#neither you nor the people you identify with can ever be validated this way

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

The Touring Data account on Twitter has posted updated numbers for Louis’ shows in Latin America, and it has caused a bit of fandom drama because the attendance was lower than expected. Some fans claim that the figures for the Mexico City show are wrong and the concert was attended by 67,000 people and that this has been confirmed by Louis’ team. I’m pretty sceptical about this claim because I haven’t seen any evidence of this apart from a few newspaper articles, and they seem to have relied on info from Louis fan update accounts. The Touring Data account itself also tends to be reliable because it just reports numbers from Pollstar.

Do you have any thoughts on this or about the figures in general? I’m no expert on touring but it seems to me like Louis’ team might have overestimated the size of the venues needed for some of the shows. But maybe it just makes more sense economically to play one show in a big venue rather than two shows in a smaller venue?

https://x.com/touringdata/status/1831090091294617979

I'm very glad that this sort of fandom drama only gets to me through anons. I really appreciate that you've explained so fully what's going on and linked to sources, because otherwise I'd be super lost.

My main thought is that current fandom treats worrying about this sort of thing as standard fandom practice. And it's not, or it doesn't have to be. I think its main function is to make fandom a more anxious experience - and I would strongly advocate for people turning their fandom towards the bits that bring them joy.

What that means is not talking about the data directly, but instead talking about the meta question of the meaning people are giving to the data. (If I was going to talk about the data directly it would be giving it meaning by comparing to what we knew about ticket sales at his last Latin American tour, but I don't care enough to try and do that).

I can come up with two explanations for why fans might give the questions of how many tickets are sold at a local venue so much weight - one is basically economics and the other is very fucked up ideas about validity.

There are two reason that you might be concerned about economics - one is concern for the artist (which I think it's good practice to try and not being too concerned about artist's financial position. They're wealthy and they're making money off other people's labour. If you want to be concerned about the finances of anyone involved, be concerned about the finances of people who make merch), and other is concern for whether or not they'll come back.

The problem is that fandom discussion is based on a complete lack of curiosity (that crosses over into willful ignorance) about how touring works. From the way fandom talked about it, you'd think an artist and their team selected and booked the venues in each case - took on all of the risk and got all of the reward. But that's only true of independent tours and most tours aren't independent. Promoters often offer a guarantee (that's the minimum an artist is paid) and a bonus for a sell-out - and what happens to the amounts in between is up for negotiation. The artist meets all of their touring expenses out of their cut (so that's transport and people and equipment that travels). So the economics of a tour can really vary. Some tours are budgeted around selling-out - others aren't. What will make a tour work for both an artist and a promoter is mostly completely opaque to the public.

It's possible that the promoter pitched larger venues than was wise - there have been indications that that's been happening since the first wave of post-pandemic concert enthusiasm. But it's just as possible that the promoter owned these venues and it was better to have an act in them than not. We certainly don't know from these figures that Louis' tour underperformed expectations, or who is carrying the cost of it is unknown.

According to that data, Louis sold around 130,000 tickets in South America (back of the envelope adding to the near 1000 - may be a bit off). If he'd sold double that it would have made him more likely to come back, or play more venues. But I don't think there's any reason to panic. Lots of artists come to New Zealand, don't sell out their venue and come back. And currency strength has a lot to do with who does and doesn't come here.

There could be a lot of good conversation on the levels venues sell at where fans talked about their own experiences. Not just the question of will they come to me (although that's very pertinent to me). But what sort of venues would you like to see an artist in? Might ticket prices go down? But that's never the tone of the conversation.

Instead an assumption in all this is that validity is scarce and measurable. I think it's really important to say that this is not true. It matters to some business people whether an artist sold 60,000 tickets or 30,000. But it doesn't really matter to anyone else.

And buying into a worldview that it does matter, will only harm fans mental health.

[redtail-lol]

"Critinclus accepts x and y" no it doesn't ur fundamentally misunderstanding the term critinclus

Critinclus doesn't have a strict set of beliefs. It doesn't have any set of identities that it does and doesn't accept. Critinclus people define their own level of inclusion.

Critinclus simply means that you accept people, regardless of how they identify, but you wish to understand why they identify that way before fully accepting them. This is different from an exclusionist, because exclusionists are reactionary. If they don't understand from just the name, they would rather go "wow that's fake" than bother asking. Critinclus assumes the people mean to use their labels in good faith and seeks understanding to determine if an identity really is in good faith. Exclusionists also believe all queer identities have strict rules, or queerness itself has strict rules, while a critinclus accepts and acknowledges that the "rules" are very flexible and that definitions are moreso guides, with outliers in every label, and they simply want to understand the outliers they encounter and know what makes them feel compelled to identify with something they don't "technically" fit under. It is also different from radinclus because radinclus often implies "you're valid because everyone has a right to self identify however they wish!" Which is a good sentiment, and I could see myself being fully radinclus, but to a degree I want to understand why you might feel like a lesbian as a binary monogender trans men (note, I already had my own epiphany about this and don't need it explained, I know now, it's just an example) or why someone would identify their gender as being related closer to animals than femininity or masculinity (I also already learned about this it's just an example) but unlike an exclusionist I wouldn't be reactionary and simply call them invalid because it doesn't make sense on the surface. Instead I would ask, "I don't think I understand, could you please explain it to me?" If they didn't want to explain, I would respect that and respect their identity, but I'd still try and ask similar people why they identify that way to try and understand the first person better.

