#medications aren't all made equal for all of us

[omnium-gatherums]

Hmm do u think there’s any like signs of a good did therapist? things that stick out so u know they’re good and credible. any ways to tell u think

I thought I remembered making a post about this ages ago, but I can't find it, so.

(CDD = complex dissociative disorders, which includes DID, some people with OSDD, Partial DID, and some people diagnosed with unspecified dissociative disorders who may just be people with one of the other three diagnoses instead)

🟢 Good:

Understands that DID is most often subtle and difficult to notice; that most people with DID do not present with obvious, drastic personality changes

Treats each alter equally, doesn't treat any one alter as "The" "actual/real/true/main" "person"; doesn't try to force one alter/"The Host" to be the only alter to present in therapy/etc.

Understands that functional multiplicity is a completely real and valid way to heal and recover with DID; that you do not need to fuse all alters into "one" in order to recover and heal along with having DID

Adapts/adjusts to the unique language that you use for yourself/your system/alters/etc.

Doesn't make treating you as a system (if that's how you want to be treated) contingent on having a CDD diagnosis. By this I mean that regardless of if you have a CDD or not, regardless of any kind of syscourse, is this the way you exist? Is this how you live your life - how you and other parts/alters/headmates/etc. in your system live your lives? A good therapist should treat y'all the ways you want to be treated and not deny you the rights to exist the ways you do on the basis of whether or not you have a CDD

Do you feel safe around them? Comfortable? Of course having a new therapist at first is difficult and it will take time to build trust and being comfortable around your therapist, but there is difference between the beginning stages of getting to know someone and not really trusting them yet versus feeling actively uncomfortable around them/unsafe. If you actively feel unsafe/uncomfortable with your therapist, this might be a sign that they might not be a good one.

Would you feel sad if you no longer had them as a therapist?

Is willing to admit when they're wrong/willing to admit when they've made mistakes

🔴 Bad:

Won't diagnose DID because they "didn't see you switch" (seeing somebody switch is not a requirement for a DID diagnosis)

Won't diagnose DID because "trauma wasn't bad/wasn't that bad/wasn't bad enough"

Won't diagnose DID because they expect extremely drastic personality changes

Doesn't "believe" in "repressed memories"/that you can have amnesia for trauma and later remember that trauma

Dismisses memories that you claim you had amnesia before; even if there is true reason to believe that your suspicions aren't correct, a good therapist would not immediately be dismissive and minimize your concerns. There are ways to navigate trying to tell someone if you truly feel their memories aren't adding up, and dismissing them and minimizing their concerns/suspicions is not one of them

Treats "the host" (if you have one) as "the actual/real/true/main person"

Tries to force final fusion; thinks that final fusion is the only way to heal/that it's the "real/true" way to heal

Tries to force certain language onto you/your system/etc. (such as forcing you to call your alters parts when you don't personally feel comfortable with that)

Are you afraid of them? Do you feel unsafe around them?

Do you dread going to therapy - not because therapy itself can be draining due to talking about heavy things, but because of seeing them/speaking to them/because you dread seeing your therapist/etc.?

If you had access to a different therapist, would you change therapists in a heartbeat? In this hypothetical, they won't cost any more or less money and nothing else will be a problem and nothing is preventing you from seeing the new therapist.

Tries to push medication

The most important rule is to trust yourself.

If a therapist doesn't feel like a good fit for you, if you have your doubts, if something feels off, DO NOT HESITATE to seek out a different therapist. You don't have to find a reason to "justify" finding a new therapist - you can seek out a different therapist for ANY reason. Any reason is a valid reason. Yes, any reason, even if it truly is a "stupid" and "unreasonable" reason.

For us personally, we know that our therapist is good because:

We feel safe and comfortable around her. Enough to have opened up about things we otherwise tell NO-ONE

We feel seen. We feel like she truly "sees" "us"

We feel safe and comfortable to open up to her and talk to her about when she's said something that upset us, and we do talk about it! We talk it out in a healthy and safe and productive way and we come to an understanding and we feel better when we do

We actively look forward to therapy and seeing her and talking about things with her

We truly have improved, our denial as truly gotten so much better and overall we really have been improving ever so slowly

Sometimes you're in a position where sometimes you have no choice but to "settle" for a therapist even if they aren't perfect. That's okay too. However, sometimes having no therapist is better than having a therapist that actively makes your mental health worse. Never, ever, ever settle for a therapist who makes your mental health worse. It's better to have no therapist than to have a therapist who is actively making your life/mental health/etc. worse.

There are definitely way more red flags and green flags, but this is what I've got for now.

[paperbackpanic]

Game night with the pastas

🎯 This is a way to keep harmony in the mansion and prevent that hell gets there. It's like a purge day, they can do (almost) everything that they desire in this one game night as long as they behave before and after

🎯 there'll be all kinds of games you can imagine, from Mario kart to black jack to monopoly. And all of the pastas will participate in at least 2 of them

🎯 Everyone knows Ben is the king of Mario kart but, surprisingly enough, Sally is as good as if not a little bit better than him. Maybe is because everyone takes easy on her or maybe is because she's that good.

🎯 Once in a blue moon, the pastas will convince Slender to join them in the game night. When he does he absolutely SMASHES everyone in almost all games, centuries of life (and maybe his mind reading power) made him a god in games. The only ones that he doesn't win are the electronic ones but "is just because I can't play them" in his words ((the truth is that he hasn't figured out how to even grab the controller))

🎯 Surprise to some, Jeff sucks in almost every game except Mario kart and black jack

🎯 They WILL play cards against humanity in every game night. Jane, Nina and Kate are the ones that win the most although everyone has their fair share of wins

🎯 They used to make money bets in various games but it would result in almost all of them cheating and in absolute caos. Money bets are now banned for good

🎯 Truth or dare is a must for them and everyone is forced to play.

🎯 The child pastas will participate in the beginning of the game night, it'll be significantly easier and family friendlier when they're there but as soon as they go to sleep that's when the real show begins

🎯 One time (after the childs are in bed) they played a strip game. Masky was the only one fully clothed after it ends, although he didn't cheat everyone secretly thinks he did.

🎯 Blood painter and LJ are kings in "guess who" with 3 or less clues they can already get it right

🎯 They always play Uno to end the night, is quick and fun. They'll have quirky rules like the "7 no talk", "9 slap the pile" and "0 switches", combining +2s with +4s is allowed and stacking them is also allowed. Due to the huge number of players they'll combine 3 or 4 decks Wich results in an significant increase of special cards which equals more caos

🎯 They have almost all the board and videogames known to man is insane

🎯 By the children request, they one time played hide and seek in the woods. It took almost all night for it to end

🎯 Toby smashes everyone in poker, I'll not elaborate

🎯 there's always alcohol, all kinds. wich if you stop to think isn't a very good idea. Mentally unstable people some of them taking heavy medication, competitive games and alcohol aren't exactly a good mix but who cares right?

🎯 MUSIC!! They have a collective playlist that lasts AT THE VERY LEAST 13 hours. They put it on random every game night. It goes from children music, to funk to rock and heavy metal to classical to pop. Is super chaotic

[olderthannetfic]

I still think the people responding to the abortion thing with "well you wouldn't want them to raise that kid" are missing the point a bit, though. Even if someone has ample resources to take care of a kid, and they're fully prepared to be the best parent ever, they still have an inherent right to abort a pregnancy they don't want. Like focusing on "an ableist parent wouldn't be the best to raise that kid!" or "what if they don't have the resources for the health care they need!' opens up the "adoption" argument - and I'm sure many people would counter it with all the problems of the adoption system particularly for disabled kids. But even if adoption were a surefire way to ensure every child finds the perfect loving home, it is still wrong to force the pregnant person to use their body for 9 months to carry a pregnancy when they would rather not. The problems with relying overmuch on this argument is it has a kind of ugly implication that if a woman has no economic or emotional reason to struggle to raise a kid, it's mean and selfish for her not to be a mother. We saw some of that with the overturning of Roe in the U.S. - a lot of rhetoric of how this was bad just because of how it would affect poor or minority women. And I just wanted to be like, okay, but a wealthy white woman with ample resources who just doesn't want to have a kid, shouldn't have to have a kid. And it's still a massive violation of her human rights to force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy for 9 months. Like I thought one of the anons made this clear, but people keep saying this so maybe they're not getting it: but think of the burden that pregnancy puts on a body? Think about all the little things you have to do differently if you're pregnant. You can't drink, you can't take certain medications, including some that a lot of people's mental and physical health relies on the rest of the time. It literally moves around your organs to accommodate the growing fetus. It's just painful and nauseating a lot of time. That's not even going into how it's often enough of a medical emergency that it regularly killed pregnant people before we had access to modern medicine and hospitals, and still does in other parts of the world, or with people who refuse that treatment. Isn't that enough to convince you that it's horrifying to inflict that on someone unwillingly? I understand focusing on financial burdens and so on because it helps convince people who maybe aren't all there with respecting bodily autonomy. But also, I'm a cis woman who has no desire to be pregnant and have kids, and sure the fact that I haven't got a lot of money right now helps, but I know that if I was a billionaire and had tons of people at the ready to help raise my kids for me, I still wouldn't want to be a mother. And it's bizarre how radical that is to say even in ostensibly feminist, progressive spaces. A lot of people are just still so deeply uncomfortable with women (or anyone they see as a woman) deciding to choose life paths that don't include motherhood, in a way they simply are not with men eschewing fatherhood. And we can't really talk about gender equality until that starts to change. There's no reason that being born as a particular gender should limit the kind of life that people let you live or even imagine. There's nothing about being a woman that makes you more nurturing or parental, and so no reason that you shouldn't be able to decide that's not for you.

