#is there a reason gender or sex would be particularly relevant?

[angie-long-legs]

//kinda baffled by how someone could find it confusing to write with a trans muse. then again, I have been blessed with having trans people around me since I was a teenager, and I am non binary myself.

the advice that usually works when you don't know know how to interact with people who are different from you, be it their gender, race, sexuality, ability/disability, is: treat them the same as you would anyone else, where possible.

trans people, I love you and see you. trans muses, you're cool as FUCK. trans ANGEL muses is particular, I'm throwing singles at you at the club. I love trans people MWAHHHHH kissing you

[anomaliex]

Bad Kids (partially shameless projection) queer identity headcanons be upon ye

Notable that I think culturally literally anything that is not human has different ideas of gender than us. Some are very close to the point it hardly matters in a discussion like this (like elves and dwarves. It's mostly the same but I do think most elves are what humans consider to be feminine because they have a different idea of masculinity ((grace)). Or like, most dwarves seem masculine to humans for the simple reason that they all tend to have beards. Stuff like that.), but the further away you get from being hey pretty close to what a human is (like orcs or goblins) the further you stray from human understanding of how things work.

What if being intersex is way more common in a race of people, the concept of gender immediately becomes either way looser and less important or important with completely different values. Also I work under the assumption that whatever counts as "humanoids" (which is a very human-centric term but I like to think that's just because our POV is from a language that is inherently human) is a mammal and will generally have two sexes. But like, there's organisms with more or less than that, and in a fantasy world there's absolutely societies of intelligent species with similar characteristics. Imagine a weird hand wave, not relevant to this specific discussion as the bad kids are all human-shaped but it's something I find interesting. What would gender be like in that society if they had it at all? Living somewhere where that concept isn't really a thing (or at least not a thing in the way we understand it to be) sounds kinda awesome.

That said. Solace is a society mostly shaped by human standards and everyone who lives there somewhat conforms to them; and anyone who grows up there is probably socialised accordingly. Also Gorgug is adopted and doesn't seem all that connected to his roots and Riz is a third gen immigrant who doesn't get to see his extended family all that much. What I'm saying is everything I just said hardly matters in the context of the Bad Kids. Yeah. I just wanted to say it. I'm. I'm autistic. Thanks for reading my word vomit you're a real one for sticking through this far here's what I actually wanted to say.

Kristen. Obviously a lesbian. she/her and calls herself a woman but ultimately doesn't really. Care that much? About gender? And would not mind being referred to with masculine terms, it's more a matter of being afab so that's what she's going with.

Adaine I think has experimented with she/they pronouns. Often times she feels like her perception of life goes far beyond whatever societal constructs influence the present and she does not feel particularly attached to the idea of womanhood. I think she's aro spec but probably allosexual? Develops interest in all that a bit later than her friends and even then it's not. The same. She thinks guys are attractive, maybe girls sometimes, but doesn't actually feel inclined to do anything about that? Isn't looking to get into relationships or anything but yeah.

Riz is aroace because yeah. Personally I think oriented aroace because Baron being masc-ish does mean something to me, so he doesn't necessarily say it / find it relevant for other people to know but Riz personally IDs as gay + aroace. He does think some guys are attractive he's just sex repulsed lmao. I think he's the flavour of aroace where he'd happily engage in deep emotional bonds he just really doesn't understand what the fuck romantic feelings are supposed to be and how it'd be different than just loving his best friend(s) truly so much and is discomforted by the societal expectations and restrictions around the concept of "dating". ALSO about gender he's a he and its whatever. Does not care. Gender apathetic in the way Kristen is.

Gorgug isn't particularly attached to any labels, I think. He just likes who he likes, which is several people sometimes because he's also polyam. I think his lax view of his own inherent queerness has a lot to do with how open (and also inherently queer) his parents are. He just never really thought about it. Hit puberty and started thinking guys are hot and went okay this is not in any way special I'm way more worried about my favourite emo band breaking up rn. The only reason he ever came out to his friends was because he asked them for advice on how to bring up that he's polyam with Zelda (who I think was super cool with that and honestly from what we know that might be culturally normal to her), he does not consider it to be particularly noteworthy. Gorgug is similarly not particularly concerned about gender. I think he goes by any pronouns but also doesn't bring that up unless someone asks because he truly does not care or think it's a big deal.

Fabian's entire general person-ness feels queer to me idk. Bisexual and polyamorous. Probably aro-spec but he needs more time to figure that one out. Exclusively finds himself interested in women who are taller than him, this has nothing to do with being queer I just wanted to note that. He's the only one of the Bad Kids where I want to confidently say yeah this is a he/him man and he feels both comfortable in and connected to his masculinity. He ventures into gender nonconformity (starts with painting his nails, then make up, maybe a skirt when he's chilling at mordred manor) more and more as he gets older and more comfortable, I think, but that kind of only reaffirms to him that he's a man and loves being a man? Idk lol. Also for the record this is nonconformity in the context of Solace. For (high-)elven standards he's not like hypermasc dude bro but he's a pretty "manly" guy. Fallinel is like twink nation idk what to tell you. Now whether he's cis or not is a different question, while I personally think he is I do make a little mental cheer every time someone makes him trans.

Fig. They/she/it. She struggles with the disconnect she feels between her and the girl she thought she was a lot and it sucks, but eventually it does lead them to reexamine how they see themself and their identity and stuff. I think she eventually comes to the conclusion that yeah she has some attachment to femininity but ultimately exists in a space beyond the binary. Which is cool. Idk what label Fig would use, if any at all, but maybe something loose like genderqueer.

I know it's very commonly accepted that she's bisexual but like. Honestly. I think that was comphet. I think Fig is a lesbian who had some of the most horrendous comphet imaginable. None of their interest in those (concerningly) older men was genuine and it was all pretending to be someone else to get something and she isn't even sure why she wants that something that she can't quite place. And even though it longs so badly for the validation and confirmation that it's fitting into whatever role it is Fig is trying to emulate, she doesn't ever actually dare to get "serious". That's not actually what she wants. Uncomfortable and deeply concerning desperation for sexuality from a teenage girl who probably isn't a girl and certainly isn't actually interested in any of the men she's pursuing, and is so scared of just having to exist as herself deep down is such a real experience and if d20 wasn't a comedy show this could be the most visceral arc.

[random-thought-depository]

Re: manbear discourse (this is a discourse iceberg I've mercifully only seen the top of): am I the only one thinking that part of the subtext of the discussion may be that "man alone in the woods" is itself seen as suspicious behavior?

If the comparison isn't "bear to random man" but "bear to man who shows potential signs of hostility/dangerous failure of values-alignment with mainstream society," then being more scared of the man gets significantly more reasonable:

1) That point about the base rate fallacy (you encounter men many times per day without being attacked, you probably rarely encounter bears) gets shakier.

2) Especially because this is exactly the sort of circumstance in which values-alignment failure is likely to lead to actual aggression. This is a man alone with you. A man dangerously values-unaligned with mainstream morality is likely to still be civil and non-aggressive with you in ordinary day to day interactions, as a matter of his own self-preservation. In an encounter in the wilderness with no witnesses and no-one around who might intervene, you lack this "apes together strong" collective protection. Put it more baldly, if this guy was a serial killer, for him this situation would be the perfect opportunity to kill somebody and get away with it.

3) A hostile/dangerously values-unaligned man is in many ways a potentially more dangerous opponent than a bear despite the bear's greater brute strength; a hostile/dangerously values-unaligned man is much smarter than a bear and may have tools that give him many tactically relevant abilities a bear doesn't have (most obviously, he may have a gun, which is a significantly more dangerous weapon than a bear's teeth and claws). A hostile/dangerously values-unaligned man is also much better equipped to pretend to be safe to be around until he can get you into a position of vulnerability; if you meet a bear you know right away that you're dealing with a powerful, dangerous creature that doesn't have human morality, but an ordinary human is likely to extend substantial trust to another human by default.

The problem with this is, uh, it kind of seems to just move the dumbness from "a random man is more dangerous than a bear" to "a man being alone in the woods is a red flag that he might be out to kill, rape, rob, etc. people"; the latter doesn't strike me as a particularly reasonable proposition either!