Warning. This next section starts relevant then I go on a tangent and lose my train of thought. You might waste your time.

Also, when it comes to asking questions, exclus can also ask questions but they're done differently than critinclus. When it comes to good vs bad faith, critinclus ask good faith questions, and exclus ask them in bad faith. Since it's something my sister constantly brings up, let's say there's a critinclus who doesn't understand non-binary people vs an exclus who doesn't get it. The critinclus would ask, "I have heard a lot about nonbinary people, but I'm not quite sure I understand it. Do you think you could explain to me what it means to be neither a man nor a woman? How do you know if you're nonbinary?" The exclus would ask, "I have heard a lot about nonbinary people but I don't think it makes any sense. I don't understand any of it. You can't be- how can you not be a man or a woman? That's not real!" Exclus don't really want to understand, they just ask questions for rhetorical reasons and are meant to make you feel interrogated, under pressure, and leave you unable or unwilling to answer their questions. Critinclus make it clear they want to learn and are willing to accept any answers. Exclus also tend to make it clear what their stance is when they ask, and won't actually care what you say. If a critinclus asked me about my enby identity, I'd say "well, ever since I knew about nonbinary people and the possibility to be something other than a man or a woman, I always felt some connection to the concept. It was always something that resonated with me. But I didn't identify with it for a really long time because I was still a girl and didn't want to give up being a girl. I did know about multigender people but because I'm bigendermeld, I didn't think I was multigender. I briefly identified as a demigirl because of the connection but I am actually a hypergirl and stopped identifying with it when I argued with a gender abolitionist and felt such a strong connection to my girlhood. When I realized I could be nonbinary and still be a girl, I finally felt like I had figured everything out. It resonated with me so much and I'm so happy to know. My gender in particular feels like it's not masculine nor is it feminine, it's completely disconnected, but yet it's not nothing. It's a gender of it's own right. That's why I personally identify as aporagender or aporine, with nonbinary as an umbrella term. Thanks for asking." However, I don't really answer my sister because I know she doesn't want to understand. She wants to lecture me, argue, and convince me nonbinary people aren't real.

I feel like I've gone off topic by now ok bye bye

[burning-bubble-tea]

Just saw a vent vent art post about a trans guy saying he doesn’t like the term trans masc for honestly understandable reasons but I’m sorta over this sorta mentality of “oh if you’re against the gender binary why are queer people making a new one” cause I think that’s a interpretation that doesn’t always hold true.

As someone who does use the term trans fem, it’s not because I lump in trans women with non binary people, this isn’t some woman 2 shit that this person is perceiving, but when I use terms like trans masc and trans fem it allows space for those in the inbetween. Does it suck that we need a label to validate our experiences? Maybe but language is about communication and being able to communicate to someone that I view myself as someone who has transitioned to a more feminine aspect while not fully identifying as a trans woman gives me some room to exist while minimizing gate keeping.

Like some non binary people are non binary in ways not because they are agender, but because they inhabit multiple.

I really do understand where they are coming from and I do get why they don’t like the term but language is ever evolving and time will tell if terms like trans masc and trans fem fall out of fashion.

Also the social construction of gender I personally am fine with the idea that there can be masculinity and femininity. Like I agree with the person saying that it is unfortunate that transmasc and transfem as a label do depend on which gender you were assigned at birth but language is complicated and no word is perfect but in my idea of the deconstruction of the gender binary, there can still be things that are masculine and feminine but it shouldn’t be viewed as a positive or negative nor should it be strictly stuck as one.

I think anything can be masculine feminine or neither or both depending on the context.

The destruction of the gender binary for me is the understanding that gender is a social construct and there for can be understood and changed. It’s not women wear pink and men wear blue, it’s the understanding that it’s a social construction and therefore shouldn’t determinate how we treat others.

But besides all this pseudo intellectual bullshit I’m spewing the main thing that frustrates me about this post is I do feel comfortable calling myself trans fem and seeing another queer person say they hate those terms kinda sucks.

Like I use those terms not because I lack the imagination for a world beyond the gender binary like the post insinuates the usage of trans masc and trans fem implies, but because I don’t really vibe with the label non binary, it’s an umbrella term I’m technically under but a lot of my experiences over lap with a lot of trans women in my life. Also unfortunately we live in a world with a gender binary and thus we do need language to navigate and communicate it and unfortunately we do have to build on the foundations that are already there.

Like would I benefit from a world this vent art is imagining? Yes I could probably just call myself a trans woman and be done with it but unfortunately we don’t live in that world, so trans fem helps me exist without taking up space and spotlight on others.

But yeah, this stuff mainly just boils down to “hey that’s my label and it’s hard to not take it personally when I’ve attached a lot of emotions to the label you’re saying is bad” and I know I’m not a bad person because frustrated and tired trans man on Instagram made vent art but hey, you posted it publicly and though you turned off comments, it’s in my brain now.

Like I dunno, saying people lack imagination for using terms like trans masc and fem and saying it’s too convenient seems kinda insulting. And also if you are all about abolishing gender then we also wouldn’t use terms like man or woman and like I’m more of a live and let live when it comes to labels.

Like trans masc and trans fem are convenient terms and I’m not sorry for using them, I don’t lack imagination using it, it’s just that I understand I live in a world with social constructions and language and no one will understand me if I makeup a word without having descriptors and unfortunately or not, trans fem is the best word I’ve got to describe my gender identity.

