent for a very specific reason: comfort.

This is something that usually gets overlooked when the public consciousness talks about labels. There's a lot of arguments about specific definitions, and which labels are good or bad, which ones are inclusive, and which ones aren't, but I think these arguments leave out the central reason people use labels in the first place: Self Definition.

Labels, as they are, in reference to the LGBT community, are often used as a way to categorize and exclude other people (if you are a loser who's mean to people for identifying a certain way), but that is not their primary function. The reason we use labels (and this is true for everyone in the community), is because it helps us put words to our subjective experiences in a way that brings us the most comfort. Categorizing others is a waste of time, because the more people you meet throughout your life, the more you realize that peoples' ideas of gender and sexuality are all so varied and vast, much like the colors on a rainbow, that fitting them all into neat little boxes doesn't really work. There's no use trying to say that some labels are good and some labels are bad, because at the end of the day, the person you are observing DOES NOT identify as YOUR PERSONAL dictionary definition of their label. Rather, they have their own subjective experience, and they've chosen their own labels to define them (as rigidly or as loosely as they may).

Self-identifying is what it's always been: an individual's subjective reality put to words that make them comfortable.

It doesn't have to be any more specific than that <3

[rivetgoth]

Tbh I think one aspect of goth club environments that I find a bit frustrating, though generally keep to myself/my close circles who know I'm not coming at this from some massively judgmental angle but more passive observation and ultimately minor grievance, is that I think there's two pretty distinct camps in most of them where Camp 1 is "people who love goth [or otherwise dark alternative] music who want to hear it played loudly and dance while socializing with other individuals who love this music as much as them," and Camp 2 is "people who are weirdos and freaks [affectionate] who wanted to find a place where they could express themselves comfortably and safely and meet other weirdos and freaks." And these aren't completely separate spheres, but the two circles of this Venn diagram are not nearly as overlapping as you would think.

I consider myself first and foremost Camp 1 as the one and only reason I became goth and began participating in this community was the love of the music, the music has kept me alive and shaped me into the person I am today, the reason I go out to these events is for the music, and every close friend I've made in this scene has been through the love of the music, but I don't have any negative feelings towards Camp 2 and I relate to them in many ways as well. I think goth clubs are fantastic accepting spaces for queer people, kinky and sex posi people, autistic and other neurodivergent people, and people who otherwise just do not fit into the norm, whether it be due to something outside of their control or just having Weird Person Interests that have gotten them kinda stigmatized by wider society. I totally found solace in the goth scene due to being a lot of those things myself. But I still connect first and foremost with the people who love the music. That is THE THING that has kept me going. While when it comes to the exclusively Camp 2 people, a loooot of them kind of come out to these spaces specifically to be amongst other likeminded individuals and feel accepted for their weirdness, and the music is practically, just, like, incidental lol. Ironically they don't necessarily realize how much of the reason that these spaces ARE historically safe for them is due to what the music itself, the musicians making it, and the fans of the music have stood for.

The thing is I don't really think anything needs to be "done about this" or whatever, I hesitate to call it a problem at all, firstly I think that the dark alternative scene SHOULD be a safe space for individuals who exist outside of the norm and I don't think they should need to pass some sort of knowledge test in order to gain entry to these spaces, second of all I think many of them over time do come to love the music, even just by being around it enough to develop positive association, and third I think that supporting these spaces with physical bodies, generating financial revenue, etc is the best way of keeping them alive so ultimately it doesn't really matter how much or how little they know if they're showing up and materially supporting the scene. But I do think it's like... person to person, a little sad, I guess, that the dark alternative scene is so muddled with just the general broad category of humans that is "people who are weird and don't fit the norm" that it's kinda difficult to find people who are there because they love the music and a lot of the people who I get excited to connect with because they're openly trans or something reveal quite quickly they don't really listen to any of the bands I'm there to hear, they just heard from a friend who heard from a friend that you can meet other cool queer people and be GNC safely there. And that's great! It really is. But I do wish that the people who were going to these spaces without knowing much about the music would spend some time exploring it. I think they'd probably find a lot to love about it honestly.

[our-honeybee-transfem-experience]

questioning whether or not to identify as a honeybee currently. im perisex, but i’m bigender. i’m a man and a woman and the only way i can accept my womanhood is by recognising that it’s equally as trans as my manhood, which no one in their right mind would argue is trans since i was CAFAB. i’m not FTMTF, but i believe FTMTF women and girls have every right to continue identifying as trans, and it’s even more obvious if they have taken T or had surgery.

personally, i’ve done both already, started blockers in 2016 and T in 2017, had surgery in late 2018 and stopped T in 2020 or 2021 i think (i was getting shots at a clinic, then it closed bc lockdown, so i switched to patches so i wouldn’t have to self-inject, then my period came back so i started self-injecting and did that for a few months but my period never went away and it was way too hard bc i’m scared of needles and had already had a hard enough time getting used to letting someone else do my shots, so i just stopped). around the same time as stopping T, slightly beforehand actually, i started dressing feminine again. just a coincidence that i stopped T around the same time—i started dressing feminine bc i moved out of my parents’ house and had control over my own life finally.

i’ve always been feminine and nonbinary, but had to put that away, so to speak, when i was a teen, bc i wanted to start T and get top surgery and i knew my mom wasn’t open-minded enough to let that happen unless i was a binary trans guy (and i know how lucky i am that even THAT was enough, despite it still taking years before i got to any actual milestones aside from The Big Chop), so i ‘became’ a binary guy when i was 14 and stayed that way until i was like 19. the second i rejected cis girlhood, womanhood and femininity altogether were locked away from me if i wanted to get the treatment that would keep me from becoming actively suicidal.

even tho i don’t consider myself FTMTF since i’m still a man, i DID transition twice. i’m still on my transition journey to be feminine, and i consider myself transfemasc (ig technically it’s the other way around but i like how transfemasc rolls off the tongue + the spelling, better than transmascfem). i guess i check all the boxes to be a honeybee transfem. are there honeybees who are also coffeebean transmascs at the same time? i definitely feel connected to both transfemininity and transmasculinity at the same time, just as i embody womanhood and manhood simultaneously.

i don’t really like the label transneutral, tho, but i feel like there’s a lot of exclusion of bigender and other multigender people from the general transfem and transmasc communities. we’re pushed to the sidelines, even those of us who are perisex. i can’t even begin to imagine how much worse it would be if i were also intersex. well, i can begin to imagine it since i follow a lot of intersex people and listen to them, but that doesn’t mean i understand their experiences fully by any stretch of the imagination.. it just means that the multigender community and intersex community have a lot of overlap, and i believe in the idea and act on my belief that those of us who are only in one circle of that venn diagram should connect with everyone in the overlap AND the entire other circle too.

idk what this ask is really, just kind of dumping my experience here. i do wonder if there’s a community of honeybees who are also coffeebeans, though. does my experience even fit the label of a coffeebean transmasc if i was CAFAB? maybe i should ask a coffeebean transmasc i guess, but i’d love to hear your input too. thanks for reading, i hope i see your answer soon. i’m gonna add a signature so i recognise this even if i only skim over it

🐝☕️

.

[ofmd-confessions]

I think it really sucks that so many people can't separate "ideas that can be good in fanon" from canon opinions. bc I don't think izzy was there during the hornigold era bc it would make no sense, but the premise is interesting enough that I don't mind seeing it explored in fanon. or like steddyhands being cute in healthy in fanon while recognizing that would literally be impossible in canon and never where the show was going ever. am I the only person who's like this? who has "canon opinions" and "fanon opinions" which are like a venn diagram with some overlap but some things don't overlap? I can't be the only one but I feel like I never see anyone else express anything like this.