--

[bodyncoherence]

it seems to me that there are currently 4 main concept stories being told in parallel in psychiatry, and that a lot of the controversies within psychiatry (among psychiatrists and among the psychiatrised or potentially psychiatrised) are about contesting the boundaries of each. of course the claim is that everything is equally 'bio-psycho-social' but we know that is not really so. these 4 in my view being these:

1) 'biological illness' explanations for 'classic psychiatric illnesses' like schizophrenia, schizoaffective, bipolar disorder, as well as some kinds of severe, psychotic, 'innate', 'unipolar depressions. the idea here is that it is no one's fault, that perfectly well-adjusted people who had no adverse experiences whatsoever and have made no mistakes of living at all can develop these, though environment and certain choices can make it more likely, but environment then always is just the trigger, never the actual cause, the actual cause being genetics that just happened to be. lots of psychiatrists feel a special interest in these and a special claim to these. often, it is bemoaned that psychiatry has come to involve itself into myriad 'life problems' of the 'worried well' and should refocus itself on the actually sick, them being this group.

the necessity to fight an illness that will get worse the longer it remains 'untreated' (=unmedicated) is named to justify coerced medication and psychiatric violence, the idea being that the longer an episode (esp. first episode) remains unmedicated, the worse the 'outcome'. the treatment of these 'illnesses' is medication foremost, as well as other biological treatments like electroconvulsions and psychosurgery, as well as 'containment' of the person until these treatments show effect. anything else, no matter the good talk had on their importance, is fundamentally secondary. i.e. it would be good if every psychotic had psychotherapy and myriad other forms of help as well, but if the resources aren't there, well then. but it would be considered a litigable medical mistake to not give medication, forcefully if need be.

this type of coercion is actually not specific to psychiatry, in emergency or intensive medicine, people who are 'agitated' because of delirium, or are incapable of consenting because of unconsciousness, get full treatment, except if they gave prior healthcare directives (very common in my country) to the contrary. i.e. someone plucking at their i.v. lines and struggling against their bed while septic and delirious will get sedated or maybe even restrained or maybe even put into narcosis until i.e. their antibiotics took effect. psychiatry maps on to this, claims the same logic.

2) 'neurodevelopmental' / 'neurodivergence' explanations for autism, adhd, dyslexia, and sometimes other concepts i.e. 'psychopaths', increasingly ocd. the idea here is that some people's brains are 'wired differently' causing fundamentally different ways of experiencing the world. these disorders should therefore have been present since childhood (since birth in fact), which also explains why adult diagnosis necessitates 'childhood proofs'. the dopamine system is often cited here. also executive functions and their biological variants. here, too, it is 'nobody's fault', specifically not the parents. the disablement that results from these differences is often explained at least partially through societal explanations. ("back when hardly anyone read and wrote this disorder didn't exist" "if children and people didn't have to sit still and work at a desk for long stretches of times this wouldn't be such a problem" etc). evolutionary psych is also beloved here, as in the idea that being 'wired differently' thus confers both advantages and disadvantages for the individual as well as for our species. lip service is often paid here to neurodiversity advocacy, or that language is used, specifically for autism and adhd.

frequently i witness an attempt to have it both ways in term of pathologisation: these are real disorders, it is insisted, that in case of adhd at least, can be helped efficiently, thus 'stigma must be reduced'. but also, a lot of psychiatrists bemoan that 'everybody nowadays wants to have adhd or autism', bemoan the influx of people searching to professionally validate their self-diagnosis. the assumption here is that people labelled so or trying to claim these labels are not really sick, that back in the old days in fact nobody would have made such a fuss and neither should those afflicted. often the assumptions is that people who actually have problems of personality, or 'psychological problems' are seeking 'neurodivergence' as excuse, or because they fail to reflect on their actual problems. some psychiatrists will see adhd and autism everywhere and some will see it hardly anywhere.

in the meanwhile, the 'neurodevelopmentally born-wired different' group also includes intellectually disabled people and the kind of autists who are deemed mentally incapable of inhabiting a fully human social role and so are controlled, coerced, institutionalised, etc. unlike the 'psychiatric illness' group these are considered 'disabled' foremost, not to be cured and treated, but managed, (preferably by a non-psychiatry profession). of course, there's overlaps to the first group, i.e. 'neurodevelopmental' paradigm for schizophrenia and the management of schizophrenics that are 'chronic' and 'severe'.

3) 'trauma'. some disorders are defined through trauma, obviously PTSD, and some are historically strongly linked to trauma theory and research, i.e. DID or 'structural dissociation'. some psychiatric concepts frequently discussed in the context of trauma include borderline personality disorder and personality disorders generally, depression, 'addiction', but also actually psychosis and psychotic disorders.

the situation here, it seems to me, is that trauma hypotheses are always highly contested (see: the insistence that DID specifically is iatrogenic, a discourse that isn't had to this extent about other psychiatric diagnoses; the widespread upset over trauma being 'a fad'; the view that ptsd specifically is socially and historically constructed as more mainstream than extending this to all psychiatric categories; the way there's so much literature on trauma theories of psychosis but they have hardly any impact on how psychotics are treated in psychiatry currently) but they do have their fans.

these trauma-affine psychiatrists are more likely to see themselves as activists for the traumatised. they might protest certain psychiatric practices, insist that psychiatry should be more 'trauma informed'. they might question medication use. they will cast a wider net and understand many, but never all, psychiatrised troubles under the concept trauma. these psychiatrists for instance might be willing to understand psychosis and schizophrenia as structural dissociation or trauma based (though whether they actually work with people so psychiatrised that are actually 'difficult' is another question), and they will probably talk of the impact of trauma on depression, addiction, eating disorders, maybe also the disorganisation that gets labeled adhd, and so on.

but there's still trauma and non-trauma, and a lot of the literature then is about how to define the boundaries of trauma. there's DID and there's pseudo-DID. there's complex ptsd and there's 'merely' borderline pd which might or might not be trauma-based but is also kind of innate. lots of trauma fans are willing to imagine pathologised villains who hurt their traumatised patients (the narcissist, the psychopath, etc). psychosis can be trauma-based but certainly not always (?). lots of trauma fans also assume there's a kind of being mentally ill that puts someone beyond the scope of trauma therapy. there's also, as with autism & adhd & co, much bemoaning of the inflationary use of 'trauma' and a struggle with the cultural allure of trauma. the allure of course being that it's a professional and thus powerful validation that you have been harmed and wronged, a validation of injustice suffered.

as in psychiatry generally, there is much interest in biological validation. the idea is that trauma memories are neurobiologically 'different' from other memories. that trauma causes provable neurological disruption. cue beautiful fmri pictures of amygdalae and hipoccampi and bessel can der kolk's everything.

because trauma explanations are alluring but limited (not everything is trauma, not everyone is truly traumatised, or if we 'all' face trauma only some face severe trauma that affected them in ways that matter, some people are survivors-victims and others are not, it matters if you actually experienced certain things or didn't, trauma therapy for you but not you) the psychiatrised onlookers often develop a complicated, sometimes jealous, relationship to this concept, both those that have been granted or are able to personally access a 'trauma-explanation' and those that are being excluded from it.

4) 'psychology' / 'neurosis' / 'problems of living'. the idea here is that the mentally ill person is a primarily 'normal' person who developed a problem, because they struggled psychologically with the demands put on them, or with life.

often the idea is that a disorder starts with a few bad habits or bad decisions but then develops a dynamic of its own, eventually causing illness and disability. 'addiction', for instance. but also eating disorders that might start with mere 'dieting' and 'problematic beliefs' and then develop a dynamic of their own. anxiety and panic disorders that get 'reinforced' by 'avoidance'. personality disorders are also understood like this, though the problem is considered particularly insidious: not just some aspects of how you live, but fundamentally how you are as person. 'depression' here is seen as a human and natural reaction to certain circumstances that then gets entertained by social retreat, avoidance, unhelpful thoughts, etc. there's usually both psychodynamic and some behavioralist explanations for the underlying psychology, increasingly these ideas get somewhat combined anyhow. there's an interest for systemic and societal explanations. 'attachment' is also big here. in consequence, psychotherapy is seen as fundamentally important to treating these disorders. medication 'can help' and should be offered since it's 'readily available' while psychotherapy often isn't, but it's a fact that is bemoaned.

while acknowledging the overlaps, there's a desire to separate this group from the trauma group, in that adversity is not = trauma, or in that relatively 'normal' problems can cause much psychological disturbance as well, if a person fails to handle them well. trauma theorists specifically often on the one hand insist to not overlook trauma, on the other hand 'defend' trauma from 'inflationary use', and push back against the merely psychological problems/neurosis/problems of living group trying to 'overidentify' with trauma. the issue then is not 'trauma' but, say, entitlement, pride, avoidance, unrealistic expectations, failures to deal with normal life events, etc. sympathy is to be found for the factors that influence your troubles (societal expectations here, parental expectations there, inborn personality traits, etc) but you're no one's victim but your own.

all this not to imply that biological explanations are less beloved here; they are: evolutionary psych is big here as well, as well as physiological/biological explanations for what keeps happening, or what locks people in their 'bad habits'. (sympathic/parasympathic activation, dopamine again, etc). all schools of psychology are increasingly interested in connecting and validating their ideas with biological findings. ('neuropsychotherapy' 'the neuroscience of psychoanalysis', etc). there is also much interest for 'genetic vulnerabilities'. maybe some people are genetically more likely to become alcoholics. maybe some people are genetically more vulnerable to become anorexics, in fact, maybe only a specific type of person can become anorexic, and maybe anorexics once were important for species survival (evo psych again), but maybe also not.