Also, if this is about gender, it moves the accusation against men from "a random man is statistically more likely to be dangerous than a bear" to "men are more likely to be dangerously values-unaligned with mainstream society than women so a man being alone in the woods is a yellow/red flag for that but a woman being alone in the woods is not." Is the latter a more plausible/reasonable proposition than the former? Offhand, I can see some possible evidence for "men are more likely to be dangerously values-unaligned with mainstream society than women" e.g. most murderers are men, but 1) that's kind of weak, 2) that then raises the question of how much of the difference is the product of dangerously values-unaligned women being more incentivized to submit to the "apes together strong" pro-sociality coalition because physical sex differences and gender roles result in such women tending to have less physical strength, less access to and familiarity with weapons, and less familiarity with violence than their male equivalents. Note point 2) in relation to this.

[wolfsbane-if]

Wolfsbane FAQ

For anyone who can't access the FAQ page through the Tumblr mobile app, I've copied and pasted it below:

1. Where can I play the game?

Right here!

2. Is there a Discord server for Wolfsbane?

Nope! Wolfsbane doesn’t have a Discord server or CoG forum thread associated with it; all info and content will be shared right here.

3. How often does it update?

Wolfsbane was initially updated on a per-chapter basis, but my plan now is to hopefully finish the first draft of the game before updating the public demo again. Wolfsbane was last updated on June 28th, 2022, and currently contains the prologue and first four chapters.

4. Regarding asking about future events, plot points, choices, or outcomes:

As a general rule, I don’t discuss future game content before it happens in the game itself. I’m the sort of author who feels a story out as I write it, and the nature of WIPs means that things are very subject to change and I don’t yet know what all I’ll be able to deliver on, so I prefer to not publicly commit to anything ahead of time. For that reason, I’d prefer to not receive any questions asking if a certain event/outcome will happen, if the MC will be able to make a certain choice, or if a character will ever do or experience a particular action or feeling. I don’t have an answer for asks of this nature because I simply don’t know, and even if I have an idea in place, I’d rather not discuss it before it appears in the story proper, lest things change from how I’ve envisioned them along the way. While questions about future happenings in the game are off limits, however, I alternatively welcome asks regarding general worldbuilding, hypothetical scenarios, and characters and events as they were in the past or are in the present. Asks about worldbuilding are tagged #Wolfsbane Worldbuilding Thank you for understanding!

5. Who are the ROs?

So far, no one. I feel that the label of RO carries with it certain connotations, such as each character getting a similar amount of spotlight, development, and time with the MC; but Wolfsbane is not primarily a romance story and I don’t know if looking at the characters through that lens would be beneficial for setting expectations. My intent is for Wolfsbane to be a story about characters and their experiences rather than a dating sim about love interests, and for now my focus is on developing those arcs asymmetrically and without romance being the intended culmination. Elements of romance and romantic feelings are touched on throughout the story, but not in the way that is typical for IFs.

6. Is Wolfsbane genderlocked?

Nope! The MC isn’t locked to a specific gender; there just isn’t an option to specify it in-game because it hasn’t actually come up at all. I’ll be sure to include a choice of male, female, or nonbinary if/when it becomes relevant, but feel free to imagine your Wolfsbane however you please.

7. How tall is Garamond?

Height chart can be found here!

8. Do you accept NSFW asks?

I don’t necessarily mind asks with NSFW topics, although I do ask that they please be actual questions I can discuss as opposed to just sharing NSFW thoughts/fantasies. I’d also prefer they be kept in line with the content level of Wolfsbane itself (eg: sex is mentioned but never particularly detailed). If you’d like to filter NSFW content out for yourself, the tag I use is #nsfwolfsbane.

[partywithponies]

BEGGING U TO ELABORATE ABOUT THE WHIFFERDILLS

OKAY OKAY listen. listen. I'll give you the brief version.

Whifferdills, originally from the Doctor Who comics, where things can get already get really weird and conceptual, are one of the most alien alien species in the Whoniverse, even by comics standards. They're shapeshifters, right? Nothing new or strange in sci-fi. Except usually when a shapshifting character or species is plot relevant and lore-important, the writer will write in some kind of limitation to their powers. Some kind of set of rules. But when it came to Whifferdills, they just... didn't.

Whifferdills can be anything. Literally. They can be inanimate objects. They can be puddles of liquid. They can be microbes. They can be the size of mountains. They don't seem to have one set default form that they revert back to, they're supposed to be always changing. Frobisher staying in one form most of the time is established to be him just being a little freak by his own species's standards, and even then, the form he stays in is. A penguin. Because he just likes penguins. Whifferdills don't age, at least not physically, unless they actively choose to, because they have conscious control over what their own bodies do at all times. They are functionally immortal. They are almost impossible to kill. Try to throw them off a cliff and they'll shapeshift instantly into something that can fly. Try to drown them and they'll shapeshift into something with gills. Throw them into a vacuum and they'll shapeshift into something that doesn't need to breathe at all. They don't inherently need to breathe at all. Shoot them or stab them and they'll just shapeshift the wound closed. In his first story Frobisher shapeshifts into a burger and survives someone literally eating part of him and is entirely unaffected outside of being mildly annoyed.

All this to say, Whifferdills are weird as hell and OP as shit. There is literally no reason to assume they reproduce sexually or organically. Why would they even? How would pregnancy even work, in a being whose body is by design supposed to be ever-changing? And how can you spend half your existence living as insects or cash registers and still have a concept of gender? Again, why would they even?

And to bring up just a few specific moments: in one comic, Frobisher (in penguin form) mistakenly believes he's laid an egg, and The Doctor (with the air of someone who's had to explain this before) tells Frobisher that this is impossible, because he's a male penguin, and Frobisher still seems a little confused by this. And to be clear, Frobisher is supposed to be highly intelligent. Frobisher is a notorious wanted criminal. Frobisher is a professional private detective. The Doctor sees Frobisher more as an equal and a partner than a companion. Frobisher plays chess against the TARDIS for fun. And Frobisher struggles to remember the difference between male and female penguins, the species he has a vaguely autistic special interest in.

And in the Big Finish audio The Maltese Penguin, Frobisher makes an offhand comment about he finds the humanoid form particularly tricky, because they have all these "odd dangly bits" that he can't see the purpose of.

I put it to you that Whifferdills do not even have a concept of biological sex or gender, because it's just so far outside of their perception of life and the universe. The TARDIS just translates Frobisher as "he" and Francine as "she" for the benefit of us the audience and the benefit of people like Peri, who in return could not even begin to fully comprehend the lived reality of a Whifferdill.

[alexsfictionaddiction]

Review: One Bed by Joss Wood

I've realised that I'm not one for tropey romances. There aren't really any popular romance dynamics i.e. 'enemies to lovers', 'grumpy/sunshine', 'sibling's best friend' that I naturally gravitate towards. If I had to pick one, it would probably be 'friends to lovers', as that's what I can relate to the best. However, I think this book is one that you can probably only really enjoy if you like the particularly spicy trope of 'one bed'.

Bea is a bestselling children's author and she's struggling to work on the latest book in her adventure series. So, she escapes to her godmother's Santorini retreat for some space and inspiration. Only when she gets there does she discover that the villa she expected to be staying in has been double booked by Gibson Caddell, an exceptionally handsome man who she met briefly once as a child. And of course, there's only one bed in the villa.

One thing that I absolutely loathe in romances is repeated references to a couple's physical size difference. Gib constantly talks about how small Bea is and Bea constantly talks about how big Gib is. It possibly needs to be mentioned once (if it's relevant) when they first meet and then, it really can be left off the page. Is it supposed to be sexy that she's tiny and he's well-built? I just don't get it!

Bea is an anxious bean and the reasons for this are explained towards the end of the book, although I didn't fully understand them. Despite her being a neurotic, perfectionist writer, I still couldn't really relate to her. She and I have a lot in common, so I'm really not sure why I just couldn't bring myself to properly like her. Perhaps it was because she seemed to mention sex out of nowhere quite often. There could be no mistake that she was the heroine in a contemporary spicy romance novel...

Gib was also very unlikeable and constantly brought everything back to sex, which got very dull after a while. After he and Bea have been intimate for the first time, she does the nice thing of making him breakfast and wanting to talk to him in the morning. He reacts to this by freaking out about her clearly wanting more than a fling because she dared to still be there and behaving in a friendly manner in the morning. You know, in the villa owned by her godmother who said she could stay there. The villa she's holidaying in. She was still there and being nice to him. A terrifying thought for the commitment phobe apparently...