Yeah so I get where he is coming from but sometimes you have to deal with clumsily language as we stumble forward towards queer liberation. I’m not saying you have to shut up, but I am saying you can silently not like something.

[colorado-addiction-treatment]

HOW TO TALK TO YOUR PARTNER ABOUT WATCHING PORN

If you feel your partner slipping away from you physically or acting differently around you intimately, they might be cheating. But what if they weren’t going out and committing the act physically but rather viewing it? Whether it’s your partner’s first time watching porn or addiction has blossomed, it is crucial to understand how men become addicted and how it affects their life and yours. It may be time to talk to your partner about watching porn.

Why Do Men Watch Porn?

Living in a digital age where everything is readily available at your fingertips, it is no surprise that porn addiction and viewership have increased. Porn has even begun to trickle its way onto social media platforms. An estimated 91.5% of men consume pornography, and Christian men aren’t exempt.

But while most men watch pornography, it’s not safe, said Matt Wenger, Clinical Director at Boulder Recovery. He said it should be avoided at all costs, whether a person is Christian or not.

“Studies have repeatedly shown that porn is not safe for empathic and frontal lobe development, regardless of one’s moral view,” he said.

The consequence of chronic porn use is neurological rewiring that results in viewing intimacy as purely sexual behavior and vice versa, Matt said. 

“As a result, we lose the ability to be truly intimate,” he said. “We lose connection with ourselves and others. We lose connection with God as his image bearers.”

Matt said viewing pornography also tricks the brain into thinking that what a person wants out of porn is purely sexual. 

“When in reality, we are now going to porn for a form of (false) intimacy and hoping to get the fruits of it in fullness — peace, comfort, safety, worth, validation, affirmation, etc.,” he said. “But neither porn nor sex can provide these things. They are only found in authentic, vulnerable, and emotional relationships with God and others.” 

Understanding Why Porn is Difficult to Discuss

Sex and porn are taboo topics, and discussing them may be difficult for you and your partner. Your partner may feel caught off guard or embarrassed by their actions. They might even go as far as denying it ever happened. Regardless, it’s vital to understand why viewing porn is difficult to discuss.

Reasons viewing porn is difficult to discuss include:

Acts the person thought were secret are exposed 

Fear of being judged or abandoned

Acknowledging sinful behavior is challenging

Vulnerability requires trust

Preparing to Talk to Your Partner

Creating a safe space and using strategies like open discussions and active listening can help everyone involved in the conversation feel more at ease. Seek resources online that may help you prepare for the discussion or give you facts to support your case. Think about how it makes you feel and how you can express that thoroughly. 

Ways to prepare to talk to your partner about watching porn include:

Do Research. Understand how common porn viewership is, yet how bad it is for people. Also, understand precisely why porn goes against your beliefs.

Reflect on Your Feelings. Be clear about how your partner’s porn viewership makes you feel and what you want to express to them about those feelings.

Know Your Expectations. How do you expect your partner to respond to the conversation? What are your expectations of the conversation?

Identify Outcomes. What do you want as a result of the conversation? Do you want your husband to apologize? Do you want him to never watch porn again? How do you want the two of you to be able to resolve this issue?

Once you know what you expect from the conversation and feel prepared about what you need to communicate, it’s time to talk to your partner about watching porn.

Tips for communicating about porn:

Find the Right Time and Place. This conversation is important to your relationship. Don’t have it on the way to work or via telephone. Set aside time when you can talk face-to-face for as long as necessary.

Have a Calm Conversation. Yelling and accusations are unlikely to result in any positive outcome. Being prepared with what you want to say will help you remain calm, even if your partner initially denies watching porn.

Ask Open-Ended Questions. A conversation means both parties are involved. It’s not just one of you hurling accusations. Ask your partner questions and listen to the answers.

Understand that Agreement May Take Time. It’s possible that your partner doesn’t think what they did was wrong. It’s vital for them to understand how their action impacts you. Continue the conversation until you agree on next steps.

The most important thing is to be honest with your partner. Truth is the foundation of intimacy and vital to your continued relationship. So, if you’re the partner who viewed porn, admit it.

“If porn use has occurred, first tell your spouse and do your best to sit with them in their hurt and anger,” Matt said. “Then take accountability and do not blame them in any way for your choices.”

Repentance is key after viewing pornography, Matt said. 

“Repentance is the Biblical idea of not just expressing remorse but a turning away from something toward something else,” he said. “It isn’t enough to say sorry and to try to stop doing the thing. Addiction research bears this out as well. Purely trying to stop something is never enough.”

What Kind of Help is Available for Christians?

If you think your partner has a pornography addiction, it’s probably best for them to seek help. A porn addiction won’t go away on its own and is probably indicative of a larger mental health issue. And they likely can’t stop on their own. Matt said:

“Many people battling with habitual or compulsive porn use spend their energy on stopping themselves from using. With well-intentioned vigor and intensity, they create accountability systems, download blocking and monitoring software, and eliminate opportunities to act out. None of this is bad. It is just rarely successful on its own.”

Boulder Recovery Can Help

Boulder Recovery is dedicated to helping men recover from sex and pornography addictions through our 14-Day Christian Men’s Intensive. The program jump starts recovery in a faith-based environment. We also provide a Partner Support Program to help wives dealing with their husband’s addiction. We help them navigate their trauma, feelings of betrayal, anger, fear, and shame. Contact Boulder Recovery together and start the healing journey for you and your relationship.