🦄🦄

[ama-factkin]

i understand why people are against factkin when it comes to recently alive people or currently alive people. not that I think it can be controlled but some people need to seriously stop glorifying and putting certain sources out there so publicly at the least. But all arguments against factkin fall apart when you think about it in the context of ancient historical figures, people who died over a thousand years ago have no real effect on the people alive today and it's hard to claim it's disrespectful because what we know about said figures beyond that point is likely a caricature and we'll never know how they truly were and what truly happened in their life. So I DONT understand the absolutely-no-factkin attitude in the wider kin community. No matter what you believe there's sections of this community that are entirely harmless and respectful, so why do people act like it's evil?

There is no point in drawing lines as to which factkin are acceptable and which ones are not. Kintypes do not equal behaviour. They can influence it, sure, but at the end of the day peoeple are responsible for their own actions.

Speaking as someone who has a medieval kintype, a Victorian kintype, a Renaissance kintype, a recently deceased kintype and a kintype that is currently alive: I don't understand why people are uncomfortable with some of my kintypes and not others. I mean, I understand that there is a reason given. It's the reason that makes no sense to me.

If I can be Peter III of Aragon, who lived in the 1200's, I can be Eminem. The situation is not actually that different. Yes, it is different in that one is alive and one is not, but these are both famous people who have lived in this universe whom I identify as on a spiritual level and will never personally meet. If I did hypothetically meet either of them would I tell them that I'm factkin? No! Marshall Mathers would definitely think it was weird and Peter would probably have me executed for claiming to be him (the king) because he wouldn't understand what the words "factkin" and "multiverse" mean! The stipulation that "only dead factkin are okay" makes no sense to me because these two identities feel the exact same to me and I am not doing anything to hurt anyone regardless!

The other reason this stipulation makes no sense to me is the fact that who is alive and who is dead changes literally every minute. At the risk of sounding insensitive: I am David Bowie and as of 2016 he is dead. Was it "wrong" for me to be David Bowie prior to his death? Is it okay now? At what time does it become okay? Some people say "it's not okay because his relatives could be upset by it" but then I'd like to bring up Edgar Allan Poe! His descendants are still alive. Am I hurting them? I can't see how I would be: I don't know who they are and they don't know who I am.

I understand that people feel differently about different parts of the factkin community but it seems like so many people draw lines arbitrarily. People are individuals and a having a kintype does not make you a bad person. Likewise, a kintype is not an excuse for bad behaviour. Remember: most factkin aren't stalkers and most stalkers aren't factkin. Is there a small population of that venn diagram that overlaps? Probably. You know what other venn diagram overlaps? People who eat lobster and stalkers. People who make furniture and stalkers. Correlation is not causation. Just because there is a population that does both things does not mean one causes the other.

In my mind there is no viable reason to support some parts of the factkin community and not others. No kintype is "evil" because being otherkin is not an action with moral weight.

Thank you for the ask!

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

So I understand that I have a tendency to politics and rage post quite a bit and while I'm scrolling through my feed I like to go through and kind of mix things up with cute videos of animals and just wholesome things.

But the reason things have been picking up with me posting in general is because I have a bit too much free time recently and my work is a delivery job currently. Now as to what I'm about to talk about it is going to be me bitching. And it's because there is a demographic in the country that I can't tell whether or not they are just stupid, ignorant, or malicious. Though there is a possibility that it's a Venn diagram and that there's overlap or potentially a perfect circle.

Now the video that I'm about to share before I get into this topic is going to feature a person that I am aware that a lot of people don't like for a variety of different reasons. Having said that however I find man on the street videos pretty optimal for testing the general climate of people in general. Having said that here is the video.

Now if you decide to not watch the full video that's completely fine because my response is mainly only to the first and third person that are interviewed. And this is a broader conversation about Democrat voters in general. So I am going to put a read more tag under this because it will probably be long but if you end up giving it a read I appreciate it.

I don't know if it's because of mainstream Media or pundits or talking heads but Democrat voters in the United States seem to be heavily uninformed to a point of sheer ignorance or just general stupidity. And if you are honestly asking me I can't tell if it's again, ignorance, stupidity or maliciousness. But the first guy in this interview basically literally talked about forming a totalitarian government even if he's not implicit about it that's what he wants. Because he very much said that he didn't want to stack the supreme Court and then said that yes he actually wants to have full power of the house the Senate and the presidency so that they could stack the court and then prevent Republicans from ever getting that kind of majority so that they could keep power.

Because even if all of that wasn't explicit he very much made that clear in what he implied. And between him and the third guy who both claimed that people are misinformed the irony is palpable.

As to the third guy I don't think that he's malicious I think that he's ignorant and bordering on stupid and I don't say that to be crude. I actually say that because I believe it to be the case in this instance because of how he talks. This seems like a guy who un-ironically watches CNN and MSNBC religiously. And then literally only repeats the things that he hears. Because he talks about a stalemate when it came to the border bill. A border bill in which didn't actually do much of anything. The bill itself allows 4000 illegal immigrants in throughout the day and after the 4,000 mark they are supposed to halt illegals from coming in. Part of the bill was also an aid package to Ukraine. Now if you look at it from both of those angles it sounds pretty clear to me that it really doesn't do anything about the border. Actually if anything it codifies illegal immigration into our country.

Then there is the supposedly banned books. The actual definition of a book being banned is an instance in which societally and often governmentally a book is removed from circulation from all means. In other words society and the government say you can't publish this book anymore owning this book is literally forbidden and we will imprison you or file charges against you if it is found in your possession or if you are found to be distributing it. That is the actual definition of what banning a book looks like. Meanwhile what was actually taking place in a lot of instances where that a number of books were being looked over for their potentially inappropriate content in regards to children. And they were not being banned. They were being removed from elementary and intermediate schools and an instances some high schools. Why? Because a number of them have explicit sexual content in them. And the only reason that they were functionally allowed was because the only sexual content that Neo progressives want in schools is LGBT sexual content. If you asked quite a number of them if they thought that Playboy or any other number of publications that do dirty smut stories featuring straight people they would freak out at the prospect in some cases.

And so I'm sorry to tell you Mr number three but yes if you have literally no issue with LGBT sexually explicit content in schools just say it. But in all likelihood he doesn't know. He just heard some talking head at the New York times or MSNBC or CNN telling them that the stories were just about LGBT people and did not actually feature anything bad. Despite the fact that one of said books actually features essentially a how-to on giving a blowjob and it's depicted in a picture, and another of the books teaches you how to use Grindr but it is not locked behind a hint hint, wink wink, of if you are under the age of 18 don't read this next part. Yes because a person who buys a book is not going to read everything in it if they bought it with the intention to read it regardless of their age. What's more there are a lot of people who will still argue to this day that drag queens are not explicitly sexual. To which I respond with 99% of all forms of drag performance have historically been sexual in nature in some way shape or form. But it asks a broader question of why is it only that drag queens want to read in front of children and literally no other groups? You never hear about drag queen story hour for old people you never hear about drag queen story hour for you know community viewing. It's always intentionally aimed at children often small children. So I would say yes there is very much an agenda there. And the agenda is to normalize sexual depictions of people in explicitness as well as degeneracy.

Now understand something. Functionally speaking most of the people I know are filthy degenerates. But most of them know where to draw the line. Societally speaking most people do not. And that's part of the issue. Because most instances of drag queens are explicitly sexual and drag shows themselves are often if not always explicitly sexual. You would not be stripping at a drag show and dancing in a sexually provocative way if it wasn't meant to be sexual. Performative or not it is meant to be sexual. And for a lot of drag queens it is a sexual fetish. Because they get sexual gratification from it.