I had to laugh at this description of Gib's eyes as he was choking. I can't remember why or what he was choking on now but 'his eyes now looked like the badly congested roads on a satnav map' definitely tickled me due to how ridiculous it is.

I do think that the author captured the anxieties and struggles of a writer well. That pressure to consistently put out work that is as good as your last success and to make your editors and fans happy must be really tough and Bea goes through all of that. Joss Wood has clearly been through some of this, almost certainly with this very book, and I thought this was really authentically presented.

One Bed is a spicy romance in the sun with some incredibly infuriating characters. I didn't like either of the leads and I especially didn't like Bea's godmother Golly. I'm pretty sure I was supposed to laugh off her self-centredness as eccentricity but I found that I couldn't. I can't ever connect to or love attention-seeking characters of any age or gender, so Golly was no exception. All in all, the book is probably a hit if you like the 'one bed' trope and physically attractive characters who have zero chemistry beyond the bedsheets.

One Bed by Joss Wood will be published by One More Chapter, an imprint of HarperCollins, in eBook and audiobook on 31st December 2024. It will be available in paperback on 2nd January 2025.

[doritosister]

Since people have not stopped hounding me since I spoke on my experiences with Thai transgender culture and have repeatedly recommended me this article I decided I might as well give it a re-read so that all you angry people clicking on my profile can see my thoughts. For starters, I would like to come right out and say that I am actually a fan of Thalia Bhatt's, and found the article enlightening. I find that nearly everything she has spoken about in regards to feminist thought and particularly her in depth knowledge of desi trans culture and Hijras to be spot on and would go as far as to say she is an authority on all things on the subject of transfeminism and transgender identity in India. I won't go too in depth on her views of Hijras, both because she puts it better than I ever could and because what I disagree with her on is her conclusions on global third sexing rather than third sexing of trans women in India. I will begin by summarizing the parts of the article relevant to Thai ladyboy culture since I am confident very few of the people recommending me the article have read it in full themselves, much less through the lens of Thai culture, and then share my thoughts on it

In regard to the subject of Thai ladyboy culture and the culture of transfemininity in Thailand as a whole, we first get mention in part 2 of the article, specifically in a critique of Serana Nanda's book Gender Diversity. Talia critiques this book for how it looks at third sex cultures from around the world, including Thailand, as being deeper and less limited than western gender, equating these third sex cultures as being analogous in their enlightenment. Bhatt goes on to critique Nanda for not viewing third sexing through a feminist lens, stating that all these cultures idea of third sexing comes from the same place of male supremacy and gendered oppression, extensively citing India's history with Hijras as proof. We then get to perhaps the most important section of the article in regards to Thai trans women, an examination of A Short History Of Transmigosyny by Jules Gilles-Peterson. In Gill-Peterson's book she posits that all trans cultures worldwide share a common struggle under a global suppression of transfemininity and that these cultures are all unified in their distinction from western transgender identity, an idea that Bhatt rejects in favor of viewing both 'cultural third sexes' and 'western transgender identity' as all being analogous in their shared roots.

So, what are my thoughts? While everything Bhatt says about Hijras culture is true, where she strays away from the truth is in her conclusion. She poses a theory that every third sex culture worldwide, from Hijra's to Two Spirit to Ladyboy to Travesti, are roughly analogous in their purpose and their place in society. By (correctly) reaching the conclusion that Hijras culture is rooted in gendered oppression, she extrapolates this to mean that EVERY nation and cultures concept of third sex has both roots in oppression and that the people identifying with it are under an inherently oppressive system. While this is a very popular idea as it allows you to reduce many differing and unique cultures into a singular easy to digest framework, it falls apart when you speak to members of the cultures you're reducing. The reason I do not view Thai ladyboy culture and identity as being inherently offensive as an identity is because one of my closest friends is a trans woman who lived in Thailand for many years, and who lived with and spoke with many self identifying 'ladyboys'. Much like Bhatt's experiences as a trans woman from India gives her a unique perspective and insight into indian trans culture, when it comes to matters of of Thai trans culture I will defer to the experiences of actual trans Thai women. The trans women of Thailand who identify as 'ladyboys' do not view themselves as being a third sex distinct from cisgender womanhood and even from western womanhood, but rather as being women. The viewpoint that they are analagous as a 'third sex' does not stand up to scrutiny because that is a viewpoint only held by outsiders to their culture. Ironically, Bhatt's very critique of Gill-Peterson and Nanda equating all third sexes as being analagous applies here. Whereas Bhatt critiques these authors for viewing all third sexes as analagous in their uniqueness from western transgender identity, and she herself views third sex and western transgender identity as being analagous with eachother in their origins of oppression, the reality is that you cannot create a singular framework by which all cultures transgender identity can be evaluated. To use Talia's own words here, "[Thai trans women] positivly affirm with it". In short, I praise this article for everything it has to say about trans culture in india, and regret that the conclusions drawn from these findings don't offer the same insight into other cultures trans identity.

TLDR: Everything Talia Bhatts says about the Desi trans identity is correct. Her conclusion that this means her findings are applicable to every cultures trans identity is incorrect. If you want to learn the history and ethics of trans identities from other cultures, speak to trans people from these cultures, not randos on the internet. And above all else, respect peoples culture and identity regardless of what your cultures sensibilities clash with

[atrfiction]

Reality Check: Positive, Enthusiastic Consent

Non-fiction article by All These Roadworks.

===

As part of writing in the field of non-consent and gender degradation fantasy, I aim to check in occasionally with responsible, real-life practices for safe, respectful behaviour in the real world.

If you’re reading my writing, the chances are you find stories of non-consent to be really hot. The fantasy of overpowering someone, or being overpowered, is common, natural, and healthy to explore, discuss, and share with consenting adults.

But in the real world, that element of consent is really important.  Consent is the *only* acceptable foundation of real-world interaction, even – especially – if you’re exploring master-slave or non-consent fantasies.  And when I talk about consent, I’m talking about positive, enthusiastic, informed consent.

Don’t be alarmed.

Any discussion of consent has to include a lot of “don’t do this” statements. If you’re young, or if you’re new to sex, or if you’re from a family or culture that doesn’t talk about this a lot, it might seem scary, or a high standard. It might make you want to say it’s all too hard and ignore what I’m saying.

Please don’t. If the things I’m saying here aren’t what you’re already doing, then yes, you might need to slow down and think carefully about it. Getting it right is important, and there are consequences for you and, more importantly, for other people in getting it wrong. BUT thousands of other kinksters have been here before, all of them new to it, many of them not particularly bright, and they learned, and you can too. You want a good reputation in the kink scene. You want to play with hot partners, and you want them to come back for more, and you want them to tell their friends. So you want to learn this, trust me.

Consent is a skill.  Unfortunately very few of us got taught it properly growing up. And so, like any skill, learning it takes active work and practice.  It’s not black and white – you’re not 100% perfect at it or 100% worthless.  You get better with time and practice.

But, as with many skills, there is a minimum level of competency for playing safely with others, and if someone gets hurt as a result of your mistake, the responsibility for that is on you.  

The bare minimum.

The bare minimum for consent is obeying the law, and the following will cover you in almost all jurisdictions. (Some places have a less stringent test, but they really shouldn’t.) I say this not to suggest you can call this “good enough”, but merely to say that if you’re not reaching this standard, you need to stop playing with other people until you can.

A positive belief of consent …. Your belief as to consent must be positive, i.e. “I believe they consent”, not, “I have no reason to believe they don’t”.

… based on positive actions … Your belief must be based on actual things your partner has said or done to make you believe they consent. Silence, absence of struggle, or absence of protest are not consent.

… held on reasonable grounds … Other people in the same position as you would come to a similar belief as to the existence of consent.

… at all relevant times. Your belief must last for the duration of your interaction. If you no longer have reasonable grounds to believe they are *still* consenting, you need to stop, immediately, even if you’re “almost there”.

But we can do better – much better – and as kinksters, who do things more dangerous or unusual than vanilla sex, we have an *obligation* to do better.  So let’s talk about how consent should work.

1) Consent must be positive.

Consent is not the absence of protest.  “She didn’t say no” isn’t consent. Silence isn’t consent.  A lack of struggle isn’t consent. Arousal isn’t consent. Consent consists of positive words or actions that unambiguously mean “yes, please”.

2) Consent must be enthusiastic.

Coerced consent isn’t consent.  You can’t badger or harass someone into consent.  You can’t tell them they owe you consent. If they consent because otherwise you will be sad, disappointed or angry, then it’s not consent. If consent isn’t an enthusiastic “hell, yes!” then it’s not consent.