Source: https://beginagaininstitute.com/christian/how-to-talk-to-your-partner-about-watching-porn/

[mishafletcher]

Are you a Gold Star lesbian? (Just in case you don't know what it means, a Gold Star lesbian is a lesbian that has never had the sex with a guy and would never have any intentions of ever doing so)

So I got this ask a while ago, and I've been lowkey thinking about it ever since.

First: No. I am a queer, cranky dyke who is too old for this sort of bullshit gatekeeping. 

Second: What an unbelievable question to ask someone you don't even know! What an incomprehensibly rude thing to ask, as if you're somehow owed information about my sexual history. You're not! No one—and I can't reiterate this enough, but no one—owes you the details of their sex lives, of their trauma, or of anything about themselves that they don't feel like sharing with you.

The clickbait mills of the internet and the purity police of social media would like nothing more than to convince everyone that you owe these things to everyone. They would like you to believe that you have to prove that you're traumatized enough to identify with this character, that you can't sell this article about campus rape without relating it to your own sexual assault, that you can't talk about queer issues without offering up a comprehensive history of your own experiences, and none of those things are true. You owe people, and especially random strangers on the internet, nothing, least of all citations to somehow prove to them that you have the right to talk about your own life.

This makes some people uncomfortable, and to be clear, I think that that's good: people who feel entitled to demand this information should be uncomfortable. Refusing to justify yourself takes power away from people who would very much like to have it, people who would like to gatekeep and dictate who is permitted to speak about what topics or like what things. You don't have to justify yourself. You don't have to explain that you like this ship because this one character reminds you a bit of yourself because you were traumatized in a vaguely similar way and now— You don't have to justify your queerness by telling people about the best friend you had when you were twelve, and how you kissed, and she laughed and said it was good practice for when she would kiss boys and your stomach twisted and your mouth tasted like bile and she was the first and last girl you kissed, but— 

You don't owe anyone these pieces of yourself. They're yours, and you can share them or not, but if someone demands that you share, they're probably not someone you should trust.

Third: The idea of gold star lesbians is a profoundly bi- and trans- phobic idea, often reducing gender to genitals and the long, shared history of queer women of all identities to a stark, artificial divide where some identities are seen as purer or more valuable than others. This is bullshit on all counts.

There's a weird and largely artificial division between bisexuals and lesbians that seems to be intensifying on tumblr, and I have to say: I hate it. Bisexual women aren't failed lesbians. They're not somehow less good or less valid because they're attracted to [checks notes] people. Do you think that having sex with a man somehow changes them? What are you so worried about it for? I've checked, and having sex with a man does not, in fact, make your vagina grow teeth or tentacles. Does that make you feel better? Why is what other people are doing so threatening to you?

Discussions of gold star lesbians are often filled with tittering about hehe penises, which is unfortunate, since I know a fair few lesbians who have penises, and even more lesbians who've had sex with people, men and women alike, who have penises. I'm sorry to report that "I'm disgusted by a standard-issue human body part" is neither a personality nor anything to be proud of. I'm a dyke and I don't especially like men, but dicks are just dicks. You don't have to be interested in them, but a lot of people have them, and it doesn't make you less of a lesbian to have sex with someone who has a dick.

There's so much garbage happening in the world—maybe you haven't noticed, but things are kind of Not Great in a lot of places, and there's a whole pandemic thing that's been sort of a major buzzkill? How is this something that you're worried about? Make a tea, remind yourself that other people's genitalia and sexual history are none of your business, maybe go watch a video about a cute animal or something. 

Fourth: The idea of gold star lesbians is a shitty premise that argues that sexuality is better if it's always been clear-cut and straightforward—but it rarely is. We live in a very, very heterosexist culture. I didn’t have a word for lesbian until many years after I knew that I was one. How can you say that you are something when your mouth can’t even make the shape of it? The person you are at 24 is different to the person you are at 14, and 34, and 74. You change. You get braver. The world gets wider. You learn to see possibilities in the shadows you used to overlook. Of course people learn more about themselves as they age.

Also, many of us, especially those of us who grew up in smaller towns, or who are over the age of, say, 25, grew up in times and places where our sexuality was literally criminal.

Shortly after I graduated high school, a gay man in my state was sentenced to six months in jail. Why? Well, he’d hit on someone, and it was a misdemeanor to "solicit homosexual or lesbian activity", which included expressing romantic or sexual interest in someone who didn’t reciprocate. You might think, then, that I am in fact quite old, but you would be mistaken. The conviction was in 1999; it was overturned in 2002.

I grew up knowing this: the wrong thing said to the wrong person would be sufficient reason to charge me with a crime.

In the United States, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, clarifying that according to the federal government, marriage could only ever be between one man and one woman. It also promised that even if a state were to legalize same-sex unions, other states wouldn't have to recognize them if they didn't want to. And wow, they super did not want to, because between 1998 and 2012, a whopping thirty states had approved some sort of amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Every queer person who's older than about 25 watched this, knowing that this was aimed at people like them. Knowing that these votes were cast by their friends and their families and their teachers and their employers. 

Some states were worse than others. Ohio passed their bill in 2004 with 62% approval. Mississippi passed theirs the same year with 86% approval. Imagine sitting in a classroom, or at work, or in a church, or at a family dinner, and knowing that statistically, at least two out of every three people in that room felt you shouldn't be allowed to marry someone you loved.