Which leads me interestingly to a point that I did not think I was going to talk about but seeing as this is kind of a rant I'm going off script. People need to understand that kinks and fetishes are fundamentally sexual in nature. And the reason that I say that is because you don't call your likes of something a kink or a fetish unless the implication is that it is for sexual gratification. And there is a very specific reason why. I do not call my love of seafood a kink or a fetish. I don't call my love of anime a kink or a fetish. I don't call the fact that I enjoy going on Long scenic drives a kink or a fetish. And the reason is because they aren't. I've had a lot of people recently try to draw this weird distinction between sex and sexual stuff and also can kink and fetishes. And most of you seem to be ill informed so as somebody who has experience with those specific communities let me weigh in with age old wisdom. If you like something then it is a like if you like something and it gives you sexual gratification it is a kink or a fetish. And it is probably about time that we stop pretending those things aren't related to sexual gratification.

Having moved that out of the way however, I can kind of get back to what I was saying having made that statement. When you see amen on the back of a truck strapped to a sex cross being flogged in public while nearly completely naked that is a form of actual degeneracy. And the specific reason as to why is because it is intentional public showing of things of an explicit sexual nature. Mind you I don't know if this was last year or the year before but that very instance was featured at a pride parade.

But back to the video because it is important the third man interviewed seems to be wildly actually misinformed when it comes to what is going on in the world. No the economy is not good. Any look at prices of restaurant food or store-bought food would very much showcase that is fact. Gas prices would actually be almost $4 if not north of $4 even in places like Texas if not for the fact that Biden is literally emptying out our reserves right now to artificially lower costs. And then you have groups and communities who are very much upset with the current state of illegal immigration into our country because it is very much taking its toll on not just our economy but also culturally.

It's weird because when you talk to Democrats, and yes this goes both ways but it's not nearly as bad, they have this stereotype in their head of what someone on the right or who is Republican is. Which is a dumb redneck who sits on his ass does nothing but watch sports drink beer while literally plugging his brain into Fox News and then going dig ditches or something. While making Facebook posts about how he wants to bring the KKK back and how he wants to hunt down all the gays.

99.99% of people who would vote Republican do not even remotely embody that stereotype. Then again extremes on every side in every culture in every faith in every political party will always exist. Because extreme people will always exist. But when it comes to voters who are Democrats I am unable to truly process how there are so many things that they don't know. It literally makes no sense to me. And what's more interesting is the fact that black voters are starting to actually realize that the Democrats don't actually give a damn about them. Which I'm excited to see. Because it was funny watching Texas and Florida and other states, send illegals to New York Illinois New Jersey and other places. Because prior to now a lot of those people had never truly understood what border states deal with on The daily basis.

Me personally? I live in texas. And I have steadily seen the population of Latino people grow exponentially over my time growing up. But unchecked Mass migration has gotten so ridiculous over the years there are areas in North Central Texas around Dallas where there are 10 to 15 mosques within 10 to 15 miles. Which is absurd. Now I don't have any problem with mosques existing in any cities or states. But I will say one thing specifically. When you are seeing mosques overtake churches in the United States and you have enough of a population of a different culture(s) that you need 10 to 15 mosques in that range? It's pretty much safe to say that you are functionally being replaced. And you don't even have to take my word for that. Cuz if you listen to a lot of the people in the Bronx and other areas like Chicago and what not where there are currently illegal immigrants taking over hotels and homeless shelters, as if their rights are that of free things provided by taxpayers in this country. You are seeing a lot of them talk about the fact that they are being replaced. And I actually believe that they are. Because people Mass imported into this country will be added to the census. And if the Biden administration has anything to say about it he will get them identifications and voter IDs before the election comes around. Because recently over a million new registrations of voters have come out of Texas tens of thousands of whom have been dead. We had a similar phenomenon in Missouri I believe. And the way that this was found out, was through a program that is specifically meant to be used for new voter registration not in fact to clean voter rolls. Never you mind the fact that Biden has been selling us out to other countries by moving all of our stuff over to other countries. And the only positive thing that he has done was something that Trump had already been planning to do in the first place. Which was the chips act. More or less to start producing silicon here because it is better that we bring a lot of our manufacturing back to the United States. Especially when we are perpetually at economic war with China.

Democrats in my opinion feel incredibly uneducated. And for some God forsaken reason they think the going to school magically grant them an education. But then you listen to them talk and it is clear they have absolutely no clue what is going on with the world around them. They literally just repeat things that they've heard. Which honestly doesn't shock me. However it doesn't make it any less sad if you consider the fact that they're allowed to vote while literally not knowing anything about what's going on in this country.

Never you mind the charisma scandal with Joe Biden and Hunter biden. Never you mind the fact that Joe Biden used his position as vice president to protect a company that his son was working for that belonged to a foreign nation. Never you mind the Joe Biden used his power as vice president to get his son, or try to get his son lucrative deals in the energy sector in China. We have found out so many things that the Democrats lied about. The inflation reduction act which actually increased inflation. And had more to do with the green New deal then literally anything to do with reducing inflation. Then there was the LIE of the don't say gay bill. Which convinced a lot of people you could no longer say gay in schools or some people believe that you could no longer say the word gay in the state at all. Despite the fact that the bill was called the parental rights in education act, and it's entire goal was that teachers were required by law to tell parents when issues were arising with their kids. And that they could not have extracurricular discussions about LGBT topics in schools. But see here's the fun caveat. the law The Way it was written also prevented them from talking about cisgendered topics. In other words it barred teachers from using class time to explicitly discuss sexuality or gender identity. As teachers jobs is quite literally to teach academics in particular subjects related to what they've been briefed to teach. So if you are a math teacher, your job is to teach math. Not to talk about how your wife is Polly lesbian Ace and how she just got a train ran on her at a fetish community event that was pro LGBT. (No I did not hear about this being an actual thing that happened but it is an extreme case of what was happening. IE: teachers talking about their romantic and sex lives openly to their students and prompting class time discussions about LGBT topics that had nothing to do with what they were allowed to teach in the first place).

The fact of the matter is so much of the things that the Democrats have put out via the news and other sources have been bald-faced lies. And most of that can be proven generally. But the problem is the news are not going to tell on themselves. Which makes things frustrating because when cnn, msnbc, the New York times, abc, the guardian, the daily beast, and many other outlets outright lie they all align democrat. And so they are not going to tell on themselves or tell on each other unless there is absolutely no choice but to do so. We saw a member of Congress intentionally set off a exit/fire alarm in order to delay proceedings. But guess what he had a D in front of his name so he got away with it. Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence of malfeasance, gross negligence and possibly maliciousness, by having her staffers destroy cell phones with hammers and use bleach bit software on servers to remove the fact that she had sent dozens if not hundreds of classified documents to foreign entities. Never once prosecuted because of course she has a D in front of her name Rachel maddow almost cried on live TV whenever they said that no Trump was not in fact linked to Russia. And that Russian gate was a hoax as a whole.

Moderates left of center people and people on the right seem to have a far better idea of what is going on in this country rather than run of the mill liberals. And they certainly know significantly more about what's going on in this country then neoliberals. Under Trump the economy was good. We had no new wars. There was an actual attempt to bring our soldiers home had many generals not lied about how many soldiers we had in foreign countries. Remain in Mexico was great policy for mitigating immigration. And the easiest way to understand why the media hated Trump is one very specific instance. The one time that Trump specifically opted to use military force explicitly in a very specific drone strike. Many of the dem aligned media opted to call that particular act presidential. Even though technically what they said was finally Donald Trump starting to act like a president. Donald Trump fired Bolton. Yes a little too late, but the fact remains that he did. So if I were to take a wild guess as to why the media hated him it wasn't because he was a fascist. It wasn't because he was a dictator. It wasn't because he was going to form gay hunting parties. And it wasn't because he was trying to reform the kkk. It was because he was a threat to their power. And while certainly there were more powers granted to the deep State under trump, we had significantly more victories generally speaking as a country because of trump. Specifically the Abraham accords. The fact that under Trump no new wars did start. The fact that Donald Trump without security walked into North Korea as a symbol of good faith. Something no other president has ever done. Trump held up an LGBT flag that said gays for Trump in front of the rnc. And the RNC clapped for him. I grew up around Republicans, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that The stereotype that constantly gets put on to Republicans is functionally false in most cases.