3) Consent must be informed.

People need to know what they’re consenting to. They’re entitled to know any matter which they’ve expressed concern about or which might reasonably affect their choice to consent – even if it doesn’t matter to *you*.

Some matters which people need to know in order to give informed consent: * Are you going to use protection and/or birth control? * Do you either have an STD, or are at risk of one without having had a recent screen? * Do you have a partner or partners who would consider what you’re doing “cheating”? * Are you photographing or recording what you’re doing? Do you intend to? * Do you have a physical or mental health condition which could impact your safety or theirs? Everyone has a right to know what risks to their privacy, physical health and reproductive health they’re consenting to.

4) Consent can be withdrawn at any time.

Anyone is entitled to withdraw their consent at any time.  Even if they’ve consented in the past. Even if they consented to a consensual non-consent scene.  Even if sex work is involved and you’ve paid money. If someone indicates they are less than enthusiastically consenting, *stop*.

5) Only sober, conscious, adult humans can consent.

Minors can’t consent.  Animals can’t consent. People who are unconscious or less than fully awake can’t consent. If you’re too drunk or stoned to drive, you can’t consent.  If you’re on any medication or drug you’ve not tried before, or which impairs your judgement, you can’t consent.   (Can you consent while sober or awake to activity happening while drunk or asleep? The answer is “kind of”. I know for some of you it’s your kink, and you want it to happen. But it’s super-risky, because you’re not going to be in a position to safely withdraw your consent once the activity starts. If you *must* do this, you want to do it with someone that you’ve built up trust with, and you want to be super-explicit in advance about what you’re consenting to, when it’s happening, and what the limits are.)

Also, to gloss over a somewhat complex area, I’ll also just note that being horny affects your judgement, and responsible kinksters avoid asking people to consent to new surprises while they’re desperate to cum, no matter how hot that might be. Also, mental health can clearly affect your judgement, and kinksters need to be upfront about their diagnoses and how that affects their judgement, and, on the flip side, 100% ready to pull the plug if they’re less than completely certain their partner’s consent is rational and sober.

6) If they can’t communicate, you can’t be sure they’re consenting.

If you’re playing with gags or bondage, or in a noisy or dark environment, you need to think about communication.  How are they going to withdraw consent if they need to? You need to make provision for that in advance. Discuss that with your partner to see what works for them. You may give them a toy to hold in one hand – dropping it means they need to stop. Or leave them a hand free that they can use to rap on a noisy surface if they need your attention.

If you don’t have a reasonable, positive belief that your partner is *still* consenting, then your consent isn’t safe.

7) If you have any doubt they’re consenting, check in.

If they look like they’re not into it anymore, check if they’re okay.  If they’re starting to look spacey, check if they’re okay. If they haven’t made any sound in a while, check they’re okay.  If you have the *slightest* doubt that they are still enthusiastically consenting, check in. If you don’t get a response that indicates enthusiastic consent, stop.

8) You need to get consent *every time*.

Just because they’ve consented before, doesn’t mean they consent now.  Just because they’re consenting to someone else seeing them naked, doesn’t mean they’re consenting to you seeing them, or interacting with them.  In long-term relationships, consent can get faster and simpler, sure, but even with someone you’ve been married to for 20 years you should be getting positive, enthusiastic consent to anything you’re going to do with them.

9) Consent isn’t transactional – even in sex work.

No one owes you consent, even if you’ve paid money.  If a sex worker says no, you stop. Whether that then means you’re entitled to a refund is possibly a matter for negotiation, but it’s a negotiation that happens after you stop, and after you’ve made sure that they’re safe, and it may be a negotiation you need to have with someone else on their behalf to make sure that they *continue* feeling safe.  No stream performer or model or stripper or escort owes you their consent, even if money has changed hands. Also, providing sexual gratification to someone else doesn’t oblige them to “return the favour”.

10) Consent isn’t just for sex.

Here’s the thing – if you’re doing consent right, you’re not just doing it for sex.  You’re doing it in relation to all your interpersonal interactions, whenever you’re going to cross someone’s personal boundaries.  Before you touch someone, you ask if it’s okay. Before you photograph someone, you ask if it’s okay. When you’re interacting with people, you actively give them a way to withdraw, or communicate that they’re distressed.  You teach kids that they’re allowed to say no to hugs. Good consent skills are something to use every day, in all your interpersonal interactions.

Here endeth the lecture.

Still here? Good. Like I said at the start, consent is a skill, it takes practice, and you get better. Start practicing. Your partners WILL appreciate good consent skills. It will make them feel safe and empowered with you, and they’ll be more ready to try new things, take risks, and lower inhibitions. Consent benefits everybody.

I’m happy to take questions on consent skills at any time, and the next time I come back for a reality check I might offer an example consent negotiation, drawn from personal experience. (I’ve actually written it up, but then realised this article was already exceptionally long.) Thank you all for reading, thank you for being wonderful, responsible kinksters, and you may now return to reading your regularly-scheduled smut.

– All These Roadworks October 2023

[sapphos-darlings]

In a wlw relationship, does one person usually has preferences in regards to things that would often be gendered in straight couples, like lifting the other up, guiding or being guided in a dance, having your hands on her waist or hers on yours, or do most just don't really have much of a preference and enjoy doing either? Do those gestures mean something, is the one doing the 'top' and the other the 'bottom'? In straight relationships, people often atribute meaning to those things, but I don't know how that works between women. I'm figuring out my sexuality now and I want to date women from now on, but I'm trying to concile that with the heteronormative context I've been in until now, because I keep trying to understand, but I don't, and I think I have to if I'll be dating other women.

It's not quite that black and white and definitely not as rigid as it may seem! There is a culture of butch/femme in the dating scene for gay women, and a more widely spread idea of top/switch/bottom from the gay scene in general, though this one is more relevant to gay men than it is women. The reasons to why this exist are complex and historical, and our other mod (Lavender) may be better equipped to tackle that side, but contemporarily speaking, these roles are not as relevant as they were earlier in lesbian/bi history and subculture.

To establish first: there is generally a celebration of "true" equality in gay relationships, of being free of the sexist implications that have been placed on straight relationships, and the ability to move on the spectrum from feminine to masculine in terms of behaviours, activities and appearance freely. Particularly in relationships between women, the lack of a direct patriarchal influence in the relationship is generally celebrated as a positive. However, in the past, the butch party would assume the traditionally masculine role. Femmes had the appearance and behaviour of more socially acceptable women and provided "shelter" for the gender non-conforming butch lesbians, who dressed and behaved in a masculine manner, sometimes living in the male role in society altogether, regardless of the actual gender identity of the butch in question. These roles were often assumed for survival, and we're talking pre-80s culture here, from the 1900s upwards, during very "nuclear family" and "traditional values" times, the majority of which homosexuality was labeled as a mental illness or was illegal altogether. But it's our cultural heritage, which in better times has become less of a cornerstone of survival and hiding in plain sight and more of an identity, a celebration of who we are - so butch and femme survive to date, and are mostly regarded as valid and beautiful identities to take on in the community.

I'd still say that in modern dating, they're less prevalent than they were before. We still have masculine women and feminine women dating each other, surely, but we also have masculine women dating masculine women and feminine women dating feminine women and women dating women who just don't fit anywhere specific on that spectrum. It's very much up to a person's nature and preference; playing into each other's strengths, rather than holding onto a specific role. For example, I'm naturally quite strong, and love picking up my small partner and hauling them around the house for the sheer joy of it. Picking people up is delightful and my partner loves to be picked up. Meanwhile, we do house maintenance together as a team, both of us know how to wield a hammer and work with nails, and if we had a car, we'd be tinkering with that together.

When it comes to roles in dancing or such, it's up to a person's personality and their level of confidence - the one who is confident and tends to take a leadership role in general will likely feel more in their element leading the dance as well. Similarly, in sex, it's up to personal preference: what you like doing, what you don't, and what experiences feel good to you and what doesn't work out. Some people are natural tops, some are natural bottoms, most people like to switch around depending on what the specific activity is all about. Sometimes a top is a dominant personality, sometimes they're a very soft person who simply enjoys to be in "lead" of the act, similarly for bottoms, they may be masculine or feminine or anything inbetween, there isn't a set place for "the woman" or "the man" in a relationship between two women, as it is, and as it should be, a relationship between two women.