but unlike 'neurodivergence' and unlike 'actual severe mental illness' the idea is that we are all vulnerable to this. not all of us are autistic, yes it's a spectrum bu either you have a brain like this or you don't. not all of us are bipolar, this is a serious serious mental illness. but anyone can get depressed, or anxious, or develop a drug habit of eating disorder, or grow to have a disordered personality.

therefore, while people labelled so can become extremely extremely disabled (i.e. a 'hypochondric' or an 'agoraphobic' that are near fully incapacitated by their troubles, i.e. anorexics or addicts dying) there are quite a lot of psychiatrists that will maintain these are troubles that are not 'genuinely' psychiatric; troubles that could be better solved by religion, or morality, or a psychologist maybe.

in terms of actual material effects on life, this is an extremely heterogenous group (as are all these groups btw), that includes lots of well-behaved, productive workers that are distressed as well as lots of extremely disabled, disruptive, troublesome people, therefore the divide made between the 'serious mentally ill' and the 'problems of living' can be confusing.

but even towards the most troublesome and disruptive, that is, the ones that have cops called on them, that are hospitalised in a flurry of violence, that must be managed and contained (i.e. some addicts, some anorexics, some borderlines, etc) the assumption remains that their problems are mainly 'problems of living' and resentment towards this group specifically that isn't 'genuinely sick' but mostly 'misbehaving' is common among psychiatrists.

i think all of us are at least vaguely aware of these differing stories and interact with them, or are briefly offered them, potentially all of them, at different times, by different psychiatrists, or by fellow psychiatrised and 'self-help'', and quite a lot of struggle can be found in grappling with these and the question of how to fit oneself and one's experiences into all this.

[jewish-vents]

Please give me advice. I need help. October 7th and beyond has ruined my mental health.

I'm an Asian Jew and I couldn't be happy watching the Emmys. For those who don't know, Shogun made so much history. I want to be happy. I really do. It's HUGE.

I can't be happy. I'm aware of the tension. Two amazing Jews hosted but I felt it. I'm suddenly aware of everything. I'm immediately looking for the Jews. I'm aware that a lot of the people in that room are antisemitic. My anxiety and stress are off the charts.

I'm happy for the diversity and yet all I can think about is how things like diversity don't include Jews or think about us. I'm too aware of how invisible we are. And yet when we're visible it's too dangerous for us so we can never win. October 7th cemented the fact that these things like diversity aren't genuinely cared about. Because how can you claim to want diversity and equality and rights for minorites and hate Jews? Can someone explain?

An actor pointed out how diverse the Emmys are now. I feel nothing. The Covid pandemic brought a trend where everyone wants to fight oppression and support the oppressed. It was that same trend that has come to hurt us in every way. Everything feels fake to me now. This diversity can't mean anything to me when Jews are constantly being harassed, targetted, killed and hurt and these so called activists cheer.

How am I supposed to feel when the crowd that says "stop calling rape victims and women liars" don't believe Jewish women were raped on October 7th? In the eyes of activists, the people who are supposed to care about human rights and support diversity, we are liars who lie about everything especially rape and antisemitism.

I will slowly accept the fact that yes diversity is happening regardless of everything else and yes even the littlest change is still change and progress is always slow and painful. But I don't think I can ever accept how diversity excludes us. How social justice excluses us. How the left excludes us. How the world excludes us. I won't ever accept it.

To anon and everybody else struggling with their mental health:

We previously posted some mental health resources here. While therapy and psychiatric medication may not be accessible to everyone who needs them because of financial concerns, the support groups mentioned in the post are free, virtual, and available both to Jews and to people who are close enough to the Jewish community to be affected by the current situation.

[vacantgodling]

character driven worldbuilding -- how becoming obsessed with ONE guy can make you build an entire world

PT 1: THE GUY WHO MADE ME REVAMP THE MAGIC SYSTEM

cheesy title but that's the most straightforward explanation i can give for what i'm talking about for the next few Structured Posts lmao.

yesterday, i made a poll asking for y'all to vote on which one of the story-defying characters in my huge fantasy wip THE CHRONICLES OF LATHSBURY (tcol) that you all wanted to hear about. and when i say story-defying, what i mean is the exploration of these characters influenced me to make huge changes to the worldbuilding i had already established for this wip.

but let me provide a bit of background: i've had tcol as a wip since i was 12 years old, which, at the time of writing this, makes it 15 years old! it's actually the oldest of all my still active wips (alongside vampires don't take road trips). those who know me and/or have seen me rant about this wip in the past know that this game started evolving from a jrpg that i had as a child, and what i call the main five from the fourth age, were/are at the epicenter of this wip's development--and this is important to mention to explain how this guy made me revamp the magic system.

back when tcol was first in its baby years, it actually didn't have a concrete magic system like some of you are familiar with. for those that aren't: tcol has a magic system consisting of 8 usable magics and 1 that is unusable by normal folk and is only usable by the central creation goddess--but i'll be talking about her in a different part of this mini series. but anyway, i eventually started the baby steps of creating a magic system when i first decided the aspects of the terranean soul--which was somewhere around 2020 actually.

have an excerpt from my 2025 revamped crash course doc that explains it further:

All Terranean souls are made up of 3 parts: Sana which is akin to health and vitality and tends to relate to your constitution; Cava which is considered a lukewarm manifestation of the everpresent chaos of the universe; and Ars which is the key component of being able to do magic. These parts are imperfect percentages, meaning that they do not have to equal 100%, and for the most part, these percentages cannot change, only your access to them does (except for in exceptional circumstances). In order to use magic, your soul must contain at least 30% Ars (for the most part—there are a few who are exceptions to this rule). Without this, you will be unable to use magic.

with this information in hand, i decided that i would take the main five (which consists of the characters piper, deux, san, clear, and forte) and i would figure out their percentages--which, while may not make an appearance in the wip proper, would help me better gauge their magic capabilities. for this rant, it's not really important to know the percentages of everyone (and truth be told i've misplaced the doc i wrote it on anyway); what does matters is that when i got around to clear, the conversation kinda went like this (and be warned, we're skating into spoiler territorry so quit while you're ahead if you want but i Like spoilers and there's no way to explain this without spoilers so be forewarned):

me: okay, your turn buddy: what's your ars percentage? clear: 30% me: oh, great so you can use magic then! that's great because you're a medic- clear: i can't use healing magic. me: what clear: i can't use healing magic me: yeah--i heard you the first time but what do you MEAN by that?? you can't use healing magic?? i mean, you have sana, don't you?

(to explain, have another excerpt from my 2025 crash course doc that explains healing magic, aka, sana inanem:

SANA INANEM is essentially healing magic—however, it is gatekept by the composition of your soul: only those who have an excess of Sana (which would be over 55%) are able to use it to heal wounds. Excess is determined essentially, by how much Sana you can give away without outright killing yourself

okay back to the drama)

clear: i don't me: YOU DON'T???????????

and yeah, he doesn't.

now what clear said isn't technically true--there is (1) kind of healing magic that you can use without needing sana OR ars yourself, and that's just the potion/salve making magic subortus. but that's neither here nor there because what matters is the simple fact: to be a guild medic, you need to be able to heal with sana. it's nonnegotiable. and since this entire plot is centered on guilds and guild culture in terrae, it had me going ????????

this relates a lot to the secret of clear's backstory that he's desperately trying to hide, which some close friends do know but for the purposes of this doc and to cut back on the amount of spoilers i'm dumping in here i won't detail. however, that's something i've known about clear even since before making strides in trying to figure out hwo magic works--and that could be an entire rant for another day how my obsession with (1) clear brightendale lead me down the path of completely revamping this Entire wip, but that's a song and dance for another post lol.

ANYWAY, i took this information, and started processing it when clear dropped the bombshell on me that made me start really cultivating what the fuck magic even is in this universe:

clear: i can use a different kind of magic though me: vis? i mean, that makes sense since you have the ars- clear: no, its different than that. another kind of magic. me: .... there's more than just vis, sana inanem, and subortus?? clear: yah :)

and there is.

that revelation sent me scrambling to worldbuild--and i wouldn't actually come up with something concrete in this realm until nearly 3-4 years after the fact. but have the final little explanation i will drop in here from my crash course doc, relating to the different kinds of magic:

Like every good fantasy world, Terrae has magic. I would consider Terrae’s magic to have a range of hard magic to soft magic and types that are inbetween. On the scale of hard to soft magic the flow chart would be as follows: MURAM -> CANTATIO -> SANA INANEM -> DIRUAM -> SUBORTUS -> LUMINE -> TENOM -> VIS With Muram (or alchemical magic) being the hardest as it has the most in depth rules and regulations to precede its usage, and Vis being the softest as it is literally the magic of the force of will; anything goes. The only magic that I have not included on this flow chart is Cantillo (or deep magic), which is only able to be used by the goddess of the universe, IISIDIA. Those who are able to use magic are called Artisans.

so i guess, to make this entire rant semi-helpful to those who read it and actually want some advice on how to do some character-driven worldbuilding:

the fun thing about fantasy is you can do whatever you want as long as it makes sense within the constraints of the universe you've made. i find that a lot of people tend to build the world first and then fit their characters into that world, but i prefer to have the two interact with one another: because like nature and nurture, your world should have an impact on who your character is, why they do the things that they do, and how they see things overall. beyond just backstory even, like in this instance. to explain why clear was a medic without having access to sana inanem, it made me think about well what exactly does it entail to be able to do magic at all. and even though the answer is the same: clear cannot do healing magic; it now makes more sense as a plot thread as to why that's a big deal, and how many secrets he's carrying and why he's carrying them. even though, only One of the magics i listed is the one he can use creating the other 8 made me think about the relationship that other characters i didn't even mention-such as karenza who clear really looks up to-have with magic and how that influences them, their lives, and their actions.

hopefully in the next ramble (whenever i get around to it) i'll be breaking down even further into how wanting a specific backstory for your character can lead you to shape the world around them so seamlessly that it seems like the world influenced your character and not the other way around :)

if you stuck around for all this, thanks for reading and i hope this made sense lol :)

[a-lilac-lyric]

 Possible explanations for why King Roland made his first wish on the Wishing Well

Now all of these aren't so much theories per say as “throwing stuff on a wall and seeing what sticks” because the showrunners could not delve into topics like this in the actual runtime, and it probably wouldn't have been very relevant to the story that they were trying to tell anyway, so nearly every theory has an equal likelihood to be true more or less.