Meanwhile the Democrats consistently claim that they want to help minorities and that they are trying to protect democracy. Except one, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. And two, Democrats are literally the party of the KKK. And contrary to Democrat messaging and several Neo progressives messaging no there was no broad party switch. Almost every form of legislation passed by democrats has negatively affected minorities in some way shape or form. It is consistent. And it is frequent. Democrats as they are and have been for the past 20 plus years are in my opinion a malicious organization of evil autocrats. Or more accurately a group that seeks to be autocrats. No having said that I will say one thing. This is a post specifically about democrats. However I will concede to the fact that there are Republicans who very much are no better. But I think the scales are functionally different. And imagine the scale like this. You have one scale with 30 lb on one side and 5 lb on the other side 30 lb is the evil rot of the Democrat party and specifically The crazies. Be 5 lb are the same people. Where as Republicans you are looking at a 30 lb weight on where as Republicans you are looking at a 15 lb weight on one side and a 10 lb weight on the other side. The 15 lb is the neocons and the actual unit party assholes. The 10 lb are the decent Republicans regardless of whether I disagree with how they do things. And you might think by me saying this that I am a republican. Except no I'm not even conservative. Mind you, it is my obligation to tear the party that supposedly is supposed to support me to shreds because they are malicious snake oil salesmen who do not actually care about this country. And are frequently doing everything that they can to bankrupt the American people, flood this country with people that they can buy off, and sell us out infrastructure and all to foreign entities specifically China.

Speaking of which. Let me just mention one thing because it's insulting to me. China is currently in the midst of genociding Uhygur muslims. Which includes forced sterilization. Forcing them into labor camps. And having Han Chinese men rape the Uhygur Muslim women. And based on the reports multiple times daily. I have seen more people harass random Jewish people and any company that could theoretically be linked to Israel then I have seen any backlash against China whatsoever. The reason this is so extraordinary to me is because I have seen vtubers and celebrities get literally harassed and dog piled because they wanted to buy something from Starbucks but because something something Israel all of a sudden Starbucks is on this "evil blacklist of companies controlled by the evil Jewish state". Meanwhile I have heard zero pushback or boycott for any extended period of time against China whatsoever. You arrogant f**** are all still using tick tock. You're still buying stuff off temu, which is actually worse because guess where your products are made from that website? Oh yeah right Uhygur Muslim labor camps. A video on that here-

So. I have gone completely off script at this point. And I understand that this is long and effectively a rant. But it boggles my mind that even when confronted with actual reality people will continue to vote for Democrats because they've literally bought into the lie that they are the party of love and tolerance. When they have done so much more damage to varying communities including minority ones. Fun fact about things like affirmative action. All they actually do is make other people hate you for getting a job based on your skin color. And nothing anyone can say will prevent anyone from viewing it that way. Because you have quotas to meet under affirmative action saying you have to have X number of insert demographic here. Which means that if you only have 50 spots that you have to hire for you are legally obligated to save positions for people based on the color of their skin. Rather than first come first serve. Then you have DEI bullshit. In which even people who thought that DEI had a different definition soon realized that it was actually making people more racist. Which honestly shouldn't shock anyone. And then you have the welfare state. And which you can survive pretty decently off of welfare up to and including social Security and food stamps. And it is actually easier to survive off welfare then it is off of a job paying between nine and twelve dollars an hour depending on where you live. What's more they make these benefits particularly lucrative for certain demographics of people. Meanwhile other people get the shaft. Because a group depended on the government will always bow to the government. And those in power are very much aware of this. And if you really need any more actual proof look no further than california. Where it is been a constant that they have been trying to "fix" homelessness and clean up the city in general. Only for people like Gavin newsom and others to say that it was impossible to do in a short period of time and likely would not improve. Only for Gavin newsom's communist hero Xi decided to come to a conference and he got the city very clean very quickly and kept it such until the man left. Not to mention has forwarded several different forms of legislation that have made life worse for people in california. That $20 minimum wage that you thought would be so great? Yeah 10,000 people lost their jobs over it. Color me shocked. Oh except for the fact that Panera bread didn't have to abide by this because they donated a s*** ton of money to Gavin. So it was never about helping the people. It was literally just placation. Or maybe you could look back at the legislation where he tried to repeal the part of the California Constitution that says you can't discriminate based off of XYZ protected classes. Which means he wanted to allow discrimination based off of those things. Or there is the ever so present fact that it is no longer a crime much less a felony to intentionally and knowingly give your partner HIV.

Are there uni party republicans? Absolutely. There are also RINOs. As well as warhawks. But almost all of them fall right in line with the Democrat establishment. Because for all of them it is war money and power. Now I'm going to wrap this up a little bit by saying this. There are quite a few decent Republicans that get a bad rap because of mainstream media who exceedingly have a Democrat bias. And yes there are a few although not many Democrat politicians who are not evil assholes. But that shortlist is in fact a very short list.

*Rant Finished

[sparrowsgarden]

Making my own post rather than writing an essay in the tags of another.

There's an important distinction to be made between fear and hatred, in cases of genuine phobias. I know our language is inconveniently muddy there because phobia is also used in other contexts, but in this case I'm talking about an actual clinical phobia of bugs or heights or whatever. The context here is ecology. We're not talking about reactions to people, that's a related but different thing.

With that very important caveat - Phobias are distinct from illogical hatred. Phobias are about uncontrollable fear and most typically manifest as avoidance behaviors, and they are morally neutral.

People who hate wasps and want them to not exist may or may not have an actual phobia and may or may not even be particularly afraid of them. There's a Venn diagram there and the non-overlapping areas are pretty big. Phobias, and more standard fear, of certain things are very common because they're things that we should be cautious of! It is completely fucking fine to be scared of being stung by a wasp. It's unpleasant and for some people genuinely dangerous.

I have a severe phobia of certain insects, which has a lot to do with size - average sized wasps actually bother me very little, but I am incapable of walking through a butterfly garden without having an extreme fear response. I also like and appreciate butterflies! Obviously! I just would really really rather they stay out of my personal space, and I have to avoid certain experiences because of that. I am even quite interested in insects from a scientific perspective and will seek out experiences that are a bit outside of my comfort zone when I think they'll be beneficial, but my inability to be around butterflies has been extremely enduring despite that.

That is to say, it is a very good goal to try to get people to have a greater appreciation for things they may fear, and to recognise when their fears are disproportionate to the size of the threat. You can do that without being mean to people because they have those fears, regardless of how common they are, and regardless of how irrational they are. It is actually really really hard to eliminate a phobia - most people with phobias are completely aware their fears are irrational, but that doesn't help a lot. You can work to become more comfortable, and to minimize your fear response, in order to function in situations where you can't avoid your fear. Being scared of wasps, or butterflies, or snakes, or dogs, is not a moral failing. It only becomes an issue when people use that fear to justify being a dick! We should educate people to not be dicks, regardless of their personal feelings of fear or disgust.