Matthew Shepard was tortured to death in October of 1998. For being gay, for (maybe) hitting on one of the men who had planned to merely rob him. Instead, he was tortured and left to die, tied to a barbed wire fence. His murderers were both sentenced to two consecutive life terms in prison. This was controversial, because a nonzero number of people felt that Shepard had brought it upon himself.

Many of us sat at dinner tables and listened to this discussion, one that told us, over and over, that we were fundamentally wrong, fundamentally undeserving of love or sympathy or of life itself.

This is a tiny, tiny sliver of history—a staggeringly incomplete overview of what happened in the US over about ten years. Even if this tiny sliver is all that there were, looking at this, how could you blame someone for wanting to try being not Like This? How can you fault someone who had sex, maybe even had a bunch of sex, hoping desperately that maybe they could be normal enough to be loved if they just tried harder? How can you say that someone who found themself an uninteresting but inoffensive boyfriend and went on dates and had sex and said that it was fine is somehow less valuable or less queer or less of a lesbian for doing so? For many people, even now, passing as straight, as problematic as that term is, is a survival skill. How dare you imply that the things that someone did to protect themself make them worth less? They survived, and that's worth literally everything.

Fifth, finally: What is a gold star, anyhow? You've capitalized it, like it's Weighty and Important, but it's not. Gold stars were what your most generous grade school teacher put on spelling tests that you did really well on. But ultimately, gold stars are just shiny scraps of paper. They don't have any inherent value: I can buy a thousand of them for five bucks and have them at my door tomorrow. They have only the meaning that we give them, only the importance that we give them. We’re not children desperately scrabbling for a teacher’s approval anymore, though. We understand that good and bad are more of a spectrum than a binary, and that a gold star is a simplification. We understand that no number of gold stars will make us feel like we’re special enough or good enough or important enough, or fix the broken places we can still feel inside ourselves. Only we can do that.

The stars are only shiny scraps of paper. They offer us nothing; we don’t need them. I hope that someday, you see that, too. 

[qweerhet]

i am extremely tired of trying to start conversations critiquing the institution of monogamy, particularly from an anarchist perspective, only to be piled with dozens to hundreds of replies about personal autonomy and how we shouldn't shame individuals for desiring monogamy.

this is exactly like people whose response to someone critiquing the institution of transphobia was to argue that there's nothing wrong with an individual not dating trans people, and nobody should ever be forced to date trans people.

like, you're just derailing! nobody ever said there was anything wrong with personal autonomy! you don't have to ever date a trans person or be attracted to us, but that doesn't mean you get to shut down conversations about how society views trans people and discourages us from being seen as inherently human, much less potential partners, nor does it excuse you from examining why you don't want to date trans people and the institutions that uphold transphobia and teach us interpersonal ways of relating based in transphobia.

you don't ever have to have a nonmonogamous relationship or identify as poly, but that doesn't mean you get to shut down conversations about the inherent power structure of monogamy and the societal effects of monogamy with interjections about personal liberty. you can want monogamy and still examine the way monogamy functions in society, the power structures it creates, and places your desire for monogamy may be stemming from the ways society enforces monogamy on the population.

and rhetoric that focuses on how "monogamy and polyamory are equal relationship choices and neither deserve criticism" aren't valid until monogamy is no longer an oppressive force in society that mandates nuclear family style cohabitation, prevents communal child rearing, enforces amatonormativity among the general population, socially upholds the patriarchal "ownership of partner as property" origins of marriage, and is codified in law as the only socially acceptable form of partnership. everyone can make whatever relationship choices they want individually, but critiquing the state's enforcement of an oppressive institution and how that institution reproduces itself socially is not the same as critiquing someone's individual relationship choice.

[toon-topaz]

As someone who identifies as a low empathy autistic, maybe I can weigh in a little. To be clear, I am not a professional nor do I have a formal education in psychology, so all of this is anecdotal and my own personal experience. To answer anon's question in short, yes. I do tend to feel more empathy towards certain people than others, and for me, it's based mostly in how closely I can personally relate to their situation. If another autistic person is, say, having a meltdown, I find it much easier to empathize with that than if someone is upset over not having a romantic partner for example (as I'm aromantic and don't have any similar feelings to pull from). This doesn't mean I don't care about someone I can't fully empathize with, I can feel sympathy or compassion (though neither of these are mandatory to being a "good person" either) to a situation if someone expresses their emotions to me in a way I can understand. I just have little intuitive understanding of others' emotions without relying on guesswork or them straight up telling me. If anything I empathize with inanimate objects more than people sometimes, maybe because they're like vessels to project onto and don't have feelings of their own? That's my best guess anyway. So yeah, there's my best attempt at explaining how I experience low empathy. But whether you feel all the empathy or absolutely none at all ever, you're valid and worthy. After all, our feelings aren't what make us good people, but we can choose to act in a way that's kind and respectful.

Is it possible for an autistic person to feel empathy towards a specific person/group of people but not towards others?

Hi there,

There’s always been a stigma that autistic people don’t feel/have empathy. As an empathetic autistic, I can’t say that this isn’t true. Some of us can be empathetic. Even if it’s just for one person or a group. Empathy simply means you can understand why someone feels sad, happy, angry, ect.

To any of my neurodivergent friends, if you struggle with empathy, it does NOT make you a bad person. You just have trouble understanding why people feel the way they feel. And that’s okay.

