#misconceptions

[primrosebitch]

i hate the misconception that asexual=no libido, because No the fuck it doesn't

Asexual people can still get horny, we can still masturbate, we can still have and enjoy sex*

Asexually is a lack of Sexual Attraction not a lack of horny

AND That's not even getting into how asexual is an Umbrella Term and so some asexuals DO feel sexual attraction in certain situations like demisexuals and greysexuals

*Many asexuals don't like or want sex, myself included, but some do, we aren't a monolith that has the same opinions on everything

[mask131]

I want to briefly adress another BIG misconception about Greek gods that has (quite recently) been going on around the Internet. And it is again part due to the Percy Jackson TV show. I insist on the "TV show", because as we now know, the TV show made some changes to the book's original plotline when it came to the gods interacting with their children (like Athena's move with Echidna *cough cough*), and as a result here is what I have been hearing here and there.

"Yeah, well the Greek gods were all assholes, right, but what PJ REALLY got right was that they were especially assholes to their own children and the worst abusive parents ever".

... No?

In fact this is almost a counter-interpretation of Greek mythology, because in Greek myths and legends, the whole point was that, when a god was being an "asshole" as you say, they were an asshole to everybody... except their children. One of the reasons the Greek gods can look "bad" by modern standards is precisely because they had an habit of favorizing their own children, and taking care about them more than about other beings.

The most famous of these myths is of course Demeter's immense love and hyper-protection of Persephone - just look at the trials she went through to find her back after she disappeared.

Another famous example is how Poseidon turned on Odysseus and plagued him with curses and monsters for blinding his son - Polyphemus the cyclop (and the whole point here is that Poseidon favorized his son, despite his son being the actual criminal and monster in the case)

Ares, who was not one of the best gods, still went on an avenging mode every time his children were attacked, from the dragon slain by Cadmos to the rape of Alcippe.

There's how Apollo went berserk after the death of Asclepios. There's how Herakles had planned to be favorized by Fate since his birth thanks to Zeus, and how the entire reason Zeus inflicted on his wife the atrocious torture of hanging chained up by the sky was because he had enough of her constantly tormenting Herakles in the worst ways possible. Even Athena ended up taking care of Erichthonius as her own child despite her not being his true mother - showing that even the virgin, sexless, childless goddess has a mothering side to her.

It all goes back to Gaia, and how she keeps turning against Zeus for each time vanquishing her children - from the Titans, to the Giants, to Typhon - despite these children being again, bad news and even hurting Gaia herself. Another example of "primordial motherhood": Nyx shelters Hypnos from Zeus' wrath in the Iliad, and not even Zeus would dare anger such an elderly mother-goddess. And if we push beyond the boundaries of Greek mythology and into the very late Roman literature, we see this trend continues with Aphrodite's smothering-mothering of Eros during the Psyche legend.

A good lot of conflicts and feuds and problems in Greek mythology was precisely due to how much the gods loved their children, and how protective they were of them - with the problem that the god had the tendency to be blind to whether their children were good or evil, victims or criminals.

This is why, for example, Zeus and Hera's relationships to their children were especially important and unique in Greek myths, in the light of this god's tendency to favorize and spoil and protect their own children.

On Hera's case, her action of, for example, throwing Hephaistos into the sea at birth just because he is "ugly" is meant to come off as massively shocking. Remember that in a good bunch of Greek myths, Hera had a negative, evil, dangerous side to her, that popped up in various ways - from her jealous, vain, angry personality to how in some versions she literaly gave birth to Typhon... Unlike Zeus, who was the "ultimate father", Hera wasn't (in myths, I insist) seen as a postive mother, and was more of a mother-of-monsters avatar (after all, she did command a lot of Greek monsters), or an anti-mother (she was the one who prevented Leto from giving birth, a powerful symbol).

On the other side, Zeus was also seen regularly punishing or being very harsh to his children, but there was the secret to his character: Zeus had to act both as a father, and as a king. He embodied the all loving ancestor and the all powerful father, but he also had to act as the embodiment of law and of justice, and those two aspects of his personality clashed a lot. We see him punish his divine children regularly, but almost always because his role as the enforcer of the law primed over his role as a father - for example when he wanted to throw Apollo into Tartarus because he had caused a Cyclop genocide out of anger. But he still had this same "over-parenting" side as the other gods. Again, Herakles was one of his favorite children and he tried to arrange everything so that he could have the greatest life ever - but his official side as the "political" and "civilization" god caught up to him when Hera tricked him into swearing away the gifts he had intended for Herakles. Despite Zeus' immense love for his son, his oath and the law he embodies took over and prevented him from sheltering Herakles from Hera's hatred. The most revealing case of this "father vs king" aspect of Zeus' personality comes from the Iliad: it is the death of Saperdon.