[oidheadh-con-culainn]

related to that other post i made about reading speed, whenever people are like "you shouldn't just read easy fiction books, you need to Challenge Yourself and Broaden Your Mind and Do Analysis" it annoys me because i am the kind of person who does enjoy close readings and analysis (uh, have you seen my blog), but also i have two brain-heavy analysis-focused jobs that challenge me plenty and that my brain is not just broadened but actively melted by trying to juggle them on a daily basis. so a lot of the time i read as a means of relaxation and a way of giving my brain a break, and i have no interest in making that particular hobby Harder and More Challenging for myself

i want to read easy books! i want to read books that feel like a hug! i want to reread the same romance novel five times! i want to read pacy genre fiction that i can understand on a first read! i struggle to get through 800-page classics that require constant consultation of a dictionary or a companion volume and as such i don't tend to read those for fun! and... i also have multiple degrees in literature, because the things i read academically and the things i read purely for pleasure fulfil very different functions in my life, and i do not think equating one with the other is actually of benefit to anyone

because honestly, "literary analysis" and "reading for pleasure" are not wholly separate concepts but they are a venn diagram not a circle and the stuff that's only in the reading for pleasure half is just as valuable and worth doing as the stuff in the middle or, if that's your jam, only in the analysis half (though personally i don't make a habit of doing things i get zero pleasure out of unless i have to). and the overlap is smaller for some people than for others, and some people don't get pleasure from close-reading, and frankly that's fine too?

and if you have very boring repetitive jobs which do not stretch your mind in the least (as i have had in the past) then Challenging Books play a more significant role in not letting your brain atrophy, i get it, i've been there, i've had some incredibly boring jobs and i did find myself seeking out intellectual stimulation from other aspects of my life. but not everybody has those jobs. some people are in fact having to grapple with and analyse vast amounts of information on a daily basis and are just trying to chill in their downtime and that isn't like. some kind of moral failing, omg. yes, even if that means only reading fanfic

so. basically. stop telling other people what to read, stop making assumptions about other people's analytical skills or intelligence based on how they approach their hobby, stop making out analysis as some kind of Moral Duty for anyone who wants to read books. and sure people have bad and misinformed opinions about or readings of books, but i can guarantee you the people who are approaching reading as a personal challenge and an ethical duty are having just as many bad and misinformed opinions about them as those who are just vibing, tbh

[cuephrase]

okay hi! I was the one who asked about how you get into comics cuz they're confusing and intimidating 😭 your answer was super helpful! I've been making a list as well as starting off with some like 'non-canon' stuff. (ig thats what its called? not main continuity)

I have another question though! I always see fans talk about liking and disliking different writers - are there any you personally like/ should stay away from? I always hear people complain about tom taylor specifically 😭

oh hi!! i'm so glad my answer was helpful, goal achieved!! yeah, i'd call it not main continuity, bc they are canon in their own little spheres...the licensed AUs. even if they're not main continuity, i think they can go a long way in easing you in/keeping you engaged as you brave the more intimidating aspects of comics.

WFA was that for me, actually. (which. ik is grounds to get me shot/invalidate every comic opinion i could ever have in some circles, but tbh i care a lot less about the opinions of people that uptight about this franchise than i used to, and i'm much happier for it. something can be flawed and still be fun, yk?)

BUT- to answer your question:

full transparency, while i am great with names irl, as far as comics go i drowned myself in so much content that i missed a tonnnn of names, and i've only really started learning names recently + they tend to be names of newer/current authors. for awhile i actually knew more artists names, believe it or not.

that being said, okay. hmmm.

so overall: writers that you're going to hear about a lot will fall into like, 2.5 groups, sort of a venn diagram. they are- Controversial, Loved, and Current. Current is the .5 group, because it overlaps with the other two. in my experience, you will hear about Controversial and Current the most- Loved is going to have like a few names that are just generally well-received, not that some people won't like them but like the majority is rocking with them.

some names you might hear a lot include

Devin Grayson

Chuck Dixon

Scott Lobdell

Tom King

Tom Taylor

Geoff Johns

there're almost definitely more but like, that's who immediately comes to mind.

writers will be Controversial for a range of reasons, but their writing being bad/unpopular is not the only reason.

i think knowing why people dislike an author can be super useful, i think meta is really interesting. but i personally have never avoided reading something purely off of the writer alone for two reasons, those being-

i like to form my own opinions. even if i think i'll probably agree, i like to experience it for myself so that i get full context.

with the exception of one writer (that ik by name), every writer that i've read and been like "wow i don't like this", they've written something else that i've enjoyed.

i said this in a response to a different ask, (about tom taylor actually lmao), but-

if you're interested in reading [tom taylor's] run, you should. other people disliking a run is like...idk if this is going to make sense, but it's kind of like knowing the weather. you'll be like "hey, there's rain" and then you can either a) choose not to go outside, b) grab a coat and umbrella, or c) pull on a swimsuit and go dance. no wrong choices! maybe you get outside and it's more of a light drizzle, or maybe it's basically a tropical storm and you book it back inside and start batting down the hatches.

basically, what i'm trying to get at is, if something looks interesting to you, i don't want you to be put off or feel bad for being interested (or even liking it, if you try it out!!) bc you've seen that some people seem to really dislike the writer.

on the flip side, reading stuff going into it thinking "everyone loves this!!" can be it's own problem, especially if you're new to comics, bc if you don't like it, you might be discouraged. like case in point, tom taylor's nightwing run was super hyped up for me so when i got to it and was underwhelmed i was like, oh. it made me wonder if i was missing something/reading them wrong, and also, like if everyone loves this and i don't, will i like comics? (hell yeah i would, i love comics but damn if i didn't get skeptical for a hot minute there.)

now to answer your question about writers i like/would stay away from:

i....don't really know.

like okay, i'm really enjoying the Batman/Superman: World's Finest run a whole lot rn, right, and that's written by Mark Waid. i already had Impulse on my tbr, but i was more excited to read it when i found out Waid was the writer, because of how much i enjoy B/S:WF.

or like Chip Zdarsky. pretty sure tumblr hates him, but i personally really enjoy his batman run, i like it so much actually, not that i think it's perfect, but omg does all the hate entertain me, and i really liked his jason & bruce story in Batman: Urban Legends, and i have Batman: The Knight on my tbr and i was more excited to read it when i saw that he wrote it.

however, if i saw them attached to a project that didn't immediately interest me, whether bc of the characters or concept, i wouldn't check it out just because they're writing it, yk? somewhere along my comics reading journey i may find writers like that, but i haven't yet.

(also the only reason ik their names is because they're writing current runs that i'm following lmao)

and it's kind of the inverse with writers who i'm not fond of, where if the project interests me, i'll check it out anyways, heaving a big sigh as i do.

i do plan on paying more attention to writers, bc i'm curious to see who i tend to like/dislike and why. like since i just finished reading through all of the Nightwing runs, i plan on ranking the writers once Tom Taylor's run wraps up, just for fun.

but yeah!! ik which runs i like/don't like and why, and that's about it.

idk if this was helpful at all, i'm lowkey afraid it wasn't, but hopefully it was!!

tysm for asking, and as always, i'm more than happy to answer any other questions you may have!! my inbox/dms are open 🫶🏼

[atomicapplebees]

I feel like a good part of what you're saying is we should not be defining womanhood by suffering. I agree! Womanhood is not inherent suffering! Generally people who feel like women have positive feelings about that! Every individual should be able to define it for themselves, positive and negative feelings alike.

But to say you have to know what it's like to be a woman in your soul in order to face misogyny is just laughable.

Whether someone has an inborn gendered qualia is irrelevant. Misogyny is an outside force. It happens to anyone percieved to be a woman. Whether they feel like a woman in their heartest of hearts is doesn't matter. If percieved as too womanly, it could even happen to men!

And believe it or not, it hurts. Even if the insult is meant for True Women and we're just, i guess, splash damage, it was still meant for the person it was aimed at. It still hurts. You've got trans guy after trans guy in your notes telling you it hurts. But it seems like none of that counts, because you've determined their qualia based on a single identity label they share with you.

"I'm not a woman so misogyny slid right off my back" ok?? Good for you??? I've never done a scientific test to determine the true gender of my soul but I can tell you I was forced into the box of "woman", which like it or not comes with a buttload of cultural pressures. The only way to liberate myself was to rally with other women, and other people in that box. Nothing that led me to taking on a different identity label changed that. Not all of us had a misogyny phase.

I'm still advocating for women. Not doing so would still be advocating against me. I feel this based on my own experiences; yeah even trans women, despite not sharing a birth assignment! Trans rights and women's rights are both part of a venn diagram! (And even if I didn't have a personal stake in it I still care about people that aren't me??) I am advocating for myself too. I guess this comes across as selfish to some people, because if men have a problem that means women don't (this is called oppositional sexism. Queen Julia Serano has a thing or two to say about it.)