I hope this helps answer your question. Thank you for the inbox. I hope you have a wonderful day/night. ♥️

[cheekbites-moved]

People really need to learn that queer coding and subtext does not mean queerbait. It’s basically what authors have to use when they cannot be blatant about it but want to have it in there. That doesn’t make it any less true just because they’re not looking straight into the camera and saying every little minute detail.

i agree with you fullheartedly. especially emphasizing that sometimes coding or subtext is all a creator can get away with, and their efforts to give us the best representation they can within that does not deserve to be belittled or undermined.

however, what makes vnc a particularly infuriating case is that it's not even coding or subtext.

i guess for vanoe specifically you could argue that vanitas is currently only bi-coded, not explicitly bisexual & noe is gay-coded, not explicitly gay.

but, again, when the series has multiple canon lgbt characters already, it's not baiting anyone for having a gay couple that's currently only romantically coded. especially since the series is not over yet. trying to declare it as bait when we're not even 60 chapters in, & will probably end up with 100+ by the end, is bullshit all by itself, honestly.

and there's other shit i didn't even mention in that post!

we have an on-screen f/f kiss with chloe and faustina. and while the circumstances around that kiss are obviously not good, nor are they meant to be taken as good/romanticized, the fact that we got a f/f kiss in the manga (and anime!) at all is still nothing to sneeze at!

louis is universally accepted as noe's first love in the fandom for a reason. the feelings in the manga are quite tangible, even without any sort of confession or declaration.

and vanoe's flirting is just. like. SO blatant. the amount of times they've blushed at each other, and said shit to each other that's more romantic than a blunt love confession could ever be is nearly absurd (in a good way, of course), especially when we aren't that far into the manga's run, all things considered.

vnc just doesn't use any specific terms. nobody's screaming "im gay!!", but we have multiple instances of characters of the same gender blatantly flirting with each other.

& luna didn't say "im trans!"/"im non-binary!", but they did specifically say that they're neither female nor male, so, like... enough to be trans by definition (the definition of transgender simply being not identifying with your assigned gender, btw. if anyone was unaware).

we're not always gonna get a character directly declaring what their specific representation is, but that doesn't mean that representation doesn't exist or isn't valid.

bottom line...

people just need to stop throwing specific terms around. period. especially terms meant to describe a form of oppression. it takes away from these issues when they are actually happening, and makes the fight to get actual cases of it eradicated that much harder. it has to stop.

[androgynepositivity]

Also, before I forget. I wanted to make a post about detransition(ed/ing?) folks. Sorry if I'm using the wrong terminology or tense of the word.

To be absolutely clear, people who have, are, or are considering detransitioning (or who are currently living as a trans identity and considering changing again), you have my support just as much as people who are considering transitioning do.

And more people within the trans community need to stop demonizing, gaslighting, and going after these people as if they are our enemies. They are still a part of our community, whether they detransition or not. There is a reason that there are detransitioned people who leave our community and take their stories to transphobic and hateful groups that want to use their pain to further fuel the ongoing suffering of the trans and queer communities.

Deciding to "go back", or to detransition, is just as valid a decision a person can make as transitioning in the first place. Sometimes people change their minds. Or sometimes people live as trans for a time, and decide, "I'm no longer trans. I feel that I am now another gender." That is their right, and they should not be vilified for this by anyone.

I think that people who decide to detransition should think on it just as much as people who want to transition do. I think it should be a choice one makes for themself, and for no one or no thing outside themself, other than maybe their immediate safety. But choosing to detransition is fine. It does not make someone no longer our community member, unless they decide to leave on their own. We can and should still love them and support them in their journey, just as we would hope cis people or any other group of people would support us when we forge our way into the world as trans people.

I do not know what it's like to be a detransitioned person, and I won't ever claim to. But I imagine it must be hard. It must be scary and embarrassing, and expensive in many cases. I imagine it must feel like loss. It must feel like shame. But it doesn't have to. And you don't have to feel betrayed by trans people. There are those of us who want to support you and help you even as you go the other way. You are still our sibling. And it's okay to want to change, and change back. That in itself is the very nature of gender, no matter how you identify.

Change in any healthy direction, if it is what you wish for and manifest within yourself, is not a betrayal. It is renewal. And this pride season, trans and queer friends, be kind.

And to the members of the detransition community who have made it their choice to use their experience as a weapon against the trans community, we don't have to be enemies. You don't have to do this. Your experience is not universal, nor is mine. Neither of us have anything to be ashamed of. We know who we are. Sometimes that changes. And that's okay.

[stopcannibalizingourown]

Hi! Just found your blog and I really like it. Idk if youve been asked this already but whats your opinion on using agab terms vs tme/tma terms? I personally like agab terms when discussing how people have been socialized but Ive heard some transfeminine people have valid problems with them being overused. Wanted to know your opinion on it. Thanks and have a nice day!

let’s just pretend I didn’t forget about this in my drafts for months, whoops

The short answer: I dislike both tme/tma and agab language.

I don’t really feel like getting into it at this time, so I’d like to direct you to @nothorses​ whose pinned post has a few takedowns of the terminology, as well as this post. Basically it’s a shitty dichotomy that was either coined or popularized for exclusionary purposes by a group of Lesbian Separatist Radical Transfeminists (and I don’t know if you know this, but I have immense disdain for separatist politics and for radical feminism, and slapping a “trans” onto it doesn’t make it any better lmao).