When Zeus looks upon the Trojan War and sees that his son will soon die, he is very heavily tempted from interfering. He explicitely wishes to save him, and to change the scales of fate to avoid his impending death (because remember in the Iliad Zeus was still the god of fate who literaly weighed humans' destinities in his scale). That's his "father" side showing up. But then Hera, who is by his side, who is his queen and thus his "political" side, reminds him of his duty as a king and of his role as ultimate judge of the world and ruler of the gods. She points out he would break the very own law he imposed of not interfering with the mortal conflict. She reminds him that, as the setter of examples, if he saved Sarpedon, he would create a precedent and other gods could also start saving their own children from the war. She reminds him that he has a role as the god of law and fate, and that he can't allow his personal feelings to interfere in the matter, else he would be unfair and unjust. And thus, Zeus resignates himself to let his son die before his eyes - but he still shows his immense love for him by both sending a shower of blood as a sign of his grief, and then ordering Apollo, Hypnos and Thanatos in person to carry Sarpedon's corpse away (predating future legends about great kings and heroes taken into the afterlife by supernatural figures, like Arthur collected by Morgan and the ladies of Avalon).

In conclusion: having the gods act as if they were all bad, abusive, absent parents not getting involved in their children's life or not caring about them is actually going against what the mythology originally said in terms of characterization. The untold rule of Greek mythology was that, if gods were bad parents, it would be because they were too loving, too protective, too smothering, too spoiling, interfering too much. Not the other way around - unless you were Hera, of course. Meanwhile, having the gods act as "assholes" and bullies towards OTHER GODS' children, now that would be accurate to Greek mythology (this is the very basis of Hera's cycle of legends as a persecuting goddess). But the gods usually stuck by the side of their own children - a bit like how in a school's football or soccer game the parents end up fighting each other because of what their children did or did not do in the game.

[scretladyspider]

ableist NTs: adderall is basically meth! you just need a planner and a cup of coffee. You don’t need “focus pills”, just try harder! Buy a calendar! ADHD is made up by big pharma to sell drugs!

me the other day when I didn’t take my meds: do I have to pee? I think? I think I have to pee. Okay, body, get up. Please get up. Have I eaten yet? I think I might be hungry. But didn’t I eat this morning? Okay body, let’s get up and pee. Okay. Any minute now I’ll go to the bathroom and eat. Oh my gosh it’s four pm. Why won’t my body move? It’s like I’m stuck in concrete. do I have to pee? Oh dizzy. It’s ten pm?! Maybe I should eat…

[janmisali]

list of common misconceptions really is a top tier wikipedia article. much better curated than a lot of other lists on the site, and every thing listed has like at least two citations

[geraskierfanficprompts]

Prompt 66

Geralt is sure the bard he's started traveling with is a monster. I mean, an inhumanely beautiful young man with an inhumanely wonderful voice, and an inhumanely positive outlook on everything involved in Geralt's life? Bullshit. And he stayed. Even after the incident with the elves, where he had sad little puppy eyes - that were much too heartwrenching to not be magic - after his lute was smashed. Sure, he got a new and better lute, but surely he'd wanna leave by now.

Geralt starts testing. An "accidental" graze of silver against the bard's skin. Too much garlic on their food. A circle of salt. Fucking anything that reveals what he is! Jaskier, the human, is endeared endlessly with Geralt's shenanigans. How paranoid the poor witcher must be, if he keeps checking to make sure Jaskier hasn't been replaced with a monstrous lookalike in the night!

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andy L.

Published: Apr 14, 2024

It has now been just little under a week since the publication of the long anticipated NHS independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, the Cass Review.

The review recommends sweeping changes to child services in the NHS, not least the abandonment of what is known as the “affirmation model” and the associated use of puberty blockers and, later, cross-sex hormones. The evidence base could not support the use of such drastic treatments, and this approach was failing to address the complexities of health problems in such children.

Many trans advocacy groups appear to be cautiously welcoming these recommendations. However, there are many who are not and have quickly tried to condemn the review. Within almost hours, “press releases“, tweets and commentaries tried to rubbish the report and included statements that were simply not true. An angry letter from many “academics”, including Andrew Wakefield, has been published. These myths have been subsequently spreading like wildfire.