In my experience, there isn't an expectation that in any given couple, one of them will assume a masculine or a feminine role and vice versa. This tends to come from the heterosexual world, and is often summed up in the rather unintentionally homophobic, ever-repeating question of "so, who's the man?" Nobody in a relationship with two women is the man, unless one of them or both of them specifically want to be the man, or feel like "the man" is an identity for them. Same with being "the woman". Ultimately, we are all just people, and these are gender roles that patriarchy and heteronormativity enforce across the gender and sexuality spectrum. Inherently, all of us share some traits in common with these roles, but very few of us fit into the set boxes neatly with all our limbs comfortably inside. In gay relationships, one of the most freeing things is to be able to let go of all of that and focus on who you are as a person, and who your partner is, and what you two have together, how you fit each other, how your strengths work into each other's weaknesses, how you support one another as a team.

Restricting yourselves down to one party being "a man" and the other being "a woman" in all things would be unnatural and clip the wings off of the potential you two have together to be strong exactly as you are, regardless of societal expectations.

Hope this answers your question!

[fierceawakening]

@notthateither (I think that's your username) I keep meaning to come back to your post on what we agree with and what we don't, and I keep getting distracted by various shiny things. So I'll just say:

Starting off, if you're cool with people transitioning even though you don't understand it and maybe even find it weird or, hell, maybe even a bit scary, then I'm cooler with you than I am with a lot of people. I believe creating the least oppressive world possible involves giving people freedom to make decisions for what we think are bad reasons, so If you're doing that, we're broadly aligned in political terms even if I don't like some of what you believe. (An example for me here? I'm deeply troubled by "I wouldn't have an abortion if my fetus were "normal," but I would if there was evidence of disability." I think that's very, very often going to be influenced by growing up in an ableist society and is rarely going to be about realistic expectations. But a world in which women are forced to carry to term is a more oppressive one than one where they are not, so I cannot stop someone even if I'm 100% certain that is her only reason.)

But as for where our beliefs differ and why, I'd say the core of it is that radical feminism often asserts things about men and/or males (not defining these here although to me they are different; it's not relevant to the point I'm making) are particularly dangerous, threatening, or destructive. I worry that singling out a group of humans and calling them the source of destructiveness is wrongheaded, and in fact the first step on a very long yellow brick road to fascist thinking.

It's not just that I think trans women aren't men, that there's a relevant difference between sex characteristics and social role (though I do indeed think that.)

It's that even if I DID literally see trans women as "males who wish to be women," and this switch as something that people can only sort of do and never manage completely, I still don't see how that's something inherently wrong to want, or that there's something suspicious about people wanting it. It's maybe a little weirder than "I was a stamp collector, but now I want to be a skydiver," but it's that sort of thing. There's nothing inherently untoward about it.

Body modification should be undergone after a great deal of thought. But most humans fly by the seat of their pants a lot, much more than I generally do or generally understand. I used to think it was my job to warn them against this, but... now I don't. People who live high risk, high reward lives are allowed to do so. All that's necessary is that they acknowledge and own the risks they take, and not blame it on other people if those risks are presented to them truthfully and without spin.

(And hell, I'm one of the most cautious, risk averse humans I have ever met, and MY medical-reasons, justified-to-most modifications went wildly wrong. Sometimes stuff really is just life being fucked up and not making sense.)

Why do we have gender? I don't know. I suspect it's a mix of nature and nurture, social factors and vague, difficult to pin down biological ones too. I don't know that I'll ever know for sure.

What I do know is that the oppressive stuff I've seen seems to happen, and really mess people up, when they're demanded to fit into one box and not another. I'm not sure what abolishing gender would mean or would look like, or how we'd make sure we do it justly, but I do know that letting people be is something I can do right here and now, and something I can encourage others to do, and a thing that seems, from the evidence we have, to help most of the time.

Which is why I'm not... well, I'd say why I'm not "gender critical" but it feels very weird to think of myself as not critical of gender when what I mean is the much weaker not sure we should abolish it. So instead of saying why I'm not GC I'll phrase it as "why I'm not a radical feminist."

Fair?

[maniacwatchestheworld]

So I've been working on a thing lately! I kinda sort of want to run a ttrpg campaign that would kinda sorta capture the spirit of Pokemon: Legends Arceus, but that takes place in Meiji Hoenn instead of Sinnoh! I've accomplished quite a bit on the setting, and now I need to design some regional and era-specific variants of some of these Pokemon! So here are some designs that I thought would be pretty easy to pump out!

On the left I designed some regional water-typed variants of Ekans and Arbok because like... Why aren't there any water snakes in Pokemon...????? They are water/poison types and are much much friendlier than Kantonian Ekans and Arbok! They both have rattles to ward off any critters that they don't want to bite, have bright belly colorations, and the belly pattern on Arbok's belly is inspired by butterflies that have eye-shaped patterns on their wings that look like eyes to ward off predators! All of this is to scare other critters away so that they don't have to hurt them when they're feeling threatened! Because when you really think of it, it's actually kinda nice and generous of rattlesnakes to make a sound before biting you as a warning. So this is a much friendlier regional variant that doesn't actually want to hurt anything that it doesn't need to for survival! Also this version of Arbok is indeed skinnier on the top half of its body than Arbok. You know. For fun. :p

On the right I decided to design an organic version of Iron Valiant. I've been thinking of using the name "Glaivant" for it, but I don't know if it rolls off the tongue quite as well as Gardevoir and Gallade as Pokemon species names. >.< In any case, these evolutions are exclusively non-binary/gender unknown! In this setting I wanted to create this evolution variant to kind of make a statement about gender and sexuality before colonization. One of the main conflicts that I want to explore in this setting is that of modernization vs tradition and what is lost when you pursue solely one or the other. In real life Japan, they didn't have the same perceptions of gender roles, and gender and sex in general as western traditions do. The idea of people existing in ways that didn't match stereotypical gender norms of the time, and people and/or creatures existing outside of ordinary gender confines was not unheard of or even necessarily particularly unusual before Japan decided to modernize and westernize itself! Gender existentialism was just not nearly as relevant in Japan before it largely decided to colonize itself! These facts reflect quite obviously in art that was created at the time and in art that comes out of Japan today as well, and Pokemon is no exception! And so I wanted to reflect that with this Pokemon design in this pre-modern Pokemon setting!

Lots and LOTS of impassioned gender ramblings below the cut. >.< (Sorry, it got long FAST because I have A LOT of feelings on Gardevoir and gender. >.< )

In fact that was one of the reasons that I genuinely quite loved Gardevoir when it was created and came out all the way back in gen 3! And it's why I've always had quite a strong dislike of Gallade. Because to me, when I realized that Gardevoir could be female OR male with an even 50/50 gender distribution as a kid, it really made me open my eyes to just how bullshit western ideas of gender were! Because the things about Gardevoir's design that made it look feminine upon first glance to a western audience could be interpreted as masculine from a different perspective! Its "dress" could also read as a kimono. Its "hair" could be seen as a helmet. Where "pretty lady in a dress" was seen by many "young noble Japanese warrior" was an equally valid way to look at the Pokemon depending on its gender and your cultural perspective! It was masculine in a way that is very subversive to western gender stereotypes, and also Japanese in a very interesting way that said something interesting about the culture Pokemon was created in! And while I couldn't express that in words as a kid, I LOVED Gardevoir for it!

And then Gallade came out! And I hated it! Because literally the only thing that I could think of for why Gallade was created was because too many people complained about how girly Gardevoir was while also being an incredibly cool Pokemon and so the boys wanted a Gardevoir too. You know. When the boys already had a Gardevoir for boys. Aka Gardevoir as it was. And so I have always disliked Gallade for this. Also its design looks tacky in some ways, and the fact that people kinda just see Gardevoir as "female Gallade" to the point where some people will only refer to any Gardevoir and the species as a whole by she/her pronouns instead of gender neutral pronouns, even though you can still very VERY much evolve male Kirlia into Gardevoir, has always infuriated me. I thought that Gardevoir's gender ambiguity was SO COOL as a kid! But then that was taken away from me when Gallade was created and could ONLY be male, and to me everything that anyone ever does with Gardevoir and Gallade since then has just reinforced stereotypical western gender norms...