Now, as for agab language, it has specific contexts where it can be useful, such as medical contexts--though even then not everyone with the same assigned sex is going to have the same medical needs, even when it comes to reproductive organs, and that’s before you factor in hormonal transitioning and such. agab is not a surefire predictor for literally anything after the actual assignment itself, and it being used as such inevitably excludes people whose experiences don’t match up with the typical narrative.

And outside of those contexts? Yeah no it’s just not helpful. Like, to use socialization as an example, there’s no such thing as a coherent “afab socialization” or “amab socialization.”

To use my own life as an example, though I grew up in a patriarchal society like (to my knowledge) everyone from the US, my parents’ chosen family and thereby my extended family is closer to matriarchal than anything, which very much informed my understanding of gender growing up--a lot of traits that are associated with masculinity, such as directness or even abrasiveness, were exhibited primarily by the women I grew up around and looked up to, with the men being for the most part more mellow and nurturing by personality.

Or, as another example: as a kid, I was very much a wild child (outside the classroom where I was excessively obedient because I trusted authority figures), always energetic and outgoing--but also extremely cheerful, openly emotional, and friendly to basically everyone. At the age of eight, trauma Happened, and overnight I became introverted, depressed, emotionally repressed, bookish, and closed off. In either case, however, I was almost always read as a girl (until I hit puberty anyway) in spite of identifying as a boy because the way I acted conflicted with people’s understanding of what boys are.

And that’s the thing--what we’re socialized into is the entire system of binary gender, not just a single specific gender. Both what we understand the two binary genders to be as a result of our surroundings and how much we internalize the expectations for the gender we’re assumed to be are huge parts in how that socialization impacts our behavior. Not only that, but the behavior you learn in childhood does not necessarily determine your behavior as an adult. 

It will absolutely almost always affect it in unavoidable ways (it’s very unlikely I will ever not be impacted by my trauma), but just as I am neither the cocky, outgoing, unstoppable assumed-tomboy I was as a young child, nor the broody, depressed kid with a chronic inability to assert myself and my nose always buried in a book that I was during my later formative years, no one else is inherently defined by who they were taught and who they learned to be growing up.

This mostly turned into a tangent about socialization rather than about agab language in general, but I know some of my mutuals have written excellent posts about agab language as a whole, so feel free to drop those here lmao.

also P.S. I didn’t even get into how neurodivergence affects things but like. My autism absolutely informed my grasp of gender growing up and that’s common with many neurodivergences.

Edit: The other issue is, admittedly, the difficulty with replacement language—in spite of my disdain for it you'll occasionally see me using agab language myself. Idk things are complicated.

[cleoselene]

this infantlizing of the fandom is really condescending, OP, whether you mean it to be or not

this is entertainment.  not particularly high-brow entertainment at that.  I haven’t read the books, just a show fan, and if i were Alina I would choose neither Mal nor Aleks (Mal makes her feel endlessly insecure, it’s a really awful feeling if you’ve ever been in a relationship like this) and Aleks is dishonest and pretty murderous, and because this is FICTION, I can feel a more visceral hatred for Mal because I have been in so many relationships where I am made to feel lesser or not good enough and small, where the guy didn’t trust me (Mal repeatedly accuses her of lying to him in S1 with no real foundation for it, just his own insecurity) but have been in zero relationships where my hot boyfriend is immortal and created a fold that consumed souls.  Like, you get that it’s easy to relate to Alina’s relationship problems and not feel like I’m escaping anything in my real life.  Mal and Alina feel like SO many relationships I’ve had and seen other people have. Strung along for years, accused of lying, finally accepted after way too long.  And then when she literally SAVES HIS LIFE at great personal cost to herself, Mal is like, “idk gurl I don’t feel it anymore.”

Meanwhile Aleksander’s dying words are of pure adoration.

again. please remember that this is FICTION and people connecting to different things within the story doesn’t necessarily mean they are being manipulated by the narrative (seriously what a fucking CONDESCENDING THING TO SAY, do you enjoy judging people from your super high horse, OP?) or that they’re too stupid to identify a toxic relationship.  But avoiding a toxic relationship is for real life, my dudes, fiction is entertainment and sometimes it’s fun to live for the mess.

Honestly Alina’s best choice of men is Nikolai, he adores her and is a total hypeman for her power and her abilities, where Mal would rather she not have power at all.  But she doesn’t appear to be that into him but that matters first.

Some of us just really, really hate the trope of girl pines and pines and pines for a guy who doesn’t really seem to notice, only for him to suddenly feel burgeoning love when he realizes she’s hooking up with someone else.

I’m not going to sit here and JUDGE PEOPLE who ship Malina tho, we should all be willing to recognize that different things turn our crank and like, realize that someone else shipping a ship you don’t like does abaolustely ZERO harm to you.

As for Leigh Bardugo’s comments.. ever heard of the concept of the Death of the Author?  Authors are not god, nor are they infallible, and they are especially not immune to subsconsciously (or consciously) imbue the text with their own values, whether those are values the reader agrees to or not.  Tori Amos says that when she puts her songs into the world, they no longer belong to her, and all interpretations are valid if it gave the listener meaning.

fandom needs to be more like this.  get over it if people have other opinions and don’t act like people who ship something different are brainwashed cult members.  I promise, it’s not hard.

of course I hate darklina, but there's a certain beauty in people who ship them simply because of how it proves Leigh's point of his manipulation. how even though he's a murderer, predator, and so much worse, people still manage to think he deserves a relationship with Alina. that they should be together. the darkling's whole thing is his ability to manipulate people to empathize with him despite his wrongdoings and the fandom just proves that

[romo-aro-culture-is]

hi! how’re you, mod?

i’ve been questioning my identity a lot recently. i’m like,,, 70% sure that i’m aro, and it worries me. not necessarily because there’s something wrong with me being aro, but i just don’t want to be alone. i’ve broken off my last few relationships because it didn’t feel right and “what’s wrong with me, i should want this”. i’m worried about relationships all together, it all sounds uncomfortable, but i still strive for that closeness. it’s not that i’m completely loveless, it’s quite the opposite! sometimes i have so much love it’s threatening to spill out of me. am i the odd one out? i don’t think i would admit any of this to my irl friends, i’m afraid they’ll think i’m crazy. this whole thing is stressing me out more than it should.

tldr; i’ve concluded that i’m arospec, what now?