Here I wish to tackle some of those myths and misrepresentations.

-

Myth 1: 98% of all studies in this area were ignored

Fact

A comprehensive search was performed for all studies addressing the clinical questions under investigation, and over 100 were discovered. All these studies were evaluated for their quality and risk of bias. Only 2% of the studies met the criteria for the highest quality rating, but all high and medium quality (50%+) studies were further analysed to synthesise overall conclusions.

Explanation

The Cass Review aimed to base its recommendations on the comprehensive body of evidence available. While individual studies may demonstrate positive outcomes for the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children, the quality of these studies may vary. Therefore, the review sought to assess not only the findings of each study but also the reliability of those findings.

Studies exhibit variability in quality. Quality impacts the reliability of any conclusions that can be drawn. Some may have small sample sizes, while others may involve cohorts that differ from the target patient population. For instance, if a study primarily involves men in their 30s, their experiences may differ significantly from those of teenage girls, who constitute the a primary patient group of interest. Numerous factors can contribute to poor study quality.

Bias is also a big factor. Many people view claims of a biased study as meaning the researchers had ideological or predetermined goals and so might misrepresent their work. That may be true. But that is not what bias means when we evaluate medical trials.

In this case we are interested in statistical bias. This is where the numbers can mislead us in some way. For example, if your study started with lots of patients but many dropped out then statistical bias may creep in as your drop-outs might be the ones with the worst experiences. Your study patients are not on average like all the possible patients.

If then we want to look at a lot papers to find out if a treatment works, we want to be sure that we pay much more attention to those papers that look like they may have less risk of bias or quality issues. The poor quality papers may have positive results that are due to poor study design or execution and not because the treatment works.

The Cass Review team commissioned researchers at York University to search for all relevant papers on childhood use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for treating “gender dysphoria”. The researchers then graded each paper by established methods to determine quality, and then disregarded all low quality papers to help ensure they did not mislead.

The Review states,

The systematic review on interventions to suppress puberty (Taylor et al: Puberty suppression) provides an update to the NICE review (2020a). It identified 50 studies looking at different aspects of gender-related, psychosocial, physiological and cognitive outcomes of puberty suppression. Quality was assessed on a standardised scale. There was one high quality study, 25 moderate quality studies and 24 low quality studies. The low quality studies were excluded from the synthesis of results.

As can be seen, the conclusions that were based on the synthesis of studies only rejected 24 out of 50 studies – less than half. The myth has arisen that the synthesis only included the one high quality study. That is simply untrue.

There were two such literature reviews: the other was for cross-sex hormones. This study found 19 out of 53 studies were low quality and so were not used in synthesis. Only one study was classed as high quality – the rest medium quality and so were used in the analysis.

12 cohort, 9 cross-sectional and 32 pre–post studies were included (n=53). One cohort study was high-quality. Other studies were moderate (n=33) and low-quality (n=19). Synthesis of high and moderate-quality studies showed consistent evidence demonstrating induction of puberty, although with varying feminising/masculinising effects. There was limited evidence regarding gender dysphoria, body satisfaction, psychosocial and cognitive outcomes, and fertility.

Again, it is myth that 98% of studies were discarded. The truth is that over a hundred studies were read and appraised. About half of them were graded to be of too poor quality to reliably include in a synthesis of all the evidence. if you include low quality evidence, your over-all conclusions can be at risk from results that are very unreliable. As they say – GIGO – Garbage In Garbage Out.

Nonetheless, despite analysing the higher quality studies, there was no clear evidence that emerged that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones were safe and effective. The BMJ editorial summed this up perfectly,

One emerging criticism of the Cass review is that it set the methodological bar too high for research to be included in its analysis and discarded too many studies on the basis of quality. In fact, the reality is different: studies in gender medicine fall woefully short in terms of methodological rigour; the methodological bar for gender medicine studies was set too low, generating research findings that are therefore hard to interpret. The methodological quality of research matters because a drug efficacy study in humans with an inappropriate or no control group is a potential breach of research ethics. Offering treatments without an adequate understanding of benefits and harms is unethical. All of this matters even more when the treatments are not trivial; puberty blockers and hormone therapies are major, life altering interventions. Yet this inconclusive and unacceptable evidence base was used to inform influential clinical guidelines, such as those of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which themselves were cascaded into the development of subsequent guidelines internationally.

-

Myth 2: Cass recommended no Trans Healthcare for Under 25s

Fact

The Cass Review does not contain any recommendation or suggestion advocating for the withholding of transgender healthcare until the age of 25, nor does it propose a prohibition on individuals transitioning.