  (I'm also not going to mention this in my write ups for the possible reasons for the wish, and we have no way of proving this one way or the other, but I'm always inclined to prefer the thought that Roland II had discussed making the wish with Lorelei before he actually made it since it would be something that would affect both of them. Even if it only physically affected one of them. Because this just seems like the type of thing you should tell your partner about if you do it).

 This is a long post (Over 2000 words), so I'm putting it under the cut, but TLDR there are several different magical and physical reasons that are possible.

 General content warning for discussion of topics that are too dark/medical to ever be shown in a kids show. Spoilers for Forever Royal.

 We should first start off with what the wish was in the first place in case you don't know or need a refresher. Word for word, this is how it's stated in the flashback scene in the episode Forever Royal:

  “In the nearby castle lived King Roland the Second, who had wanted a family so badly he tried making a wish in a wishing well. The wish came true, and twins were born. But the Queen fell gravely ill….* The children were happy but never knew what it was like to have a mother.”

 * The quote never says that she is dead in so many words, but the visual on screen is of the queen arranged on a bed with her eyes closed, holding flowers. There's basically no other way to interpret it except that she's been laid out for a funeral.

 Now, as a note, we never actually get to hear what her name is in the show, but the creator of the show Craig Gerber made a Twitter post saying that her name was Lorelei https://x.com/CraigGerber_/status/1038831208430370817?mx=2 (as a personal note I normally consider stuff that show creators or writers say on Twitter or other social media as secondary Canon, but I basically completely accept this because we don't have any alternative name, and it works. And I'm sure that they'd use it in the sequel series if they ever talk about her.) So I'm going to be referring to her with that name for the rest of this post.

 When analyzing this quote, it seems that “wanted a family” basically means “wanted to have biological children” since we know he already has a wife and family members like a sister and a mom. I just think it's interesting that they word it this way because it kind of masks what his actual wording would have been to the wishing well. Because in the episode “When you wish upon a well” the well did grant Amber’s second wish in a way that fulfilled the basic criteria of her wish, and yet caused an unintended side effect that deeply distressed Amber and put Sofia in danger. So, it could possibly be that the way Roland wished for children could also be interpreted as accidentally directly causing Lorelei’s death. But we don't know what the words were, so we don't know if that was what happened or not. “Fell gravely ill” is a vague enough statement that it can basically be interpreted to fit any kind of theory.

 So without further ado, here are almost all of the ways I could think of that could be motivation for making the wish. (AKA infertility theories.)

Magical reasons:

 In this world, magic is an everyday fact of life, so they could have been unable to have kids because of a curse! Now it could be a curse on either Roland or Lorelei, and then the curse was just too strong to be broken by regular magic, but the Well’s magic was strong enough to get past it, (permanently or temporarily). The possible motives could be basically anything. It could have been cast by a jealous ex-lover, or a person who thought that the union was bad for political reasons.

 But I did come up with a fun little theory that maybe it was a curse that was intended to be benevolent, behold: The Double Bloodline Curse!

 We know that the throne of Enchancia passes from oldest child to oldest child, and the same seems to be true for the royal wizard as well. Both lines are hereditary, and both are always parallel to each other. It makes sure that the reigning monarch always has a royal wizard and vice versa. But it is interesting because Roland the First and Goodwin the Great are approximately the same age, same with both of their sons, and both of their granddaughters to an extent, although the age difference is seemingly larger between Amber and Calista.

 Now this could be just a coincidence that the people in these families born for 3 generations are very close in age, but what if it wasn't? What if there was some kind of spell or curse set on the people from both bloodlines so that they wouldn't be able to have children until their counterpart(s) was/(were) also in a position to be able to have children. Let's say that Roland the Second married and tried to have kids, but both Cedric and Cordelia were not married or seeing anyone and/or just neither of them were interested in having children at that time. Therefore, the curse activated to prevent Roland II from having any children.

 And this curse was probably put on the line by an actual royal wizard from it, assuming that it would be better off for both families and the sake of the kingdom if the new monarch and the new wizard were always peers age wise so that they could both ascend to their positions at the same time. Is that flawed reasoning and ultimately going to hurt their families more than help them in the long run? Absolutely! But it wouldn't be the craziest or worst thing that someone from either of these families has done.

 It's definitely possible for it to be magical reasons and would be interesting to explore in fanfic, but this isn't the only possibility.

Biological reasons that are linked to infertility:

 The first one is what if Lorelei was unable to biologically have children.

 It's popular fan-cannon (and I have seen it used in several fan fictions), that Lorelei was too physically weak for her body to/she had some kind of physical condition that meant she couldn't bear children. But the wish overrode that condition and after giving birth she was so weak that whatever possible illness/birth complications/regular pregnancy recovery happened afterwards she wasn't strong enough to survive it.

 In my opinion this one seems plausible, but I personally do not like it and do not think it makes sense for the characters. If she seemed medically unfit to give birth before the wish, then it would be ludicrously irresponsible for Roland II to make a wish for her to have the kids that didn't also strengthen her in a way that she could have them and survive. Additionally, I believe that if there was a lot of worry throughout the pregnancy that she might not be able to survive it, that Roland would have just made a second wish for her to be strong enough.

 Some may argue that it wouldn't have been possible to strengthen her enough to be able to survive giving birth, but may I point out that the wishing well has the ability to turn a regular human girl into a cat. Like literally change your species. Strengthening someone enough so that they can survive a pregnancy seems pretty minor compared to turning someone into a cat.

 And Roland is normally pretty good at noticing when people he loves are in distress, he'll stop what he's doing and talk with them and try to make the situation better. Now if Lorelei was hiding her physical symptoms from everyone for whatever reason, it could be possible to do that with others especially servants who she didn't spend much time with, but considering how much time Roland spends with Miranda he probably spent the same amount of time with his first wife. If they were in close proximity to each other that often for months on end he would notice if something was wrong and ask her about it and try to solve the problem. Therefore, I personally don't subscribe to it in my own headcanons.

 Another interpretation of this is that Lorelei was the one who is unable to have children, but it was because of some type of condition that was not due to weakness but another type of biological factor(s). The wish allowed her to have the kids, but then she died because the Well directly took her life as a price for the wish/because of how the wish was worded. Or she just happened to get unlucky and die from one of the several medical reasons that a person can die from giving birth no matter their physical strength. It's pretty similar to the first one but I am much more inclined towards it.

 But what if Roland was the one who was biologically unable to have children?

 This one doesn't seem to be explored in any fan fictions I've seen but I think this one is interesting to consider as well. I think most people's reasoning is that if Lorelei died from the wish, then the wish must have just physically affected her and therefore cause [wish] equals effect [death], but if it was going to take her life as a price/consequence for the wish anyway, it may not have necessarily needed to have affected her physically at all. Or the Well never took her life at all, she just got really unlucky and died from random chance. And there's plenty of medical reasons that men can be unable to have children. We don't know what kind of medical knowledge they have in Enchancia, but it may not have been advanced enough to find a solution for Roland or even know that he was the one who was infertile.

 He could have caught an illness as a child that had adult infertility as a side effect (angst potential. If he was also isolated for a long period of time away from other kids this could also partially explain why he became estranged from Cedric). Or it could be a genetic reason, like being intersex (I say as I read that one of the most common noticeable effects of Klinefelter syndrome is being tall. And it would fulfill a certain letter for possible LGBTQIA+ headcannons). Or he could have been severely overworking and under eating (there are a few times in the show where he does this, albeit not to a self-destructive extent, and that’s after he’s had kids and been king for years, also angst potential).

 If this was true, then it could also be possible that he was only temporarily able to have kids depending on how the wish worked. Or depending on the wording of the wish he might only be able the have kids with Lorelei exclusively. So if he and Miranda wanted to make a kid together, they might not be able to (more angst), unless another wish was made (but I doubt he would risk it).

 And a really dark possibility for Roland being infertile is that maybe the wish did NOT make him fertile but instead had a, what I am going to describe as a “love potion” effect on Lorelei and she got pregnant from someone who was not Roland. Now I think that this possibility is really horrifying for a number of reasons, but I've never seen it used in a fanfiction before and I'm not sure if anyone else has ever thought of it, but it exists now. I say that Amber and James do look like Roland, but I would also say that they definitely look more like Lorelei than him, so if you wanted to do a horrifying big drama fanfic this is a possibility for that.

Biological/other reasons that are not infertility:

 But what if their trouble with having children wasn't linked to infertility?