You're also trying to equate "authority" with "understanding" and portray both as somehow counter to "experience".

This is gonna sound wild but I think even a cis man can understand women's experiences! It's even possible for them to overlap in some ways. They may not experience it firsthand, they may not understand everything, and it certainly wouldn't make them an authority. But we are all humans under a rigid gender system, to say we can't understand each other is, again, oppositional sexism.

None of us are claiming to be the authority on misogyny or woman's experiences. There is no authority, that's why we have diverse groups of people writing feminist theory, many of which disagree with each other! Even if they're women! Even if they're trans women! No one woman's experience or even understanding of her own gender in relation to misogyny is the authority.

Absolutely there are trans men who will try to make themselves the authority on women's experiences. That's rude and bad! But transandrophobia theory is a response to other queer people, not even just trans women, making themselves the authority on trans men's experiences! That is also rude and bad!

A post about transmisogyny doesn't need to include a paragraph about how no one without their exact gender qualia could possibly know what it's like to hurt. You yourself said it's rude and bad and wrong to ignore sexual abuse done to (cis, presumably) men. How is it then ok to ignore gendered abuse done to transgender men?

There are plenty of binary trans men in this disourse who don't feel the same as you and they are not assigning a female experience to you. Most trans men aren't assuming a female experience to everyone born with a uterus. We're not saying misogyny = womanhood either. You can't assume that a pure, binary, innately trans man has had no positive associations with womanhood. If you transitioned because you hated womanly things with a passion that's like, cool or whatever. But actually, I had quite a few things I liked about being a girl! I just like being a boy better! It's that fucking simple!

"Yehbutt you're genderqueer/not binary/man-lite so you don't count" No, I reject the idea of binary and nonbinary as distinctly opposing experiences. Being treated like a woman and a man and neither over the course of my life is not irrelevant to my feelings of gender. Maybe I identify as wholly all of those at once. I am the authority on my own experiences that effect my personal understanding of gender. Nobody gets to degender me just cause they don't like how i describe my gender.

I'm sorry it causes dysphoria in some people to say men can face misogyny, but that's not my problem. People should stop trying to map their own experiences onto others and demand the other isn't real because they don't match.

It really doesn't matter whether gender is innate or not. Some people may feel like it is and that the harmful messaging for their assigned gender never hit them. Some people won't, and every insult to their assigned gender is like a knife in the heart. Some will feel another way entirely. No one is trying to be the authority on anyone else's experiences. Except you.

(Unpopular opinion: "female" is as much an identity as "woman" is. Sex divisions are as much a societal force as gender is, it is not somehow more real just because there are things about it that can be quantitatively measured. It's not coopting womanhood for a trans woman to say she is female. Please, talk to us not terfs. "I identify as female" is a thing a lot of people say. We can argue about identity vs reality til the cows come home, but identity is part of experience and you can't tell someone their experience is wrong.)

Lately I've been dipping my toe into the mess that is transandrophobia discourse, and in the process I've been presented with one question in many forms:

"Do trans men experience misogyny?"

My initial answer was "these terms are all theoretical frameworks for a vast range of human experiences, why would you choose to frame your pre-transition experiences as that of a woman?" This makes sense to me, but clearly isn't satisfactory to many of the people sending me anons. As much as I might want to use my own life as a case study, I can't very well tell these people in my asks box "no, you've never experienced something that could be categorized as misogyny." Still, the question bothers me.

I think that's because the question obfuscates the actual debate. It's clear to me the question we are debating is not one of "experience" but "authority." That is:

"Do (binary) trans men understand what it's like to be a woman?"

My answer? No.

How can I justify that when we have, since birth, been raised as women? Well, because we also have, since birth, been trans men. If we cast aside the idea of transness as a modern social construct or anything other than an innate and biological reality, this has to be true. Even before you ever came out to yourself, you were transgender. Transphobia has dictated every moment of your life. Your idea of what "womanhood" is is not at all the same as a woman's, be it cis or trans. Why? Because a woman does not react to "being a woman" with the dysphoria, dissociation, and profound sense of wrongness that you do. [If you do not experience these things, a cis or trans woman, at the very least, does not identify as a binary trans man.] A woman sincerely identifies as a woman, and identity plays a pivotal role in how we absorb societal messaging.

Let's take homophobia as an example. While any queer person has probably experienced targeted episodes of bigotry, the majority of bigotry we experience must necessarily be broad and social. Boys learn to fear becoming a faggot as a group, but the boy who is a faggot will internalize those messages in a completely different way to the boys who only need learn to assert the heterosexual identity already inherent in them through violence. All of them are suffering to some extent, but their experiences are not at all equivalent. This is despite the fact that they've all absorbed the same message, maybe even at the same moment, through the same events. Still, we don't say that a straight boy knows what it is like to be a gay boy. Similarly, cis women do not know what it is like to be a trans man despite being fed the same transphobic messaging in a superficially identical context. It isn't a stretch to say the same can apply to misogyny.

Because I can't speak for you, I'll use myself as an example for a moment. I'll give my bonafides: I am a gender-nonconforming, T4T queer, white, binary trans man. I am on T, and I have recently come out to my family. I do not pass. My career as a comic writer is tied to my identity as a trans man. I can confidently say I have never been impacted by misogyny the same way as my friends who actually identify as women. This manifested early on as finding it easy to shrug off the messaging that I needed to be X or Y way to be a woman. In fact, most gender roles slid off my back expressly because breaking them gave me euphoria. I was punished in many ways for this, but being this sort of cis woman did help me somewhat. It's easy to be "one of the guys" in a social climbing sense if you really do feel more comfortable as a man. It also helped me disregard misogyny aimed at me or others because it seemed like an shallow form of bigotry. It was something you could shrug off, but it was important for building "unity" among women. I thought this must be the case for all women, that we all viewed misogyny as a sort of "surface level" bigotry. However, for whatever conditional status I gained in this role, there was a clear message that if I did "become" a man, every non-conformist trait about me would just become a grotesque and parodic masculinity.

That was the threat that was crushing me, destroying my identity and self esteem. That was what I knew intimately through systemic, verbal, physical, and sexual abuse. I could express my nonconformity as a cis woman, but if I took it so far as to transition to male? I would be a pathetic traitor, a social outcast. I truly believe that throughout my life people were able to see that I was not just a failed woman, but an emasculated man.

I do partly feel that the sticking point for many is the idea that the sexual abuse suffered by trans men is inherent to womanhood, and therefore inexplicable if trans men are men from birth. While this disregards the long history of sexual abuse of young boys, especially minority boys, I do see the emotional core. I'll offer that the sexual abuse I suffered was intrinsically linked to my emmasculation, my boyishness, despite the fact that I was not out to myself or anyone else. I believe many trans men have suffered being the proxy for cis women's desire for retribution against cis men, or for cis men and women's desire for an eternally nubile young boy. I also believe they have suffered corrective assault that attempts to push them back into womanhood, which in itself is an experience unique to transness rather than actual womanhood.

I'll note quickly that many, many trans men cannot relate to the idea of feeling confident and above it all when it comes to womanhood. Many of you probably tried desperately to conform, working every moment to convince yourself you were a woman and to perfectly inhabit that identity. I definitely experienced this as well (though for me it was specifically attempting to conform to butchness) but I can concede many of you experienced it more than I did. I still believe that this desperate play-acting is also not equivalent to true womanhood. It is a uniquely transgender experience, one that shares much more in common with trans women desperately attempting to conform to manhood than with true womanhood.

One key theme running through the above paragraphs is the idea that "womanhood" is synonymous with "suffering." A trans man must know what it is like to be a woman because he suffers like one. It should be noted that actual womanhood is not a long stretch of suffering. It often involves joy, euphoria, sisterhood, a general love and happiness at being a woman. It wasn't until I admitted to myself I had never been a woman that I was able to see how the women in my life were not women out of obligation, but because they simply were. The idea that you are a woman because you suffer is more alligned with radfem theory than any reality of womanhood.