Explanation

This myth appears to be a misreading of one of the recommendations.

The Cass Review expressed concerns regarding the necessity for children to transition to adult service provision at the age of 18, a critical phase in their development and potential treatment. Children were deemed particularly vulnerable during this period, facing potential discontinuity of care as they transitioned to other clinics and care providers. Furthermore, the transition made follow-up of patients more challenging.

Cass then says,

Taking account of all the above issues, a follow-through service continuing up to age 25 would remove the need for transition at this vulnerable time and benefit both this younger population and the adult population. This will have the added benefit in the longer-term of also increasing the capacity of adult provision across the country as more gender services are established.

Cass want to set up continuity of service provision by ensure they remain within the same clinical setting and with the same care providers until they are 25. This says nothing about withdrawing any form of treatment that may be appropriate in the adult care pathway. Cass is explicit in saying her report is making no recommendations as to what that care should look like for over 18s.

It looks the myth has arisen from a bizarre misreading of the phrase “remove the need for transition”. Activists appear to think this means that there should be no “gender transition” whereas it is obvious this is referring to “care transition”.

-

Myth 3: Cass is demanding only Double Blind Randomised Controlled Trials be used as evidence in “Trans Healthcare”

Fact

While it is acknowledged that conducting double-blind randomized controlled trials (DBRCT) for puberty blockers in children would present significant ethical and practical challenges, the Cass Review does not advocate solely for the use of DBRCT trials in making treatment recommendations, nor does it mandate that future trials adhere strictly to such protocols. Rather, the review extensively discusses the necessity for appropriate trial designs that are both ethical and practical, emphasizing the importance of maintaining high methodological quality.

Explanation

Cass goes into great detail explaining the nature of clinical evidence and how that can vary in quality depending on the trial design and how it is implemented and analysed. She sets out why Double Blind Randomised Controlled Trials are the ‘gold standard’ as they minimise the risks of confounding factors misleading you and helping to understand cause and effect, for example. (See Explanatory Box 1 in the Report).

Doctors rely on evidence to guide treatment decisions, which can be discussed with patients to facilitate informed choices considering the known benefits and risks of proposed treatments.

Evidence can range from a doctor’s personal experience to more formal sources. For instance, a doctor may draw on their own extensive experience treating patients, known as ‘Expert Opinion.’ While valuable, this method isn’t foolproof, as historical inaccuracies in medical beliefs have shown.

Consulting other doctors’ experiences, especially if documented in published case reports, can offer additional insight. However, these reports have limitations, such as their inability to establish causality between treatment and outcome. For example, if a patient with a bad back improves after swimming, it’s uncertain whether swimming directly caused the improvement or if the back would have healed naturally.

Further up the hierarchy of clinical evidence are papers that examine cohorts of patients, typically involving multiple case studies with statistical analysis. While offering better evidence, they still have potential biases and limitations.

This illustrates the ‘pyramid of clinical evidence,’ which categorises different types of evidence based on their quality and reliability in informing treatment decisions

The above diagram is published in the Cass Review as part of Explanatory Box 1.

We can see from the report and papers that Cass did not insist that only randomised controlled trials were used to assess the evidence. The York team that conducted the analyses chose a method to asses the quality of studies called the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. This is a method best suited for non RCT trials. Cass has selected an assessment method best suited for the nature of the available evidence rather than taken a dogmatic approach on the need for DBRCTs. The results of this method were discussed about countering Myth 1.

Explainer on the Newcastle Ottawa Scale

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) is a tool designed to assess the quality of non-randomized studies, particularly observational studies such as cohort and case-control studies. It provides a structured method for evaluating the risk of bias in these types of studies and has become widely used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The NOS consists of a set of criteria grouped into three main categories: selection of study groups, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome of interest. Each category contains several items, and each item is scored based on predefined criteria. The total score indicates the overall quality of the study, with higher scores indicating lower risk of bias.

This scale is best applied when conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses that include non-randomized studies. By using the NOS, researchers can objectively assess the quality of each study included in their review, allowing them to weigh the evidence appropriately and draw more reliable conclusions.

One of the strengths of the NOS is its flexibility and simplicity. It provides a standardized framework for evaluating study quality, yet it can be adapted to different study designs and research questions. Additionally, the NOS emphasizes key methodological aspects that are crucial for reducing bias in observational studies, such as appropriate selection of study participants and controlling for confounding factors.