 There is the possibility that Royal Prep/other schools they had gone to had such a terrible sex education class that neither of them knew how to get pregnant and at this point were too afraid to ask. So they wished for it instead. I think this one only works if you're going for an adult humor fanfiction because, this just seems really unlikely to me. Even if they hadn't been educated in school, they would probably still ask someone or have been told by someone or have read it in a book by this point. Especially since part of their job as ruling monarchs is to produce heirs, I'm sure someone in the court would have explained it to them if they didn't know.

 Another slightly more reasonable but still unlikely reason is that maybe one or both of them was asexual. So they needed another way to start the pregnancy and decided magic was a good way to do it. I feel like if this was true then they could have just solved this by going to an actual wizard or doctor and getting help from them, so I don't think this is very likely but I'm trying to go through all the possibilities here.

 But on a far more serious note there as been a possibility I've been thinking about lately that does seem likely considering how often it happens in real life. It could be possible that Roland and Lorelei had already tried to have children, and she was able to get pregnant, but it ended in a miscarriage or a stillbirth. Maybe she was already pregnant by the time Roland made the wish, and he wished that this time it would be a successful pregnancy. The way he looks in the flashback makes it seem like Roland is really sad and kind of desperate about the whole situation and if this possibility was true, then it adds an extra layer of sadness to the whole ordeal.

 ****Also, this isn't attached to any single theory but I wanted to add this: I think that whether the wish caused Lorelei’s death or she died from completely natural causes, it must have happened fairly quickly. If the illness that she got after giving birth lasted a long time, then wouldn't there have been enough time for Roland to have made another wish to save her? Meanwhile if it happened very quickly or without much warning then he may not have had enough time to save her. If it happened quickly, it would also mean that there was less of a chance for the doctors or midwives or sorcerers to do anything to save her.

 *****And regardless of whether it actually was the magic of the wish that killed her or it was from the same causes that any non magical birth can suffer from, I think Roland believes that it was his fault that Lorelei died. He probably doesn't know for sure whether it was the wish that did it or not, but that wouldn't matter if he felt like it was his fault. His exact words to Amber about it were: “My wish didn't turn out so well either.” But we know that he loves Amber and James, and he's very proud of them, so the quote isn't about being a father to them or their existence. So the only other possibility for him saying that it didn't turn out well is what happened to Lorelei.

On that note, those are all the reasons I could think of. Feel free to say in the reblogs or comments which one you think is most likely and/or which one is your favorite. Here's a cookie for getting to the end of this post 🍪

[wrishwrosh]

re: tags on labor in historical fiction post, would be very interested to hear what the four examples you mentioned are!!

ok u know what that tag WAS bait, thank you for taking it. technically speaking these aren't works dealing strictly with labor in historical fiction, they are my four treasured examples of BUREAUCRAT FICTION (so not NOT about labor in history?) i was gonna try to make this post pithy and short but then i remembered how extremely passionate i am about this microgenre i made up. so sorry.

bureaucrat fiction is not limited by genre or format but criteria for inclusion are as follows: long and detour-filled story about functionary on the outside of society finding unexpected success within a ponderously large and powerful System/exploring themes of class and physicality and work and autonomy and what it means to hold power over others beneath the heartless crushing wheels of empire/sad little man does paperwork. also typically long as hell. should include at least one scene where the protagonist is unironically applauded-perhaps for the first time in their life-for filling out a form really good. without further ado:

soldier's heart by alex51324. the bureaucracy: british army medical corps during wwi. the bureacrat: mean gay footman/new ramc recruit thomas barrow. YEAH it's a downton abbey fic YEAH it's a masterpiece. i've talked about it before at length, my love has not faded. the crowning moment of bureaucracy is a long interlude where thomas optimizes the hospital laundry (this actually happens twice or maybe three times)

hands of the emperor by victoria goddard. the bureaucracy: crumbling fantasy empire some time after magical apocalypse. the bureacrat: passionate late-career clerk from the hinterlands cliopher mdang. i reread this book every winter bc it is as a warm bath for my SAD-addled brain and every time i neglect all my responsibilities to read all nine billion pages in three days. it puts abt 93% of the worldbuilding momentum into elaborating all of the ministries and secretaries and audits necessary to run a global government and like 7% into the magic and stuff. there are also several charming companion novellas and an equally long sequel that dives more into the central relationship between cliopher and the emperor which i highly recommend if you like gentle old man yaoi and/or magic, but there's more bureaucracy in HOTE.

the cromwell trilogy by hilary mantel. the bureaucracy: court of henry viii. the bureaucrat: thomas cromwell, the real guy. curveball! it's critically acclaimed booker prize winning rpf novel wolf hall! mantel is really interested in particular ways of gaining and maintaining power in delicate and labyrinthine systems like the tudor court, specifically in strongmen who use both physical intimidation and metaphysical manipulation to succeed. under these conditions i do think my best friend long-dead historical personage thomas cromwell counts as Bureaucrat Fiction (as do danton and robespierre in a place of greater safety. bonus rec.)

going postal by terry pratchett. the bureaucracy: fantasy postal service of ankh-morpork. the bureaucrat: conman, scammer, and little freak moist von lipwig. this is definitely shorter and lighter than the other three entries on the list, sort of a screwball take on the bureaucrat. but the mail is such a classic bureaucracy thing? who doesn't love thinking about the mail? also contains a key genre element which is a fraught sexual tension with the person immediately above the protagonist in their hierarchy, who is also their god-king and boyfriend-dad. you can't tell me vetinari isn't torturing moist psychologically AND sexually.

anyway sorry about all this. if you've read any of these come talk to me about them. bureaucrat fiction recs welcomed with the openest possible arms.

[nerdygaymormon]

A lot of rhetoric in support of anti-trans legislation to restrict gender-affirming care talks about regret and detransitioning.

Some proportion of people experience regret for any medical procedure, from chemotherapy to orthopedic surgery. Nonetheless, we don’t see a plethora of opinion pieces about the awful risks of hip replacements. It’s inevitable that some percentage of people who transition will regret it; the real question is whether the medical care is beneficial on the whole—not whether the occasional person later regrets a medical choice they made when younger.

In 2021, it was found that 13.1% of transgender people participating in the U.S. Transgender Survey reported detransitioning at some point in their lives.

The authors of this study are careful to note “these experiences did not necessarily reflect regret regarding past gender affirmation.” Family and societal pressure are the driving forces that lead many people to detransition – not because people wake up and decide they're not actually trans. All those who took part in the survey still identified as trans, thus it's presumed that the detransitioning was temporary.

Transitioning and detransitioning is complex. You can stop taking hormones and still be trans. You can regret taking steps that alienate you from your family, even as you wish your family would accept you living how you want to live. You can even regret some aspects of a treatment (any kind of medical treatment) while being grateful for the knowledge you gained by trying it out.

Detransitioning doesn't equal regret. Regret doesn’t always mean that people wish they hadn’t transitioned, it just means that there are some parts of the story that they long to change.

What’s clear from this evidence is that the vast majority of people do not experience regret, however defined, after transitioning genders. The rate of regret is still better than other treatments which don’t require national debates over their use, which really begs the question of why the health decisions of this group gets so much attention, and why so many people weigh in even though they have no medical or psychological training and aren't directly involved the treatment of transgender people.

————————————————————

The study included a sample of the responses of the reasons by those who detransitioned at some point in their life. I think they are insightful.

External factors

 Caregiving reasons “I was caring for my 80+ year old mother who had severe dementia, and it was just too confusing for her.”

 Difficult to blend in as identified gender “I don't pass, even after FFS [facial feminization surgery] etc.”

 Financial reasons “Unable to afford HRT [hormone replacement therapy]”

 Lack of support “Lack of trans community at the time” “Back in 1997, virtually no one had heard of queergender people. I couldn't find a support system, and I couldn't figure out how to tell people what I was.”

 Legal reasons “Social services legal pressure regarding child custody” “Forced to by going to federal prison for two years” “Family court order—part of custody award”

 Medical reasons “Blood clotting from estrogen” “Pain in binding large chest”

 Fertility reasons “We decided to have kids so [I] went back to testosterone long enough to bank sperm so we can do IVF [in vitro fertilization].”

 Pressure from a medical health professional “Parents took me to a region with hostile doctors.” “Medical supervisor at federal facility removed regional-approved treatment because I didn't fit his idea of ‘a gay man so gay [he] wants to be a woman so it's easier to sleep with men’ after I had identified as lesbian to him.”

 Pressure from a mental health professional “Mental health professional told me I am not transgender and thought I was just crazy.” “In those days you couldn't be diagnosed trans if you were also gay or lesbian.”

 Pressure from a parent “Moved home after college. Had to conform for parents.” “I was facing being pulled out of school by my family.”

 Pressure from the community or societal stigma “With the high level of transphobia that exist[s], life gets very lonely.” “I live in a very conservative place and was afraid for my safety.”

 Pressure from my employer “There are times when my current job requires me to present [as] female.”

 I had trouble getting a job “I flip flopped genders because of needed employment.”

 Military-related reasons “Military forced me to detransition while in service.”

 Pressure from friends or roommates “Staying with people I knew would harass me”

 Pressure from unspecified or nonparent family members “Visiting conservative extended family for the holidays” “I temporarily detransition during visits with my in laws.”

 Pressure from religion or a religious counselor “Religious pressure (Mormon)” “Pressure from religion”

 Pressure from school “School staff harassed and abused me daily for my gender expression.” “Exclusion by Peers in School, No Mechanism for Getting Preferred Name on School Rosters”

 Pressure from a spouse or partner “I began to really clearly identify as transgender … but I realized it was pushing my marriage apart. At the time, I decided to try living as my assigned gender and set these feelings aside, but they kept cropping back up.”