When I admitted my identity to myself I was truly faced with the ways that my ability to stand up to misogyny did not equate to being anti-misogynist. I was giddy to finally be able to admit to being a man, and suddenly all that messaging that "slid off my back" was a useful tool in my arsenal. Much like cis gay men feel compelled to assert their disgust for vaginas and women after a life of being compelled towards heterosexuality, I felt disgust and aversion to discussions of womanhood as an identity. I didn't even want to engage with female fictional characters. I viewed other people's sincere expressions of their own womanhood as a coded dismissal of my identity. Like many people before and after, I made women into the rhetorical device that had oppressed me. Not patriarchy, not transphobia, but womanhood and women broadly. It wasn't explicit bigotry, but the effects were the same. I had to unlearn this with the help of my bigender partner, who felt unsettled and hurt by the way I could so easily turn "woman" into nothing but a theoretical category which represented my personal suffering.

This brings me to another point: I sometimes receive messages from nonbinary trans mascs telling me that it's absurd to think they don't understand womanhood and identify with misogyny in a deeper way. I would agree that, if you sincerely identify in some capacity as a woman, you are surely impacted by misogyny in a way I am not. However, why are you coming to the defense of binary trans men like me? Less charitably, why are you projecting a female identity on us? Perhaps my experience frustrates you so deeply because we simply do not have the same experience at all. Perhaps we are not all that united by our agab, by our supposed female socialization.

So, no. I do not believe that binary trans men know what it's like to be women. I don't believe we are authorities on womanhood. I do not believe that when a trans woman endeavors to talk about transmisogyny, your counterargument about your own experiences of misogyny is useful. I ESPECIALLY do not believe that it is in any way valid to say that you are less misogynist, less prone to being misogynist, or-- god forbid-- INCAPABLE of misogyny because you were raised as a girl. I also don't believe your misogyny is equivalent to that of a woman's internalized misogyny in form or impact.

For as much as many in this movement downplay privilege as merely "conditional," those conditions do exist. They do place you firmly in the context of the rest of the world. Zoom out and look at the history of oppressed men, and you'll find the same reactionary movement repeated over and over. Attacking the women in your community for not being soft enough, nice enough, patient enough, rather than fighting the powers that be. Why do I believe your identity is more alligned with cis manhood than any form of womanhood? Because this song and dance has been done a hundred times before by men of every stripe. Transphobia is real, and your life experience has been uniquely defined by it since birth. This is a thing to rally around, to fight against, but you all have fallen for a (trans)misogynistic phantasm in your efforts at self-actualization. You are not the first, and you will not be the last. Get out of this pipeline before it's too late.

[hismercytomyjustice]

Alack, I finished work too late to nap. 😭

Now I play the dangerous game of trying to stay awake while also hoping and praying I don’t get a second wind…

Also my therapist murdered me today. T_T It was a very good session, but DAMN she laid out some truth bombs.

We’re working on some light exposure therapy now on a potential obsession/compulsion we’re trying to verify. Nothing too intense, but it’s my first real time doing it so we’ll see how it goes.

Apparently there’s also ICBT that’s tailored specifically toward folks with autism and OCD, so that’s pretty cool.

I had a formal Autism assessment a few months ago that kind of came back inconclusive. The administrator had been considering the diagnosis but her supervisor said I wasn’t showing Autism signs in enough areas in my life.

The assessor and my therapist both feel there’s a chance that I do have it though. My therapist told me today she felt I checked enough boxes, but she’s not a specialist in Autism.

Part of the difficulty is that ADHD, OCD, and Autism all massively overlap. ESPECIALLY OCD and Autism (see pic below).

So I’ve kind of been in limbo. I have two professionals saying it’s a maybe, but nothing definitive. If I don’t have it, my ADHD and OCD align in such a way that it mimics it pretty well.

The thing is, I’ve been told I’m REALLY good at masking by my therapist. I also score really high for masking on assessments. I think if I’d done this assessment in high school, there’s a chance I would’ve gotten the diagnosis without any doubts involved. But am I ADHD masking, Autism masking, or both?

Was I just an anxious, socially awkward kid who only needed practice interacting with people? Or did I just learn to mask/camouflage?

My therapist said she’s going to look more into what indicates autism vs OCD, but it’s not an easy thing to do. Folks are often misdiagnosed because of how similar they can be.

She also suggested we create my own venn diagram like the above with my personal experiences/traits to see if we can tease more of it all out into the open.

I’m kind of a late diagnosed OCD and ADHD person. I’ve spent a lot of time over the past few months trying to better understand what I can attribute to ADHD, OCD, both, or neither so I can be mentally healthier and develop strategies accordingly.

I am really excited about the therapy homework she’s given me on this front because there’s a chance my need to verify whether or not I have Autism is being caused by my OCD. It’s a vicious cycle of “I’m pretty confident I have it and I have multiple professionals telling me it’s a possibility” to “I don’t want to accidentally co-opt something that isn’t true and be one of those mental illness/disorder/etc fakers” and around and around we go!

Thankfully it’s not leading to full blown distressing thoughts or anything. It’s more just frustrating/annoying not knowing for sure.

And the thing is, there’s a lot of healthy coping techniques that can suddenly become unhealthy if the OCD gets ahold of them. It’s normal to look for reassurance or to want answers for something like this. It can just be a fine line to walk.

My therapist told me today that one of the difficult things about OCD is that the obsessions have a hint of truth to them. Like, it’s very important to me not to claim something I don’t have because I know how fucked up that can be and how it makes it harder for people who actually do have it to get the help they need. That is a true statement. But am I just trying to be aware of that and to respect the community? Or am I working myself into an OCD loop over whether or not I’m a bad person if I could be mistaken that I have Autism?

I was talking to her too about how helpful it’s been to work through this stuff via journaling. I journal off and on, but doing it on tumblr makes it easier to not overthink it or expect too much of myself.

I feel like I’ve been learning a lot about myself though, so I’m glad for that.

Now back to trying to stay awake…

[sage-sips]

I guess it's time.

I've done my fair share of social media doom scrolling and void screaming over the years. Oddly enough, social media can also be a source of inspiration. Especially if you can pull back and look at big picture trends within your individual feed (not the big platform-wide trending topics.)

Lately I've been seeing all the usual tensions between Easter and those of us raised in evangelical fundamentalism who get a little twitchy this time of year. Plus there is a presidential election this Fall here in the U.S. The very real dangers of Christion Nationalistism are (finally!) being recognized. I've added what I can on the side of church-state separation. One person called me a "bafflingly atheist Tarot reader." Well, I am an atheist and I am  a Tarot reader. I've been planning to write a post like this to un-baffle things a little bit.

Unsurprisingly, I follow a lot of Tarot readers on Threads and Instagram. We are in the business of provoking thoughts so when @pixiecurio (creator of the brilliant Light Seer's Tarot deck! www.chris-anne.myshopify.com) outright asked for our thoughts about religion and spirituality, I knew it was time for this particular behind the scenes peek.

The root problem, as I see it, is when we use religion and spirituality interchangeably or think of them as being essentially the same thing.

They are not.

No matter how thin a coin may be, it still has two distinct and opposite sides. Both religion and spirituality deal with the intangible mysteries of human life. In that sense, they are part of the same coin, but they approach life's mysteries in distinct and vastly different ways.

Spirituality is internal and moves from the inside out. Spirituality is our individual, direct experience of life's mysteries and can be expressed but not taught. A spiritual teacher can lead you to the doorway, but only you can cross the threshold into direct experience and direct understanding. This internal experience directs external behaviors.

Religion is external and moves from the outside in. Religion is a group consensus about life's intangible mysteries and is taught from one generation to another. The external behavior strives to direct the internal experience.