... At least until they created Iron Valiant. Because just... I LOVE Iron Valiant so so SO much! It's SO cool, and SO gender, and the best part about it to me is that it's getting back to what made me absolutely LOVE Gardevoir in the first place by being a species that is entirely genderless/non-binary while presenting as both male AND female at the same time! And so I wanted to make a version of it that was organic and actual flesh and blood like the ones that came before! Because I genuinely think that it would make a LOT of sense and be excellent if it turns out that there WAS a genderless evolution of the Ralts line, historically speaking, but that it went extinct after Poke-Japan modernized, westernized, and started practicing gender in a similar way to the west. This genderless evolution of Kirlia, while rare, was just something that happened sometimes and no one really thought it was weird or commented on it because gender wasn't really thought of in that way before western conceptions of gender came along. And it was perfectly natural for some Ralts to grow up and evolve into this variation and was in fact a sign of great strength. They were admired for their strength and abilities over everything else, and the fact that it didn't fit into male or female in terms of gender/physical sex was maybe a little strange to think about, but perfectly natural! But then western conceptions of gender came along, tried to force this species into a box, and for that, it went extinct. By embracing the western world and abandoning their old thinking of gender and sex, sadly that left no room for this unique and powerful Pokemon to exist, so it went extinct. It's one of the ways that embracing modernization and abandoning the past and the cultural identity that made the area unique causes irreparable harm. In a way, this Pokemon's cultural background and lack of gender was what made it strong in the first place! It's not a Pokemon that can exist as long as a western and essentialist view of gender reigns supreme over the world. And it's a genuine tragedy that it just doesn't exist in the modern world... But it COULD exist again if the traditions that don't view gender as this essential, black and white thing, returns at large! Let's just hope that we aren't all robots before that point happens! And in this setting of Meiji Hoenn? It's here. This species is surviving and thriving. And no one really thinks that its unusual for it to be here and for it to no longer have any gendered sex characteristics because that's just how it naturally has been and doesn't really warrant much comment.

[drcuriouslxix]

DRV3 characters from worst to best at sex

N/A: Himiko. Sorry, this is a child. This thing is, like, 12 years old.

15: Miu. Horny, but actually absolute dogshit in bed. Doesn’t matter how many toys and weird kinks she tries to spice things up with (a lot); she’s still the absolute worst lay you could ever find.

14: Kiibo. No dick. No experience with friends or basic humanity to approach even the most tepid erotic forms of intimacy. The only reason Miu has a good time with him is she’s a fucking desperate freak and he’s obligated to be around her for it.

13.5: Tenko, if you’re male and submissive. She’s going to kick you really hard in the junk, and this will be your only sexual interaction. Like, we’re talking ‘holy shit call an ambulance’ levels of kick. If that’s what does it for you, congrats, I guess.

13: Kaito. The whole ‘severely dying’ thing really did a number on his ability to perform. He’d have decent potential as a pillow princess, but his weird masculine pride means he’ll never try anything but domming and topping.

12: Gonta. This is going to be easily the most controversial ranking on the list. I think he would be a very lovely person and partner, like a true gentleman! But I don’t think he could ever learn genuinely good physical technique, and I have a deep conviction that he’s not actually as big as his stature suggests.

11: Shuuichi. We never get to actually see how he performs during the love hotel scenes, but he seems pretty reluctant to engage in any of the actual sexytimes. I don’t want to definitively state anything since I’m not part of this community, but I feel like he might be asexual? In any case he’s a protagonist for you to project onto, which means definitionally he can’t be particularly exceptional or interesting.

10: Korekiyo. Absolutely one of the most perverted characters, but his heart belongs to another, and I think once it gets to the actual dicking down his performance would be average at best. He’ll do weird obscure foreplay shit with you all night, but the actual pounding will largely be forgettable, if it happens at all.

9: Rantaro. The entire subplot pertaining to this character is about learning that he is Literally Just Some Guy. Have you had sex with some guy? Just a regular dude? A bloke? Congratulations, you know what it’s like to have sex with Rantaro Amami. 

8: Tsumugi. Like Rantaro, conspicuously plain and regular. Which of these two is better is going to just come down to what gender you prefer. WILL NOT have cosplay sex with you.

???: Mastermind Tsumugi. A few baseline points above regular Tsumugi by virtue of evil women being hotter, but more relevant here is the cosplay/transformation. Her mimicry is perfect to the character, and that includes their skill in bed. This ranges from impossibly bad (Leon), to really quite good (Peko), to unbelievably off the charts incredible (Celeste). She WILL be changing a minimum of a dozen times over the course of the night, though, so be prepared.

7: Kaede. Also has relatable protagonist syndrome, but to a much less intense degree. Enthusiastic, adventurous. Probably inexperienced but very earnest, I want to say she mentions it being her first time during the love hotel? Not the best night of your life, but a fine person to lose your virginity with. Don’t try choking, though.

6: Tenko, if you’re a girl, or if you’re genderfucky and submissive. Getting into the ‘legitimately good’ tier. Very, very enthusiastic lesbian, athletic, eager to please. Kind of pushy and clingy, though, so it may not be worth it in the long run. This isn’t even her final form…

5: Maki. The kuudere thing can be a little off-putting, but if you get her to open up she’ll be very sweet and affectionate, and training as an assassin gives you remarkable flexibility and control over your body. Also, given the big secret she’s already hiding, who knows what kind of freaky shit she might be into?

4: Ryoma. He’s been to prison and I am going to choose to assume that he got the good kind of prison sex experience. He won’t be much for aftercare, and he doesn’t have the body to assert a lot of physical force, but he has learned a GOOD number of things.

3: Angie. The obligatory unnecessarily sexualized tan-skinned girl for the game. Definitely worth critiquing from a Doylist perspective, but from a Watsonian perspective, she’s definitely a very very tempting, attractive, and fairly eager option. Probably there will be weird Atua-related kink bullshit, but if you can put up with that, her execution of the actual sex parts is top-tier.

2: Kirumi. MAID MOMMY MAID MOMMY MAID M- ahem, sorry. Elegant, accommodating, very very submissive and very very talented at basically everything. However, it’s rare that she’ll take the initiative in anything. Whatever you ask her for, kink or sex act, she’ll do with all her skills as SHSL Maid, but she’s not going to do anything you don’t explicitly request, and her creativity might be a little lacking. But. Come on. She’s a maid!

1.5: Tenko, if you’re a guy or genderfucky, and dominant. Secret free use/full time submission fantasies OFF THE CHARTS. Imagine Kirumi but genuinely horny for all of it and aggressively submissive. How long you can put up with this depends on how long you can stay in domspace, but if you’re into having power and exercising it, then you - and she! - will have a very, VERY good time. The well-trained body of the SHSL Aikido Master is yours, as long as you have the will to take it.

1: Kokichi. It is unfair and infuriating how good this man’s pussy game is. He does not fucking deserve the natural talent he possesses. You’ll have the best night of your life and then regret it every moment thereafter

[msclaritea]

Anthropology groups cancel conference panel on why biological sex is “necessary” for research – Retraction Watch

"...Lowrey told us the implications of the cancellation were “quite unsettling”:

The AAA is the largest professional association of anthropologists in the world, and the joint conference with CASCA (which happens every third year, I believe) is the Big Kahuna of anthropology conferences. I organized the panel in order to bring together two kinds of anthropologists concerned with the replacement of biological sex by “gender”: one the one hand, scholars like Elizabeth Weiss and Carole Hooven who have an interest in human evolution (for which sexual reproduction is a relevant process!) and on the other, scholars like Silvia Carrasco, Michele Sirois, and Kathleen Richardson who have an interest in feminist issues (for which sex based oppression is a relevant process!). I have interests in both domains, and thought it would be great to bring together scholars concerned for very different reasons with sex as a category of anthropological analysis in order to see where our concerns overlap and where they diverge.

I truly do not understand why anyone who disagrees with any of this wouldn’t simply turn up to the panel and engage us in discussion. That’s what conferences are for. I would be sincerely interested to hear AAA and CASCA representatives elaborate on why they think talking about biological sex is threatening and harmful to trans identified people or to what they term the “LGBTQI” community.