 Wanting to find a spouse or partner “My partner of 4 years and I split up and I felt that I would always be alone as a trans person.” “Difficult to find lovers, dates”

 Sexual or physical assault “Traumatized by corrective rape so recloseted” “I have become frightened of the police since being sexually molested by an officer.”

 Sports-related reasons “Playing competitive sports”

 Travel or relocation “North Dakota is not a friendly place for anyone outside the gender binary. When I go back home, I butch up.” “I was studying abroad in a country hostile to LGBTQ* people (Russia).”

 Unable to access gender-affirming hormones “Living in rural area, couldn't get hormones” “I lost access to HRT and stopped passing.”

Internal factors

 Psychological reasons “Wasn't emotionally ready, I was scared of my identity.” “Transition had to be put on hold due to mental health issues.” “suicide attempt”

 Uncertainty or doubt around gender “Unsure of my exact gender identity” “Thought I might have been wrong/confused”

 Fluctuations in identity or desire “My gender feels complicated and changing all the time.” “I enjoy having the ability to go back and forth between genders.”

Note: internal factors can be the result of external factors (e.g., self-doubt regarding one's gender identity in response to being persistently misgendered or rejected).

[chondrichthyes-x-mantodea]

Lets talk about the "birth rate crisis" (another long one 😝)

Well, I mean, I really don't know how to word it any other way... It's bullshit. It's a poorly thought-out, POORLY HIDDEN male breeding fetish shoved into the facade of "science" (as are most things). It has never been about babies. I took environmental science (to preface I had a republican teacher so I'm not great at it, yay Florida education) and the birth rate being the focus of concern with the label "wellbeing of our country and population" slapped on it is so funny. The actual population is determined with birth rates as a singular component... it also includes DEATH RATE. This idea that population equals birth rate (or like that's the component that's lacking) when the medical system all over the world neglects female health is the most brainwashed shit I've ever heard in my life. In Florida, the 4th ammendment on the ballot talked about late term abortion decreasing population as if thats not a case where the woman is dying. Its like if I was really concerned over the rate of conception, it doesnt equal population. If it was REALLY ABOUT the population, it would consider the rates at which females die in childbirth, infant mortality, and many more factors in wellbeing... especially male caused factors.... even in environmental science, we were taught that "fertility rates" were how many children FEMALES were producing. It makes no sense, human reproductive strategy calls for a male and a female to raise their child together. It calls for monogamy. So why aren't we including men? "Well, not all mothers have the father involved." I'm glad you mentioned that. So along with all this about women producing children, how come you never hear about men? At what rate do men cause mortality within reproduction (because as far as I know, the people who swear it's about human wellbeing never wanna look into male health. Why is female health only important when a man could cause death to another human who isnt himself)? Paternal/spousal abuse? Male fertility? Male involvement? They think human reproduction is the same as domestic cats! Males wander the street, mating with any female they find... so obviously, it's a female issue! Have you ever noticed how it's only MEN throwing a tantrum over birth rates?! BECAUSE IT IS A POORLY DISGUISED HATRED AND FETISH WITH THE WORD SCIENCE WRITTEN ON IT. Males in nature are the ones seen as production, the tools females use. The human males of our species decided to completely flip that. Sure, females may carry out the aftermath of the situation, but who caused it to happen in the first place? Both parents!!! If our culture was a matriarchy where men were treated like shit and controlled for their reproductive value, you'd see a decrease in male production. If we controlled ever little bit about males including drinking, eating, exercise, because we only saw them as sperm donors and made this huge fuss about a decrease in male quality, you'd see a decrease too. When you have a monogamous animal, the male and female rules don't differ. Both processes are meaningless alone for population, they only contribute. One sex makes up for another.

But nah, liberal men and conservative men alike will chalk up the decline to "uhhhh expense of living uhhhhhh." Because trust me every time a liberal misogynistic male brings it up and I come with the "actually it's an issue of misogyny, " he'll try to discredit me with some dumbass shit. "Actually no my wife doesn't wanna be my broodmare bc uh economy :(" It really shows how men are men are men, none of them are good. But liberal man may treat you like a glorified AKC poodle not a factory farm sow! WOW! Not to mention if this was really about population than we'd care more about homeless kids, immigrant children, foster care kids, much more. It's never been about kids it's always been about controlling women and a male obsession with turning his previous higher-up into his stock. Period. An idea that he caused indirect pain to a woman with "his" child rather than his wife provided her strength. Our perception is the biggest culprit of this situation, a perception made by years of lazy male manipulation that I'm surprised even worked

Even mortality and economy considered, where we are most deficient in acknowledgment is culture. How are females treated with reproductive status? How does their life change? How does their mental health change? How do men fail women? That statement covers it all. Because as someone who has animal experience, animals that are supposed to raise young with the other parent will abandon or kill the young when the other parent isn't sufficient. Nature will always prioritize an adult life over an infant. Kindly, men did this to themselves. You force women into a corner, and once they are in that corner, you beat down on us with all your might, blaming us for being there. None of it is innate. All of it is made up. And that is why men always bring up female education within population. Because once women start to see through this breeder shit they'll treat themselves right, they'll realize how much of a shit show it is, how much men use the word science against them.

Sorry if this was at all redundant and nonsensical. Hopefully, this can inspire more to think. And thank you very much if you read this far. My warning to younger feminists would be to brace yourself for the incoming dehumanization adulthood has in store. Growing into an adult woman is just being turned into a factory for a mans baby collection, a factory he gets the credit with operating.

[doberbutts]

one thing to make clear is that from what ive seen people aren't saying transmascs are claiming transmisogyny doesnt exist, but kind of the opposite? as in, transmascs are trying to co-opt specific experiences transfems go through when they dont have that same lived experience, and thus cant offer as meaningful insight. this is basically the crux of the whole tme/tma discourse, though i think it'd be easily resolved if we were just allowed to have our own language to talk about our experiences

Oh there's absolutely people saying we think transmisogyny doesn't exist literally right now in the tag.

But you're also right that there's also people saying that somehow by discussing our problems, we're somehow stealing from trans fem discussions about theirs.

I don't really follow the logic of this to be perfectly honest. I think there is very little that trans fems experience that doesn't either have an equivalent experience for trans mascs or that trans mascs don't experience something also terrible in its stead, just like I think that of the other way around: there's very little that trans mascs experience that trans fems don't have an equivalent or equally terrible experience for. I think that is the nature of us both being affected by the specific intersection of transphobia and misogyny, just gendered in specific ways to hurt us as individuals.

Pretty much any post I've seen on this matter has made a lot of assumptions one way or the other that completely ignore the lived reality of both trans mascs and trans fems, and it's very frustrating to try and engage with this problem because it feels more like people dedicated to screaming at each other than anything really particularly productive.

I also think it is impossible to be exempt from oppression. Not being the target doesn't mean the bullet can't hit you if the shooter can't aim for shit.

And it's genuinely WEIRD to me that trans mascs are talking about suicide and rape statistics, medical gatekeeping, rejection from social groups upon coming out, politicians making laws targeting their ability to transition, erasure and also weaponization of trans pregnancy, resources for the most vulnerable of us requiring detransition at minimum for entry if we're allowed in at all, the rates of violence from domestic partners and family members, struggles with male beauty standards and eating disorders... all stuff stemming from transphobic cishet society and the patriarchy... and somehow we're stealing from trans fems or blaming trans fems for the shit that 99% of the time is lived experience coming from being targeted by fucking cis people in the first place.

Like, how is me talking about getting beaten up while being called a tranny and a heshe and getting pantsed and groped to "prove" my status as a girl due to being incredibly GNC and also intersex prior to figuring out that I'm trans co-opting anything from anyone? I'm talking about something that happened *to me*. It wasn't trans women who sent me home with bruises and scars every day, it was my shitty cishet classmates and their shitty cishet older siblings in an ultra-conservative environment. I don't think trans fems are at fault for what happened to me at all? I just don't like to be told that I'm "victimized myself" by talking about my very real trauma as a kid by someone who isn't even a trans fem claiming to be defending trans fems on my posts about it.

[cedarhearted]

on "going stealth" / detransitioning: a huge fucking vent

(tw— suicidal depression, not exactly the "i want to k!ll myself" kind, but reflecting on having experienced that for years/the majority of our past; it's hard to explain in a tw so just be mindful of your own triggers and stuff)

the very idea of having to fully detransition/fully pass as cis, regardless of whether it's "masc" or "fem", genuinely makes me want to d!e. i don't know how to articulate it exactly, but "going stealth" doesn't just suck bc Oh No I'm Losing The Traits That Give Me Gender Euphoria. facial/body hair and a low voice doesn't just give me gender euphoria (although don't get me wrong, that's an equally large and important part of it).

transitioning gives me autistic joy, in just the ability of not having to mask/allowing myself to be comfortable in the fact that i can't mask.

transitioning is an intrinsically spiritual act, as it— in some way that maybe non-indigenous folks (of any trans-positive culture) can't quite comprehend— connects me to my heritage as a twospirit / mixed-native person.

transitioning eases species dysphoria, even, as a therian/alterhuman and as a heavily fragmented/highly-complex did system with multiple nonhuman sysmates.

transitioning saved our fucking life, in high school, through an abusive domestic relationship, through long-lasting homelessness (even despite the fact that we are currently not on t, because we aren't close to being fully detransitioned yet thank god). transitioning saved us from years-long suicidal depression, is healing us, is connecting us to our heritage and spirituality and authenticity as an autistic system.