Rather than two sides of the same coin, I find it more helpful to think of religion and spirituality as two circles of a Venn diagram.

For some people, their group, cultural, external religion is also an expression of their sincere, individual, internal spirituality. In that case, their circles overlap a great deal. For others, like me, the circles don't touch at all.

Tarot falls 100% within the circle of spirituality and not at all within the circle of religion. Tarot doesn't touch religion unless there is already some degree of overlap in your individual, personal religion-spirituality Venn diagram.

The original Tarot images emerged in sixteenth century Europe where religious and cultural diversity was less common. The original Tarot decks are rife with Christian images and symbols because at that time, Catholicism was culturally and politically dominant. Their circles had a lot of overlap.

Here, now, the circles need not touch and are still perfectly valid. In 21st century America an atheist Tarot reader is both possible and understandable.

Centuries of use and practice have shown that Tarot is a tool for our spirituality - it is a mechanism that enables our individual understanding and experience. Tarot doesn't tell you what to think or do. Tarot shows a world of possibilities, options, and guidance. Tarot only serves to enrich our internal understanding.

Tarot is a means of spiritual experience from the inside out, not a means to impose dogma from the outside in. Tarot does not make concrete predictions or impose anything from the outside.

Like Taoism and Buddhism, Tarot concerns itself with living human experience and doesn't say anything one way or the other about any particular god or gods.  Tarot works well with any religion, especially with modern, diverse (and sometimes abstract) Tarot decks.

In 30 years of reading Tarot and Oracle cards, both privately and publicly, I've never received the slightest hint of a message for or against any religion. There is never a sense of 'this is the ultimate truth for everyone.' Tarot is always individual. Tarot is always well within the realm of the spiritual.

If religion comes up in a private individual reading at all, it is emotional chicken soup. Sometimes the cards will remind the individual to take comfort in their chosen religious practices whatever they are.

With every passing year, religion has become increasingly radioactive as a public topic. I actively avoid religion and politics in my public collective energy Tarot readings.  I want my work to be inclusive and compassionate - to the best of my ability I will not allow toxic energies into this blog, this website or any of my readings, even if it comes in the guise of religion.

Religion in the mainstream despises Tarot. Religion despises atheists.

Spirituality embraces both with open arms. There is nothing baffling about that at all.

[wanderingandfound]

Okay I have a post in my queue that makes some interesting points but also has some stuff I roll my eyes at, and one of the points in the overlapping section of this venn diagram is that younger people no longer just drop on by each other's places/get to know the neighbors.

And like, okay my parents are boomers, they were born between 1946 and 1964. Definitely not young people. And growing up *we* didn't have people just swinging by either (although my parents are much chattier with our neighbors than I am). But you know who I grew up with who did have people swinging by unannounced or with a call 20 minutes before hand? (Literally, a friend from when she lived in Alaska was in a nearby town on a roadtrip when he called the day before yesterday, and he stopped by mere minutes later.)

My grandmother.

The difference between my grandma and my parents? Most of the time she was a stay-at-home wife/mother. I know at one point when my mom was a kid she got a job because that was my grandfather's condition to them getting a dog (money was tight, one of the things my grandma did at home was gardening so they'd have food to eat). In my life I only remember a brief time when I *think* she worked at a quilt store. But maybe she was just hanging out there.

In fact the reason I can say I grew up with my grandma is that because she didn't have a job, she was the one who watched me and my siblings when school was out. Because my mom works. And my dad works a lot and when he isn't at work he's on call.

And like, one (1) of my friends works a 9–5 that I know of. Not because my friends are all stay-at-home-partners, but because they're mostly freelancers or work a service-type job. (Libraries and stores, for example, need to be open outside the hours of 9–5 on the days M–F if they're going to be utilized by people who work fulltime during those hours.)

Like setting aside my personal combination of chronic illness+fatigue and high levels of introversion, and setting aside that I live with my parents (and not in an ADU/basement apartment) so it isn't just up to me if we're accepting unplanned company or I wanna host a get-together, I can think of plenty of my friends that would love to be able to drop in with each other at any time. But maybe because I tend to befriend introverts, or maybe because this world really takes it out of us, they would rather not receive an unplanned social encounter themselves.

[emptymanuscript]

I think one of the most useful class lessons I ever had as a kid was a math lecture that I absolutely loathed because I could NOT get it.

It boiled down to learning about partial definitions and sets.

All squares fit the definition of rectangles but not all rectangles fit the definition of squares. All rectangles fit the definition of parallelograms but not all parallelograms fit the definition of rectangles. Same for squares and parallelograms. And so on.

This is one step above that.

Not all Zionists are Jews but some are. Not all Jews are Zionists but some are. There’s a large overlap but they’re not equal.

It’s a nice little venn diagram.

The problem is that most people, most of the time, like simple answers. They’re like me when I was a kid, mulelishly staring at the geometric figures on that chalkboard, with my arms crossed, just repeating, “No,” until the teacher just moved on without me.

How can something both be equal and not equal?

That’s dumb.

But, of course, reality doesn’t care about what you don’t like. It is what it is.

Sure, you may not hate us Jews, after all, just the ones who happen to also be zionists. Maybe if my brother (zionist Jew) and I (anti-zionist Jew) walked past you in broad daylight on a peaceful day when everything in your world is going great, you would stop to check and only be angry at my brother and have a heated but civil discussion with him and maybe even try to get my help with your arguments since I know him better than you. Thus proving it’s about zionism and not Judaism.

But you, on that peaceful picturesquely perfect day, are the square. Not all anti-zionists are going to be in that situation. Most of them are back at parallelograms.

It is not a peaceful picturesquely perfect day, they are not busy trying to make sure their fear and pain goes in exactly the right place for exactly the right reasons. They’re me at the chalkboard, just shouting, “no.”

They may also not be anti-semitic on a peaceful picturesquely perfect day but that’s not where they are. They’re not thinking or feeling or being their best selves. Fear and pain tend to make people their worst selves. We just lash out with no No NO!!! We not only paint others in broad strokes, we paint them in the worst light.

Jews = zionists = bad people = THE problem

Because deep down, unless you stop, take a breath, and be careful, that’s what everyone has been taught. And how nearly all the news and think-pieces are still phrased. It’s what comes to mind first. If I tell you to picture a four sided geometric figure, you’ll probably picture a square. This has nothing to do with intrinsic reality or you being bad. It’s simply where the most illustrations in your past have gone. So it comes to mind first.

The way to overcome that is to pause, take a breath, reconsider. Is square the only answer? The most likely? The right one, even if it is all those things.

That takes energy. Work. Exactly what you have the least of when you’re afraid and in pain and just want to lash out so it will all stop.

They can mean anyone they want.

That’s not the problem.

The problem is that one push comes to shove on a dark and stormy night when you feel the pulse of the mob because you are just as angry, just as hurt, as the rest of them, you aren’t going to be able to stop and ask the person next to you, “Hey, are WE the baddies?” It’s too late for that. You’re in it already and already had your worst self unleashed. It’s too late at that point.

The time to ask that question and deal with it is when you do mean zionists and think about what the possible solutions are. There’s where to pause and ask, hey, when I am my worst self, because that happens, how am I going to act on this. Maybe I am sending / endorsing the message that will do bad things when my worst self or people who are worse than me when they get it.

You have to ask, “Am I contributing to the problem,” when you misspeak. When you have time and energy. That you meant zionist but said Jew may be just a cigar but it could even more easily mean something else entirely. Something you need to work through before your worst self acts on it.

You might consciously mean zionist AND your unconscious might really mean Jew. The dark of night of your soul isn’t the time you want to find that out. Because your subconscious is exactly who is going to be flying the plane in the moment unless you already checked it. Even then, it’s probably going to be the pilot unless you have already changed course to avoid the situation.

"You don't understand, they mean Zionists, not Jews!"

They're literally saying Jews though.