The panel description contained this summary:

While it has become increasingly common in anthropology and public life to substitute ‘sex’ with ‘gender’, there are multiple domains of research in which biological sex remains irreplaceably relevant to anthropological analysis. Contesting the transition from sex to gender in anthropological scholarship deserves much more critical consideration than it has hitherto received in major diciplinary [sic] fora like AAA / CASCA. This diverse international panel brings together scholars from socio-cultural anthropology, archaeology, and biological anthropology who describe why in their work gender is not helpful and only sex will do. This is particularly the case when the work is concerned with equity and the deep analysis of power, and which has as an aim the achievement of genuine inclusivity. With research foci from hominin evolution to contemporary artificial intelligence, from the anthropology of education to the debates within contemporary feminism about surrogacy, panelists make the case that while not all anthropologists need to talk about sex, baby, some absolutely do..."

This cult needs to be stopped, immediately!

[alianoralacanta]

Responding to an anon criticising my belief that there should be more mixed sport (I’m not showing it because 1) my Tumblr errored out when I tried, 2) it was divided across multiple asks for no obvious reason and 3) I don’t believe anon’s example should be imitated). Defence of my position is below the “Keep Reading” indicator.

I (a woman) have competed against men in multiple sports and found men and women are equally likely to get injured in sports, provided certain basic errors routinely avoided in children’s sports are not made. Swimming (pool): everyone's in different lanes, so the comment about women being more likely to get injured when competing against men is laughable. Swimming (open-water): Definitely a contact sport. The probability of injury is the same for everyone. The relevant factors are how close people's paces are to each other (the closer in pace, the more strikes and thus the more injuries), how much waterway width is allotted to the swimmers (the less width, the more injuries), the degree of awareness swimmers have about optimal cornering technique (the greater the awareness, the more likely collisions - and thus injuries - are to happen on the corners), how much knowledge swimmers have on how to avoid injuring themselves (the less knowledge, the more injuries) and the perceived importance of the event (the more important it is seen as being for the athlete, the more likely that athlete is to overextend themselves and get injured). None of these are in any way affected by sex or gender. Dragon boat racing: the only reason anyone would be making contact is if there's bad rhythm on the boat, in which case someone's not listening to the instructions. That's easy to fix. Running: Another non-contact sport, collisions are a sign of thinking the event especially important, poor technique, inattentiveness, clumsiness or malice, none of which are anything to do with gender or sex. Equestrianism: Injuries are based on understanding of horses and of the type of event being entered, levels of stress, the quality of organisation on display at the event, audience behaviour, degree of preparation, skill and wearing the safety equipment correctly. None are affected by gender or sex. Most are non-contact sports (jousting is a contact sport, and that's also a sport where neither gender nor sex has any influence on injury risk). This is particularly significant since this is the sport resulting in the second-highest amounts of injuries (the highest-injury sport is fishing, but I've not done that one. I believe association football/soccer is third). Karting: The only sport I have experienced where women actually get injured more than men. The reason? Regulatory compliance. The women, from what I saw, followed the rules nearly all the time. The men were sloppier, including many collisions (some deliberate) against rivals. It only took a couple of sexist deliberate male crashers to take out nearly a third of the female field. It was the real-life equivalent to the meme about Spiders Georg being an outlier who should not have been counted. Also note: the division in behaviour was gender-based, not sex-based (that particular event having rules that defined "male" and "female" strictly by gender, albeit lacking a clear way of handling non-binary athletic applications), and based on a tiny minority of men behaving in a way that eventually got them disqualified from the event where they misbehaved (and by eventually, I mean "before the semi-finals"). The answer is simple: make sure all athletes know and are willing to abide by the rules before starting, and remind them that a sport needs rules to be a sport (otherwise it's just a bunch of people doing athletic stuff on the floor). The result is that the only sport in which I've partaken that might have looked as if it supported your theory in fact refuted it. It probably won't surprise you to hear that in all of these sports, at least some organisers were happy to have co-ed events occur (some other organisers in all of these cases separated them out). Spreading false information about injury risks, as you are doing, hurts cis women almost as much as it hurts non-binary and trans athletes of all varieties. The only beneficiaries are cis men. As for some obvious categories of sport in which I have not personally competed: Combat sports: The main things that influence injury risk are knowledge about how to avoid injuries, importance of the specific competition, size, speed and musculature, none of which are sex- or gender-locked. Some specific elements of athletic performance are also favoured by specific combat sports. The correlations are easily resolved by finding which features are actually relevant to sporting performance (hint: not sex) and categorising people according to those. Due to those correlations, some divisions would be primarily occupied by men or women, but none would be locked out to people of similar relevant athletic features. It might take a bit more effort for viewers to parse (albeit less than the disability separations routinely accepted at the Paralympics), but it would vastly improve competition for similar athletes to not be artificially separated by an irrelevant document. Triple jump (and decathlons involving a triple jump): the only sport where most women would not be competing with men. This is because the pelvis shape most associated with females and women is in fact more prone to injury than the pelvis shape most associated with males and men. However, there is no guarantee that a cis male won't have such an injury-prone pelvis, nor that a cis female won't, and that's before considering non-binary and trans athletes. The sensible measure would be to assess people's hip structures before their first big competition (this wouldn't need to be invasive, or for most people even involve wearing less clothes or doing a scan, since for most people the differences between these hip structures can be seen in outward body shape), exclude people whose hip structures preclude safe competition - and let everyone else compete together (since it's a non-contact sport with no competitor interaction). 

Association football (likely applicable to similar team sports): Association football is a contact sport, so this becomes a worthwhile question to ask. Men with disparate athletic builds result in significantly higher injuries than those involving men with similar athletic builds (still waiting for the research to come in for women, as women's association football is much less researched than men's association football). Since the only research I've seen regarding co-ed association football injuries ignored this obvious fact, the logical solution would be, again, to divide by build instead of either gender or sex. Think about it: children routinely get divided by age and athletic maturity to avoid sporting injuries due to issues like different build, musculature and other actual athletic elements, including in co-ed sports and including age ranges below puberty (the usual threshold for the assumptions that go with sex-based theories). Why would these issues magically become less relevant in the face of some document issued by a hospital some years earlier, upon those involved becoming teenagers or adults? It's clear sex and gender don't become more relevant to sporting safety...

[rotblume]

I loved this scene, and people already said a lot about John (in and out of Universe), but I also think about what this might imply for Ronon and Sateda and the Pegasus Galaxy ..

like, in a Galaxy living in fear of the Wraith, the actual population growth (and as such the relevance of reproduction through sexual relations between females and males) would be an important factor to consider (society big enough to survive the next culling, not too big to draw additional attention), while at the same the very fear of the Wraith would also encourage people to live a life "worth" living (and enjoy themselves as much as possible and not force themselves into unhappy family constructs for shitty sex/gender reasons like on Earth)

and we know that Ronon respects various characters, regardless of physical strength, non-warrior-like profession or gender, and can appreciate e.g. women as fighters as well as in other power positions or squishy scientists because of their different skill set & knowledge area or soft medics because of their empathy & compassion and bravery dealing with mortality & death, and never really looks down on people for just one aspect (but, if anything, rather for giving him the impression of being "weak/cowardly", depending on the circumstances) as seen particularly in his relationships with Sheppard, Rodney, Teyla, Elizabeth, Richard, Carson & Jennifer who are all capable & brave & strong (in their own way), willing to make hard decisions or sacrifice themself, loyal and kind, quick-thinking, clever & wise (instead of just "smart") etc pp

on the other hand, at that point he's been on Atlantis for about 1,5 yeas and he must have noticed how (even unconsciously, non-maliciously) many Tau'ri men treat women, military treat scientist etc pp (maybe in contrast to Sateda specifically)

and so while he already sees John as a good man, this topic apparently hasn't come up between them and so (mayhaps aware of DADT and with John being in the military & Rodney's commentary about him being a lady-flirt, but also Shep otherwise rarely acting like most Tau'ri military men) he might actually have been cautious of what John's stance on *this* is

John Sheppard, ladies and gentlemen. John Sheppard, who doesn’t make heteronormative assumptions. Who probably, during his service in Afghanistan et al, looked at “don’t ask, don’t tell” and thought it was a steaming pile of bullshit because who cares if you like boys or girls? Can you do the job? Are you a decent person? Are you both consenting adults? Are you happy? Cool. Let’s grab a beer. John Sheppard, the equal opportunities, non-judgemental boss.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

6 Responses to "A Fetus Isn't a Person"

An Illustrated Guide by a Former Fetus

So you’re a fetus-defender, and a troll has appeared from the bowels of the internet to gatekeep basic human rights.

“A human fetus doesn’t have rights unless it’s a person,” declares the troll, placing the obstacle of personhood between the fetus and their rights. “And if it’s not conscious like me then it’s not a person, so it’s not wrong to inhumanely destroy it.”