the idea of going back? it's purely that— an idea, a concept. going back doesn't exist. we might be able to wear clothes that make us "pass" as a cis guy for now, but outside of certain sysmates maybe, that would genuinely be just as big of a lie internally as it would be to fully medically detransition and pass as a cis girl— even for our cis fem sysmates.

the IDEA of having to go stealth definitely brings forth that trauma response of wanting to d!e, absolutely. but that's only because we know that doing so would push us back into the box that caused us to Try so many times. it's a full disconnect from everything we are, mentally/psychologically, physically, spiritually, potentially even biologically (if there is a chance we might actually be intersex of some type).

but i, and all of us adults in our system, would genuinely rather live happily and authentically and be k!lled just because we're outwardly trans, than d!e pretending to be something we're not. and you know, it may be an act of rebellion, it may be an act of activism, it may even be an act of preserving our culture as a mixed-native person. but it doesn't even feel like a choice. it genuinely feels like being told "k!ll yourself or be k!lled", obviously neither are fucking ideal, but if it comes down to it, it genuinely is impossible for us to choose to go back. to undo all of the healing and progress we've made, to remove ourself from who we are as a whole and just Lie.

and it's not even about lying outwardly. it's about how we lied to ourselves inwardly for almost our whole life, thanks to both childhood abuse and straight-up ignorance that we worked hard for years to unlearn. that feeling of self-hatred, yk, we just... we can't ever voluntarily go back to that. never. it's not a choice, it's just not doable. i don't give a fuck about "dying a martyr," it's just that the idea of being k!lled by someone just because they perceive us as trans is one that terrifies us— i mean we're genuinely agoraphobic and have trauma from the abuse we've faced in the past— but it terrifies us so much less than "going stealth."

to have your life taken by someone who deems you unworthy of it is nothing compared to deeming your own life unworthy of living. at least not for us, having experienced both scenarios (respectively) multiple times throughout the first 20 years of our life— and we're only 22.

none of this came from being told we have to "go stealth" or that we're unsafe/at risk of being k!lled or anything like that, mind you. just like, we saw a post talking about how so many trans folks ARE choosing to go stealth for those reasons (which is absolutely fucking valid, not just right now but any time because it's your body and your choice, always), and the weight of what that would mean for us just fucking hit me like a goddamn freight train.

i just needed to howl about it, and i hope that if anyone also feels what we're feeling / personally understands what i'm talking about, i just want you to know you're not alone.

[deceased-madam]

My favourite, Spitfire!! Positing this now before I start suffering tomorrow. I don't know how to make references, but I tried 😭

Under the cut is my long yap session about his details.

RC-5820/Spitfire details:

Background

His original squad was killed by friendly fire, as the squad's explosives expert — Haywire, set a bomb off too early, causing two members to die and Spitfire to lose his right arm. The death of those two squadmates made Haywire and Spitfire join a different squad that also lacked in numbers, but that squad died in Geonosis, leaving Haywire and Spitfire to end up in their current squad — Adder Squad.

Spitfire got his blaster scars from the times he got shot during trianing (poor guy took the shots for his comrades). He got his laceration scars from fights with Haywire, with their trauma Haywire has turned unfeeling, whereas Spitfire has turned to feel too much, thus causing them to clash a lot despite knowing each other more and spending more time together than anyone else.

Personality

Negative but will try to be optimistic for other people, angsty, snarky, resourceful, gentle heart with lethal thorns.

As his name suggests, Spitfire has a fiery and confrontational personality, which only became more unapproachable as he aged and experienced more of the sorrowful fate of clones. He has little patience for bullshit and sugarcoating, sees reality as cruel and apathetic, but will say what people want to hear if they are close to death or really need comfort.

He stands up for his comrades no matter the cost, will question risky orders, put their needs before his own; Spitfire even has gone as far as filing reports against his General in hopes of earning some leniency.

He resents the galaxy for putting him and his comrades into an unfair world where justice is biased and rights aren't equal simply because clones are viewed as lesser. The prejudice towards clones has made him despise non-clones.

Being a medic in a battalion under the control of a ruthless General is no easy task, comrades die left and right no matter how skillful Spitfire's capabilities are, leaving him with a slight inferiority complex.

Secretly can't handle his comrades dying even though he knows it will happen.

As a commando, compadre with squadmates is essential, yet Spitfire can't have any of that, because those he were closest to were torn away from him, and his snarky personality makes it difficult to make new connections, not to mention his fear of losing those important to him. He has some attachment issues.

Armour

As a medic, Spitfire needs his hands free to heal allies, and does less fighting than his comrades, so he uses a DC-17 repeater hand blaster, thus he has a holster for it on his right thigh. He also has extra pouches to hold medical supplies. (I only drew one, but incorporate hammer space.)

I chose the colours — red, white, grey, and black because they are the colours of the battalion he's in, the 403rd, aka Sacred Dragons — General Krell's Battalion; with those colours I also incorporated Mandalorian colour meanings into his design because because clone commandos are closely tied to Mandalorian culture.

According to Mandalorian culture colours — scarlet stands for defiance, maroon stands for power, grey stands for mourning, black stands for power, erin stands for a yearn for peace, gold stands for revenge, white stands for change. I have used these colours in his design.

From the back he is scarlet to hide his front which is grey, because unless you know him -know that he's putting up barriers due to the fact he's mourning and afraid of getting attached just to lose the person- you'll think he's simply being difficult. He has four dots on his left chest, they are his sergeant's dots, but they -plus the stripe in the middle- have the colour of erin that stands for his desire for peace. He has some gold and black because he wants revenge and justice for all his fallen comrades and the mistreatment towards clones. Has maroon because as a medical sergeant he has power, he also wants power to help his comrades. His left shoulder bell is default white because he loses it a lot due to the fact he has to remove the medic symbol if he wishes to be an active part of combat -which he often has to do- in consequence of Krell's tactics being cruel.

Tattoos

His tattoos also incorporate the Mandalorian colour meanings as mentioned above.

The rose means — love, passion, memory, grief, and duality.

The skull means — death, mortality, rebellion, and by a stretch it can also mean understanding of anatomy.

The initials on his left wrist are "S" and "B" in Mando'a, they are the initials of the first two squadmates he lost; further tying grief into his design.

All these are felt and are part of Spitfire's character.

There are four roses to represent the four squadmates he lost, two skulls to represent the two squads he lost.

Additional

I was going to add tally marks to his armour that represent all the lost lives, but that means his entire armour would be covered in tally marks and I would die each time I draw his armour.

He was supposed to have wing tattoos on his waist or back to symbolise his yearn for freedom, I wanted to use skeletal wings as a nod towards his advanced anatomical knowledge, and to tie it with the skulls, but the wings just didn't look right so I removed them.

Lowkey a germaphobe, wants everything to be as clean as possible. He doesn't care if the room is a mess, as long as it's clean.

Spitfire was going to get a double mohawk to honour his lost comrades, but when he was shaving his head he got forcefully stopped by Haywire who thought it looked unseemly, so Spitfire's head is only half shaved.

His armour has a backpack to go with it, but I forgot to draw it 🫢

Doesn't like being touched, but is also touch starved.

Was best pals with Initial S, leaving a void in Spitfire's heart ever since Initial S died.

Has dark circles under his eyes, paler skin tone, and a lower fat percentage because he's overworked, stressed, barely sleeps, and has harmful addictions.

He is smarter than the average clone, but because of his bad lifestyle, it doesn't appear that way.

He has a nicotine and morphine addiction. His nicotine addiction started young when he was learning his medic stuff, there's a lot of information and studying, nicotine became his stress relief. Initial S managed to get ahold of death sticks for Spitfire. His morphine addiction started after he joined Adder Squad, he had no friends anymore, experienced the horrors of war, and needed something stronger than nicotine to dull the anguish.

Although it's stated he lost his arm in an explosion, the amputation was actually self-inflicted. His arm got stuck under the debris of an explosion so he had to cut it off.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Amelia Mavis Christnot at The Big Picture:

In 1970, the autism diagnosis rate was one in 5,000-10,000. In 2000 it had risen to 1 in 150. Just 20 years later, it had risen again to 1 in 36. As of 2025, the Centers for Disease Control report “1 in 31 children will be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by age 8.” Clearly, rates are skyrocketing. Clearly, this is an epidemic. When you add in that children aren't diagnosed with autism at birth, but suddenly they have it at age 2? Clearly, something that happens between birth and age 2 is causing children to catch autism. Vaccines! It has to be vaccines! Or fluoride in drinking water. Or food dyes. And now you know how people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Jenny McCarthy—equally untrained and unqualified to head the Department of Health and Human Services—got from point A to point B in their conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. And unfortunately, they brought millions of desperate parents looking for someone to blame—as well as the ignorant looking for leaders to follow, and the disenfranchised looking for a cause to unite behind—along with them.

[...]

RFK Jr. was born Democratic royalty.

Being named after a Democratic presidential candidate and political rising star who was assassinated at age 42? He was basically dipped in Teflon. RFK Jr. has admitted he indulged in a lot of bad behavior and brain cell-killing self-destruction with both legal and illegal substances. Somewhere between “what a promising future” and being made MAGA Republican President Donald Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, things went sideways.

Only RFK Jr. knows where his brain worms fall in this timeline.

[...]

But in Kennedy’s addled brain, finding a cause and cure for autism needs to be a major priority. Even if it requires trampling the U.S. Constitution and basic human rights. After all, autistic people are family destroyers and a drain on the economy.

Trump's HHS Secretary stated:

"These are kids who will never pay taxes, they'll never hold a job, they'll never play baseball, they'll never write a poem. They'll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted."