Another advantage of the NOS is its widespread use and acceptance in the research community. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses rely on the NOS to assess the quality of included studies, making it easier for researchers to compare and interpret findings across different studies.

As for future studies, Cass makes no demand only DBRCTs are conducted. What is highlighted is at the very least that service providers build a research capacity to fill in the evidence gaps.

The national infrastructure should be put in place to manage data collection and audit and this should be used to drive continuous quality improvement and research in an active learning environment.

-

Myth 4: There were less than 10 detransitioners out of 3499 patients in the Cass study.

Fact

Cass was unable to determine the detransition rate. Although the GIDS audit study recorded fewer than 10 detransitioners, clinics declined to provide information to the review that would have enabled linking a child’s treatment to their adult outcome. The low recorded rates must be due in part to insufficient data availability.

Explanation

Cass says, “The percentage of people treated with hormones who subsequently detransition remains unknown due to the lack of long-term follow-up studies, although there is suggestion that numbers are increasing.”

The reported number are going to be low for a number of reasons, as Cass describes:

Estimates of the percentage of individuals who embark on a medical pathway and subsequently have regrets or detransition are hard to determine from GDC clinic data alone. There are several reasons for this:

Damningly, Cass describes the attempt by the review to establish “data linkage’ between records at the childhood gender clinics and adult services to look at longer term detransition and the clinics refused to cooperate with the Independent Review. The report notes the “…attempts to improve the evidence base have been thwarted by a lack of cooperation from the adult gender services”.

We know from other analyses of the data on detransitioning that the quality of data is exceptionally poor and the actual rates of detransition and regret are unknown. This is especially worrying when older data, such as reported in WPATH 7, suggest natural rates of decrease in dysphoria without treatment are very high.

Gender dysphoria during childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood. Rather, in follow-up studies of prepubertal children (mainly boys) who were referred to clinics for assessment of gender dysphoria, the dysphoria persisted into adulthood for only 6–23% of children.

This suggests that active affirmative treatment may be locking in a trans identity into the majority of children who would otherwise desist with trans ideation and live unmedicated lives.

I shall add more myths as they become spread.

==

It's not so much "myths and misconceptions" as deliberate misinformation. Genderists are scrambling to prop up their faith-based beliefs the same way homeopaths do. Both are fraudulent.

[tomboymikayla]

What sucks about the Sonic franchise is that people only seem to like it when the franchise isn't being itself

Sonic Colors is liked by non Sonic Fans because it's kiddy and lighthearted and not dark and edgy like the 2000s games, which is considered cringe to them and the only time people "like" the 2000s games is when they're talking about those obnoxious Snapcube dubs which they's been spamming for 4 years now

New Fans also praise the current voice cast, which sucks because a majority them don't fit the characters

New Fans also praise how Ian Flynn writes the characters, which also sucks because Flynn's version of the characters don't act like the actual Sonic Characters, (Sonic considering himself as a hero, Tails being Jimmy Neutron, Amy chooses to keep her feelings for Sonic secret and having Tarot Cards be her whole personality, Shadow being an edgy dick, etc) but the New Fans keep insisting that the new versions are better

Also to this day, misconceptions about the franchise and 90s boomers who refuse to let go of the US Lore still persist:

His name is Eggman, not Robotnik

Sonic lives on Earth, not Mobius

Sonic is not obsessed with Chili Dogs

Amy is not a stalker

Sonic has never fucking said "Gotta Go Fast"

Shadow is not an edgelord

People thinking the cartoons and movies are canon

People thinking the Snapcube Dub is canon

Majority of the characters are teens (For some reason people think every Sonic character is a grown adult, even characters like Charmy and Tails)

Also a lot of people seem to forget that the franchise was niche/hated during the 2010s, people didn't give a flying fuck about Sonic and even if they did, they brought it up just to shit on it, it was especially worse when Forces and the Ugly Sonic design came out, everything about Sonic in the 2010s was mocking it, nonstop memes and people saying the franchise only works in 2D (What's worse is that Sonic Mania indirectly proved them right)/was never good, etc

Sonic hate is a lot less common nowadays due to the movies, (mocking Sonic 06 is still brought up to this day tho), however i feel like most of it is people pretending to like Sonic, majority of Sonic praise nowadays comes from the Movies or Frontiers's vocal tracks (because of Kellen Quinn), it also goes back to my previous point with people liking the mischaracterised versions of the characters better

The big two Sonic content coming out this year are Sonic x Shadow Generations and Sonic Movie 3, which has a lot of people hyped because of Shadow the Hedgehog, but it also goes back to my previous point of people pretending to like Sonic, Shadow was heavily disliked by critics and the general audience for being a "edgelord" and looking like a Deviantart OC, so why are people switching up now?