Fortunately, you have this guide, so you have the stats on 6 strategies to get past this obstacle. Which attack will you choose?

Pro-tip: Pro-abortion advocates often believe “only conscious beings are people” because it appeals to intuition. This intuition likely comes from two ideas: first, that if we met a rational non-human being (such as a spirit or an extraterrestrial) we would instinctively relate to them as another person; second, that we don’t relate to most irrational animals as other persons. So, since fetuses aren’t rational in a way that makes consciousness observable, we don’t intuitively relate to them as persons. Keep this in mind for your strategy.

Strategy A: Significance

The Argument: As human beings grow, they develop not only conscious awareness of their own existence, but also many other advanced cognitive capabilities at the same time (such as learning and memory). Consciousness is of limited use in a person without all these other capabilities, so we don’t have sufficient reason to think consciousness is particularly special. The development of consciousness is just one event in the process of humans attaining the minds of persons. Further, a being does not have to value consciousness to be a person. Imagine two beings: the first can only think about itself relative to others, and the second can only think about its experience of the world. There is no obvious reason to give the first being rights and not the second. Consciousness is a distraction from focusing on what is actually significant about being a human person.

Why it works: Beyond their intuition, the pro-abort likely doesn’t have a reason that proves being conscious is enough to be a person– or, probably not a reason that is backed by both solid logic and strong evidence. Use this core weakness to refute the belief.

When to choose: When you are unfamiliar with the pro-abort’s stance. It’s a good strategy to “get a feel” for their perspective.

How to use: Ask, “what makes consciousness so special?” After they give reasons, point out why the reasons aren’t relevant or convincing.

Source: “The Moral Insignificance of Self-Consciousness” by Joshua Shepherd (2017)

Strategy B: Absurdity

The Argument: Human consciousness isn’t sophisticated enough for many months – if not years – after birth to be distinct from irrational animals. Thus, neither fetuses nor infants are meaningfully conscious enough to be identified as not “non-persons”. If for this reason we may abort a human fetus, then we may do the following to a human infant: abort it after birth, harvest its living organs, subject it to live experimentation, use its living body for sex, and selectively harm it for apparent gender or sexuality. Further, money could be made from these practices. This justifies infant sex trafficking. The infant will never become a victim if it is simply aborted before it becomes a person; as long as it doesn’t feel pain or suffer, this is humane.

Why it works: By reasonably extending its logic to illustrate its absurd implications, you show that the pro-abort’s belief that ‘non-conscious humans aren’t persons’ isn't reasonable after all!

When to choose: When the pro-abort is committed to the intuition that “consciousness” is necessary to be a person, or denies that it alone isn’t enough to be a person with rights.

How to use: Propose the five scenarios to the pro-abort. Ask, “do you find any of these unacceptably wrong? What makes them wrong, but not abortion?”

Source: “Beyond Infanticide” by Rodger, Blackshaw, and Miller (2018)

Strategy C: Active Relation

The Argument: A living human organism is always in the process of either attaining, retaining, or restoring the capabilities that make her a person. A human fetus actually has the present capacity for this process because it is a feature of humankind, to which she belongs. This establishes continuous active relation between every stage of her biological life cycle; her identity as the person exercising this capacity transcends each phase of her existence, from adult person to human embryo. Since there is no change in identity between the fetus and her born self, she should be recognized at conception as the same person she will be at birth.

Why it works: This rebuttal can tie in the pro-abort’s preexisting beliefs about when a human becomes a person; a fetus is in the active process of attaining [insert any capability that they believe makes us persons] through her actual capacity to do so as a member of humankind.

When to choose: When the pro-abort challenges you to prove that a fetus is a person, or claims that there’s no better reason than theirs that we are persons.

How to use: Boldly state, “a human fetus is always in the process of either attaining, retaining, or restoring the capabilities that make her a person, and so are we.” Then ask, “what about this doesn’t make her the same person she will be at birth?”

Pro-tip: We should accept this criterion for personhood because it’s not arbitrary or conditional. It doesn’t enable prejudice based on level of ability and dependence, age, body size, or location. It can be consistently applied in principle, without discrimination or bias, to all instances of human beings within every contingency. It is sufficient for qualification of persons but not necessary, thus it does not privilege a kind of being; any being with the inherent capacity for kinship with humankind also has active relation with personhood. It is demonstrative of personhood, not merely indicative. And most notably, it can explain unambiguously and analytically when and why a human is not a person.

Source: “Embryos & Metaphysical Personhood” by Kristina Artuković (2021)

Strategy D: Uncertainty

The Argument: If a fetus is a person but you don't know that, then to abort would be manslaughter; if the fetus is not a person but you don't know that, then to abort would be criminal negligence; if a fetus is not a person and you know that, then abortion needs no justification. Only in this last scenario is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. The absence of living persons in the womb must be completely verified before abortion can take place; to abort with uncertainty is recklessly irresponsible. As long as any reasonable doubt exists that abortion doesn't kill a human person, abortion cannot be justified.

Why it works: This rebuttal puts the burden of proof on the pro-abort, calling out their imposition of beliefs. If they attempt to employ ambiguity or skepticism to shut you down, this turns their own strategy against them.

When to choose: When the pro-abort claims that “we can’t really know when the fetus becomes a person” or demands that you keep church and state separate.

How to use: Ask, “Which puts more on the line: presuming we might kill until proven that we won’t, or presuming we’re not killing until it’s proven that we’ve killed?”

Source: “The Apple Argument Against Abortion” by Peter Kreeft (2001)

Strategy E: Contingency

The Argument: The preborn aren’t persons, and out of fairness they still ought to have a protected right to freedom from deliberate violence. After all, it’s not to our credit that we became persons and a fetus has not yet, nor is it the fault of the fetus that it is not a person while we are fortunate enough to be persons. Any human contingently denied the opportunity to become or to remain a person ought not to be lethally penalized for having lesser fortune than the rest of us; that is simply unfair. It is not because non-persons are human that we ought to protect them from a violent end; it is our own humanity as persons that demands we treat less fortunate humans humanely.

Why it works: This rebuttal cheats the 'rules' by challenging the legitimacy of personhood as a necessary criterion for rights. It forces the pro-abort to reconsider what kind of living human being ought to be given moral consideration, and builds off their preexisting belief that the preborn aren’t persons.

When to choose: When the pro-abort is stubbornly committed to denying fetuses are persons or is an animal activist.

How to use: Declare, “we use lethal violence on human non-persons that we would never use on animal non-persons.” Then ask, “why don’t we strive to treat human non-persons as humanely as we do animal non-persons?”

Source: “In Defense of Speciesism” by Michael Wreen (1984) [PDF]

Strategy F: Abolition

The Argument: The construct of personhood has almost exclusively been used to disenfranchise vulnerable humans, not to extend them power. Personhood will always exclude certain humans – a fact which has been consistently and deliberately weaponized throughout history to dehumanize, discriminate, torture, and kill. The definition of who can or cannot be a person is ultimately a rhetorical debate that ignores scientific facts. No human is an illegal person. If there could ever be a category of “living humans who are not persons,” then personhood at best is a useless attribute – at worst, lethal. “Personhood” should be abolished.

Why it works: This delegitimizes the idea of “personhood” by restricting its use in the same manner many have called for the restriction of other lethal weapons. It also uses language that many pro-aborts will be familiar with from the context of other issues which they support.

When to choose: As a last resort in a worst-case scenario. If nothing else speaks to the pro-abort, destabilize the very foundation of their argument. They will probably point to valid reasons to not abolish personhood, so attempt this maneuver at your own risk.

How to use: Ask, “What if, because someone with power over you believed you are not a person, they could legally deprive you of oxygen and nutrition, poison you, burn you, exsanguinate you, or dismember you, as abortion procedures do to preborn humans?”

Source: “On Abortion” by Rehumanize International (2019)

Pro-Tip: If you have exhausted all of your strategies and the pro-abort still hasn’t budged, they may be a lost cause. Before focusing your efforts on more fertile ground, you can still sow seeds for further consideration with this pro-abort on the chance that, given time, they will mature into fruitful discourse. Leave them with this thought: “For now, we do not have a practical method to discern which beings are moral equals to us as we encounter them. We need a coherent argument, with systematic application, backed by irrefutable evidence. Until we agree on one, let’s work together to make this world more accommodating of fertility. Women deserve that.”