But as has been evident in other statements by RFK Jr., much of what he spouts is based only on what he's seen personally. [...] The HHS head drew further backlash after making the same claim to erase people with Tourette's, ADD, ADHD, and other disorders based solely on his own ignorance of their existence. And for—yet again—seeing humans as commodities to be exploited for financial gain.

But You Can't Dispute The Numbers

While RFK Jr. looks at rising diagnosis rates and thinks “More kids are catching autism!”, the reality is, we are just finally seeing what has always existed. The medical and scientific communities have long pointed to a drastic increase in diagnoses of autism due to a broader definition, understanding, and assessment, not a greater occurrence. Autism experts say the major factors that have contributed to the increase include:

improved detection and diagnostic criteria

better training in primary care doctors

broadened definition of autism, meaning disorders once counted as separate are now added to ASD totals

reduction in gender and racial biases, while White males are still the highest percentage population assessed, females and racial minority assessments and diagnoses have increased dramatically

increased awareness among caregivers and educators and early intervention leading to earlier and more frequent diagnosis

In 1970, most people with ASD were misdiagnosed or completely undiagnosed, leading to many people now being diagnosed in their 40s, 50s, 60s, or older.

[...]

But what's up with kids “catching” autism when they're 2 years old?

Unlike other disorders people are born with like blindness or deafness, autism is difficult to diagnose before age two. But that doesn't mean children spontaneously develop autism at that age, as untrained, scientifically illiterate individuals like RFK Jr. claim. Instead, the standard developmental milestones for a two-year-old make the preexisting ASD easier for caregivers and medical providers to notice at that age. It's a difference of not seeing, and then seeing, what's always been there. Much like a speech impediment can't be diagnosed before a child learns to talk, in all but the most profound cases, ASD is exceptionally difficult to assess and diagnose until a child reaches the age where walking, talking, and other developmental milestones are expected to occur. But RFK Jr. would rather draw attention to an autism epidemic that doesn't exist so he can further his agenda, rather than address the issues his decades of antivaxxer rhetoric created—like the measles outbreak his misinformation fueled in Samoa.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anti-autism comments are a danger to health and common sense.

See Also:

Drew's Notes (Drew Savicki): On RFK and Autism

[velvetvexations]

It doesn't happen that often anyway, and people who focus on transfems getting attacked over transmasc issues are just entirely misplacing their energy in dealing with the subject on multiple levels. But they'll probably say "ah, so you admit it does happen!" which I've never denied in the first place.

Cringe digs it's heels in.

Yes, trans women's voices are important in those discussions. Of course they are. I never said or implied their complaints were "unfair" or unwarranted. My problem lies where trans women's voices become front, end and center of a discussion that was started and is lead by trans people who can get pregnant and menstruate who aren't women (not always willingly, often enough, they get pushed there by cis "allies"). This is a transphobic strategy and shows quite well how transmisogynistic hypervisibility and transandrophobic erasure go hand in hand to harm as many people as possible: menstruating trans people (esp. trans men) started this conversation to have their medical needs met and fight for their rights, transphobes saw them and didn't want them to get those rights. But because you can't ridiculize and fearmonger about people who do menstruate and can get pregnant, they turned around and made up "delusional trans women who think they menstruate/can get pregnant and make a ridicule of Real Women(TM)" [which is incredibly transmisogynistic, of course, and also massively intersexist] instead. That was done deliberately, out of mallice, not out of ignorance. Yes, there are a bunch of ignorant transphobes who just follow suit, but I've seen plenty of TERFs make fun of trans men dying from medical neglect who talk about how important neutral language is, to then publicly turn around and act like it's trans women having these conversations, to delegitimize these concerns and act like it's all made up and ridiculous and unnecessary. Yes, we should talk about the harrasment of trans women that leads to. But they shouldn't be all this conversation is about. All sides are equally important, and it becomes a big problem when the already erased side becomes even more pushed aside by their own community and their allies. I've seen multiple trans women come online and publicly say shit like "I'm a trans woman and I don't need gender-neutral language. I know I'm a woman even if I don't menstruate or get pregnant"; and then they were so surprised when it was pointed out to them that this conversation was about trans people who aren't women who can get pregnant and who have or had a menstruation, and that they fell for a transphobic psyop that is used to ridiculize and delegitimize very real and dangerous concerns of other trans people. (And those are not radfems! They often have otherwise very good opinions and takes, but so many people lack knowledge of transmasc erasure that they're literally inclined to rather believe and listen to transphobes than trans men. That is an incredibly normalized behaviour, and it shouldn't be!) Like, I just think this conversation shouldn't be about making fun of transphobes for "believing we [trans people] think trans women could menstruate (some of them do!) or get pregnant (some of them can!)" instead of the trans people literally dying right now with usually entirely and often easily treatable problems because of transphobic medical neglect*. (*That affects all trans people of course. All people with vaginas, whether they were born with them or got them surgically, and no matter how they identify and what stands in their legal documents, need gynecological care, all people with penises need andrological care, again, no matter if they were born with them or got them through surgery, and no matter how they identify. All pregnant people and people who want to get pregnant need access to pre-natal and natal and post-natal care, and access to abortion if necessary, etc.) That is all. And thank you, Velvet, for listening and understanding my POV. I hope you have a good day/night/whenever you read this <3

I appreciate your comments. <3

The defense is literally "it was just a joke, transandrobro."

It's gross, but what truly bothers me more is the misgendering allegations fleshengine also reblogged. Like, "TERF who calls trans women rapists" is obviously bullshit, but my rabidly transmisogynistic followers and friends would care quite a lot if I was misgendering someone intentionally for any reason, even when that person is being ridiculously awful to them and stalking someone for being more than vaguely in favor of them having rights.

Like. I did actually accidentally use a "she" when I meant to say "it" in that first image but that's not even the complaint it's making. No, the complaint is that I'm misgendering it while I'm clearly quoting someone else multiple times, which it should be well aware of since it left a comment on the OP's post. It is impossible to read that and get the idea I'm referring to it in that section.

So frustrating.

Meanwhile:

And now this vaguely misgendering idiot.

Bless you anon.

[naraven]

Dear @xianyoon,

Hello, Operator! For your next mission, we have decided to pair you up with the following operator(s):

ENFORCER

cw // she/her pronouns, relatively fluff, excessive talk of coffee oops, use of an operators real name

It was fate, people say, that the two coffee nerd operators would eventually meet and team up.

It was a relatively simple operation. Post-debrief, fellow operators say it was Enforcer who approached and introduced himself to the operator who was chatting with a couple others in a small circle.

It went off without a hitch. There were no major fatalities, and everybody came back in high spirits. Two operators in particular were noted to be particularly excellent, before, during, and after.

The operation went well, one operator reports, but the constant talk of coffee between Operator Enforcer and Operator [Y/N] made it really hard to rest sometimes. It made me crave caffeine so much I begged them for a cup almost immediately coming back to Rhodes Island.

Bonding over coffee and the brewing process is a must! It always varied, from how much milk or espresso would be included, to certain ratios, and the million different tools used to get the best shot of espresso.

There arose an inside joke that they would speak an entire different language when it came to making coffee.

Some signs would eventually lead a couple rumors, though. From the way that, sometimes, they would always be on their transmitter device to talk to each other, and the use of each other's real names. Many would assume, quite naturally, that they were romantically involved.

When confronted, neither of them claimed anything about the rumors.

It made sense these two operators would get along. Besides being giant espresso nerds, they both enjoyed visiting the medical ward to help lighten the mood, and general soft and kind natures seemed to attract a crowd wherever they went.

They became a familiar face to all the Infected kids that awaited their visits, often swarming them when they arrived. Many other patients say they also enjoy the two's company, saying their presence eases the atmosphere of the illness ridden ward.

One most important thing that everyone notices, though, is how much brighter Operator [Y/N] looks nowadays.

"Oh, hello Doctor."

"Doctor!"

>You two are in high spirits.

"Well, we were just experimenting!" [Y/N] finishes putting up her hair, the frothing hot milk set aside two cups of nearly identical lattes. "Well, Ezell was."

"I'm trying to put my own spin on [Y/N]'s favorite latte." Enforcer takes a small sip from his mug, closing his eyes as he evaluates the taste.

"So? How is it?" She inquires, taking a small sip of her own.

"It lacks sugar, but I like the ratio a lot." He takes another sip, licking some of the froth off his lips.

"I'm glad! 30 grams of espresso and 180 grams of steamed milk, it has a nice balance to it. Doctor, would you like to try some?"

>Aren't all lattes just espresso and milk? What makes this one so special?

"Doctor..." [Y/N] mumbles in disbelief.

"Uh oh," Enforcer sheepishly laughs, "Doctor, you really shouldn't have said that."

"Doctor!" She exclaims.

>Huh?

"Listen carefully, Doctor! I'll repeat it as many times as you want!" Suddenly, a screen appears in front of her with a slide presentation already on it.

"See, look carefully! This is a cappuccino. They're mostly equal parts espresso, steamed milk, and milk foam."

>R-Right...

"Sorry, Doctor. You're on your own now." Enforcer sits down next to them, still with his latte in hand.

>You can't stop her either...?

"No, I can." He smiles, tapping the side of his mug with his fingers. "It's just, I also took offense to what you just said too. Feel free to blame only yourself for this."

>Urgh.

"Doctor! Are you even listening? Now, this is a flat white. Many people mistake this with lattes, but its important to not that this one lacks the milk foam at the top."

>What can I do to get out of this?

"Listen to the whole thing, of course."