Also from a majority of reactions I've seen, they'll say shit like "Shadow has always been my favorite character" but they don't even know his backstory and when see Black Doom, Maria or Gerald, they go "Who is this!?" (Or make an obnoxious Snapcube joke), I've even seen people ask for Silver, who is a character who was more hated than Shadow and know less about, I doubt they even know he's from the future

All this shit makes me scared that by the time both of these come out, that I'm gonna have to gatekeep the fuck out of this franchise, which is something don't wanna have to do, I just wanna live in a world where the franchise isn't a laughing stock and people actually the franchise unironically

[alyakthedorklord]

*cracks knuckles*

So you know those fics/ideas where the batfam pretends to be winged cryptids (“loading and aspect ratio” by JUBE514 is beautiful, as is the series “f’ing demon bats” by KingJai) completly inhuman, entirely different, unknown species?

People start trying to like, study/classify them, along with other metas and species that are emerging. (Atlanteans, alien species, ext.) At first, they think the bats and the birds are different species, deciding to co-habitate, because- duh. Bats are mammals. Birds are birds. But then, why do they all have the same whistle chitter language? The same claws, fangs, cape-like base to thier wings? All the babies call Batman dad, what if its really a bloodline family? But if thats the case, then why are they so different?

The answer lies in the batgirls.

The bat… GIRLS.

Black bat, batgirl (all 3 of them), batwoman, all are female. The robins, nightwing, red hood, are all male.

The feathered members of the family are SHOWIER. They’re stealthy, sure, but they’re dramatic, using their brighter colors and their words to draw attention to themselves. Even red robin, the drabbest and most silent of the bunch, will get into loud debates with riddler and such. Clearly, these are displays to attract a mate. Just look at nightwing.

The leather-winged members, on the other hand, are quieter, talking less often, sticking more to the shadows and silent+violent takedowns. Black Bat almost never speaks. Oracle is never even seen. Spoiler is louder and more brightly colored, but who is Gotham to enforce gender roles onto their cryptid? They’re noticing trends.

But then… where does batman fit into this? His coloration is the closest to black bat. His fighting style fits in the shadows, not as flashy as other males of his species, so what gives? Is this theory just a theory?

No, of course not. The answer is obvious. Batman is trans.

Trans Cryptid Batman.

Idk how Duke fits into this give him a bird theme or smth.

BONUS POINTS if Alfred (grandpa gotham cryptid) is “revealed” to have lovely white feathered wings. Its meant to be a play on how he’s an angel looking out for them (an angel for putting up with them) but it kickstarts the whole thing.

(EDIT: more bonus points if Bruce is either A: Actually trans or B: Bryce trying to avoid sexism, and cannot for their AFAB life figure out how they got clocked as biologically female)

[anonymousdandelion]

You know, I spend so much energy this time of year pushing back against so many misconceptions about Chanukah, I think sometimes I do it a disservice.

Because yes, it's a relatively minor Jewish holiday... but it is deeply important, and I love it.

Yes, many people misunderstand it. But the Chanukah story is a story of hope, of courage, of war, of miracles, of persistence, of faith, of dedication, and of surviving against all the odds.

Yes, gift-giving has nothing to do with Chanukah traditionally... but it is traditional to give children coins to help pay for their education, and I think that says something beautiful about the value we place on learning and on future generations.

Yes, corporations heard about Chanukah and totally misunderstood it in their attempts to commercialize it... but we have absolutely delightful games and songs and foods that are a joy to share with family and with a community.

Yes, Chanukah is constantly beset by the forces of assimilation... but it is a holiday about holding to our identity and resisting assimilation at any cost, and the fact that we are still celebrating it today is proof that we have succeeded at this for thousands of years.

Yes, it is not a holiday primarily focused on peace and love in the way some people may think it is, but I sure do feel great peace and love when I dance with my family and and see the flames in the oil cups dancing along beside the window.

Chag sameach.

Yes, I really do love Chanukah.

[sunshiline-writes]

So let’s talk about POTS syndrome for a second yeah? There is a common misconception that this is just a “uwu fainting disease” and I really seriously need combat this idea lol.

I have diagnosed POTS syndrome. Yes I have fainted before. But it doesn’t happen as much as you think. In fact in the 3 years I’ve been diagnosed I’ve only ever fainted twice. Most of my symptoms include, sweating profusely, fatigue easily, heart palpitations, over heating/getting cold easily, getting dizzy, nausea, blurry vision, chest pain, shortness of breath, anxiety and stress. Sometimes I just feel really sick. My toes turn purple sometimes. I can run a mile sometimes and be fine, but some days walking to my bathroom without my cane is a struggle.

I have good days and bad days. But this is a disease that had genuinely ruined my life for a time. I couldn’t do anything when I first started showing symptoms. I couldn’t walk to the bathroom without wanting to keel over. Forget classes, forget doing sports. Or exercising. I literally built myself up from ground zero.

I might seem pretty healthy? But honestly? I still have as needed mobility aid to help me get around so I don’t get too tired and over exert myself. I have to stay hydrated or else my symptoms will kill Me. If I skip a meal? Oh yeah I’m done for. I take steroids to keep my blood pressure up. I take these steroids once in the morning and once before any strenuous activities. I was on heart medication for a time. There is no cure for this. It’s an entire lifestyle change. Everything is affected, your nervous system, your brain, your blood, skin, anything you can think of, there is a POTS symptom for.

Like this disease genuinely ruined my life and I had restart from scratch. I have only recently been okay and starting to do more. But i still have bad days.

This isn’t just some random fainting thing that is really cute. And honestly it does make me angry to see it wrongly portrayed in media. Because this genuinely upheaved my life and I had to quit a lot of stuff so I could be healthy. If you’re going to write a character with POTS. Do your research, know how this actually affects people. Because it’s not some silly little disease that people can use to just.. create a good whumpy scenario.

It’s a fucking struggle and I hate having it. I’ve had to shape my life around it. It’s not just fainting. It’s feeling like your body is going implode, feeling like you might die. Pardon sounding like a dick, but if you’re going to write a character with POTS do it right.

Sorry this is a rant and I might lose some followers for it. I just.. it’s something I feel passionate about. And it’s something that has genuinely affected my quality of life.

If you have questions or want to know more. Feel free to ask. But don’t talk to me if you’re just going to argue or berate me for anything I’ve said here. Thanks.

[rollerska8er]

the importance of basic fact-checking

it's kind of crazy how doing research to learn if something is bullshit or not is not, like, a thing most people do as a matter of course?

for example, let's say someone says "did you know that in the medieval era, people used to sleep for a few hours, get up and do things for an hour, then go back to sleep?"

now, you might say "wow, that's really interesting!" and you might tell your friends about this cool fact.

but this factoid, if it is untrue, might give someone a distorted view of history, and of sleep. it might make them think that perhaps people in the medieval era were healthier because of this sleeping pattern.

so, you google it. or you duckduckgo it. whatever.

and your searching may take you to the Wikipedia article for polyphasic sleep. and this Wikipedia article contains a section dedicated specifically to this topic.

you may learn that this idea that people in medieval times slept in two phases is in fact a theory put forth by the historian A. Roger Ekirch, which suggests, based on 500 historical references, that this biphasic sleeping pattern truly existed, though it is as yet unconfirmed - until the nineteenth century and the advent of electric lighting, he suggests, these two distinct sleeps a night were common.

what you may also learn, is that Ekirch also believes that the way we currently sleep is actually way healthier for us, and believes that it contributes to our longevity.

and of course, we must not forget that Ekirch is a historian, not a scientist, much less a somnologist, and while his theory is interesting, it is not actually a medical prescription one way or another.

this is just one example - it is common to see people claim certain absolute facts about history or science, and extrapolate from that information some kernel of truth about how we ought to live our lives, how we ought to live in accordance with "our nature" (which is, in fact, mutable).

scepticism is something you have to practice at. you have to get a nose for sniffing out bullshit. you need to learn how to engage with novel information in a way that is not credulous, but questioning it. i am not saying question everything - that way lieth conspiracy theories - but i am saying that before you uncritically believe a claim about the world, you have a personal responsibility to read further into it.

and if you don't have time to do that, then you shouldn't believe everything you read, and you certainly shouldn't spread misinformation.

in our modern world it is easy to instantly share information without running background checks on it first. this is a major drawback of "reblogging" and "retweeting". so, the next time you see something like this, look into it.

remember that there is no Santa Claus. and the world is no less beautiful for his absence.

[ramblings-of-lola]

Hi. I'm a twin and I hate when authors write twins inaccurately or people make incorrect assumptions about us, so I made this post.

We are two different people. Do not assume twins are clones of each other. We have different interests and styles, despite having a lot in common.

We also have physical subtle differences. I am a different height than my twin and our face shapes are slightly different.

We cannot feel each others pain and we cannot read each other's minds. I also do not know where she is all the time. I do not have a GPS built in my head specifically to pinpoint where she is at all times. Yes, we have a very deep emotional connection and bond but we do not have super powers.

We do not know what the other is going to say. Occasionally, we accidentally say the same thing at the same time, but we cannot predict what the other will say.

We do not fit into the stupid boxes you want to put us in. There is no "good" or "evil" twin. There is no "smarter" twin. Do not compare twins in this way, it creates self-esteem issues (coming from the twin who was put into the "evil" and "less smart" boxes). Because I was constantly compared to and pitted against my twin, I feel like everything in my life will never measure up because she's "better than me".

We are not always attached at the hip. We can exist outside of each other. Just because I am not with my twin, does not mean there is a crisis or something is wrong. I just did not want to go to the event and she did. The first question out of your mouth when you see my sister without me, or visa versa, should not be "where is your twin?". Ask how the one in front of you is doing first. See them as an individual and not a half of a whole.

TLDR: Twins are two separate people and more authors and people need to understand this.

[randomtheidiot]

Friendly reminder that

-Loki is not a god of fire. That would be Logi, who faces off against Loki in an eating competition, so there’s no way it’s just a typo. They are separate beings who met once.

-In Wagner’s Ring Cycle, Loki and Logi were combined to make a sort of franken-god called Loge, who had the powers of Logi and the personality of Loki. Wagner’s Ring Cycle is not real Norse mythology. It is a fanfic made by some German opera geek.

-Logi is married to Glöð (often transliterated as “Glut”) and Loki is married to Sigyn, with the specifics of Angrboða’s relationship with him being unclear outside of “they had sex once”.

-Loki has never canonically met Glöð, nor has he ever had any connection to fire as an elemental power. He might be a hearth god, though, but it isn’t quite certain.

Stop listing Loki as a fire god and stop saying that he has Glöð as a side-hoe. Neither of those things are true.

[janmisali]

and you know what here's a language related one

[geraskierfanficprompts]

Prompt 41

A mage (yes I know I love making mage villains of the week, but if they didn't want me to make them all the time, they shouldn't be so fun and full of opportunities) puts a spell on Geralt while he's on a hunt. He can only speak lies / the complete opposite of what he feels or means to say, and the only way to break the spell is to reveal his darkest secret. This is all well and good and easily fixable, presumably. The best part is Jaskier has caught on near immediately to what the curse is, and is able to translate all of Geralt's lies and antonyms. "I don't need more supplies for potions." "We'll go looking for a greenhouse or whatever you need, then." "I hate this song." "Why thank you, Geralt! How lovely to know that opinion is a lie!" "Can I braid your hair again?" "Never." "Perfect!~" Except for the times he pretends to forget the curse's existence. "Feed Roach all the apples you want." "Oh, I shall! Thank you for the permission!" He did not give permission. Geralt just deals with the curse for a month or two, before being fed up and deciding to just trust the mage's so-called cure for the curse, and says his darkest secret. That he's in love with Jaskier. However, he's neglected to find a way to explain the cure to Jaskier, and now Jaskier just assumes he's heard another lie / complete opposite. Jaskier is heartbroken, assuming Geralt must dislike him at the least, and hate him at the worst, and suddenly all those teasing comments over the years are seen in a new worrying light. I mean, Geralt, cursed to say the exact opposite of what he means telling Jaskier that he loves him? Jaskier races away from their shared room and gets absolutely wasted in a tavern all the way across town. Geralt paces and panics alone in their shared room for a few hours before going and returning his bard back home. He now has to spend the entire night internally-writing and rehearsing his big explanation speech and apologize to his bard for the miscommunication.

[secretly-larry-daley]

BOOK OF BILL SPOILERS DOWN BELOW!

I just felt like I needed to get this out.

I don’t want to come off a rude or anything, but I believe there’s a common misconception about something stated in the book of bill. Or at least, so I believe?

It’s this page right here

People are stating that this is the only timeline that they survived. Which, when you read the book, is what you can take away here. But we have to remember this is Bill speaking. Of course he would only care about the timelines where they got slaughtered or killed. Its Bill. Mr. IHaveASuspiousAmountOfDeerTeethAndAlmostKilledAnEntireTown Cipher. So I believe there might be more timelines where they survived? Because as he said, there’s an infinite amount where they didn’t survive. So it can’t be hard to infer that are timelines that they did. Because timelines are infinite. Bill is just being pissy about it.