Heya!

This is such a common fear among aromantic people--hell, I worried about it for a long while myself! You are completely valid to worry about being alone, and I understand. Let me share a few things I've learned since identifying as aromantic and romoaro in the past year!

1. Relationships

You've already figured this one out, but it was realizing that I have never really felt romantic attraction the same as others. Pushing away relationships, having to convince yourself that you have a crush, thinking you have a crush but it was just a desire to get closer, etc. It's just realizing that you do not want a strictly-romantic relationship, nothing else.

The next step is thinking about what kind of relationship you do want. I personally prefer relationships with a lot of emotional dedication and closeness almost emulating a romantic relationship. This sounds like what you want too, as you described the "opposite of loveless". I actually do feel the same way you do, with the love "spilling out"--however, that is influenced by my lovecoric genders. I assume you don't feel exactly that way, though.

There are so many other kinds of relationships; however, it is up to you and the other party[ies] to work out what kind you all want.

2. Attraction

Yeah, you don't feel romantic attraction, but is there any other kind of attraction you do feel? This link gives a list of other kinds of attraction, including platonic, alterous, aesthetic, and more.

You might find alterous attraction a good term--it's an emotional attraction that is neither romantic nor platonic.

Either way, figuring this one out may help you delve deeper into your arospec identity and how exactly you do feel attraction. But you don't have to do this; I honestly don't know what kind of attraction I feel other than queerplatonic fdslkjds

3. Social Skills

Being social...isn't the best, I know. But the biggest piece of advice I can give ever is surround yourself with people you like. Joining communities and even creating communities is a strong point in this--I promise you, there are more than hundreds of people who are longing for a community to join and friends to make.

Once you have people you enjoy being around, maybe the next step can be taken for queerplatonic relationships or something else. You shouldn't make friends just to get a qpr or datemate or anything, though. That being said, in the arospec community, these other kinds of relationships often come from friends because it requires a lot of trust and knowing the other person well to understand how your arospec-ness affects any further relationships you or they may want.

And honestly, just go for it. Whatever worries you're feeling, I know thousands of people feel the same or worse. Just sucking it up and going forward is the best decision you can make with this sort of thing. When I created the Romoaro Discord Server, I was so nervous with the bots, server making, if anyone would even join, if anyone would like it, if raiders would come, if I would find proper staff, if I would find friends, and so much more. But as soon as I did it, I never regretted it. I love my community more than anything else, and I don't know where I would be without them.

Remember, you are not alone in this. Being arospec isn't a burden, it's a freedom. It's the freedom to truly discover yourself, the freedom to find people who will understand and love you in whatever way you'd like.

You got this, and I'm always up for questions if you need it. The other aromantic blogs can help as well [@aro-culture-is, @tertiary-attraction-culture-is, @aroacecultureis @aroace-culture-blog, @aroallo-culture-is, @aspec-culture-is, @gray-culture-is, @greyromantic-culture-is, @orientedaroace-culture-is, @queerplatoniccultureis, @questioning-aspec-culture-is, @questioning-culture-is]--not all of them are strictly arospec, but I think they can help somewhat if you want to read through them.

Wishing you a wonderful day, and good luck! /g /pos

[interact-if]

I’m sending this in because it seems like I could get good opinions from not only you but also the people who follow you. I have an idea for an IF, and I’m very excited for the story. My question is, would people be offended if I made the playable MC physically female that identifies as female and all the ROs physically male that identify as male? I have seen some out there that are strictly M/M or F/F, and I’m so happy they exist because I feel that population is underserved. I just feel, not having the experience, I could bring justice to writing LGBTQ+ (and I don’t want to offend anyone in that community by writing something incorrect), mostly when it comes to sex (which I plan on including in my game). I support games that have those relationships in them and admire them, even play those games, and I don’t care who plays my game. The more the merrier! I still want the characters to be diverse. One of them will be of a descent that is based on Japanese culture and many others, based on Persian culture. I also want the playable MC to have any skin tone/features the player wants. I just want to know if this…will have people coming after me? I want to tell my story, but I don’t want to be attacked for it, if that makes sense?

I really don’t mean to offend anyone. I just don’t want to cause trouble, and I just want to respectfully ask for people’s opinions on this.

Hello! So, before diving into our response, we’d like to emphasize that we are but five individuals running a blog devoted to interactive fiction. We are neither the end-all-be-all voice on this matter nor necessarily a representative mouthpiece for the community.

First off, you can write whatever you would like to write; as the author, you have absolute control over what you produce, so nobody is going to stop you from writing what you want to write. It’s also important to write what you enjoy.

That said, the community is, in our experience, very inclusive, and largely devoted to providing a space for the queer community. We can understand the desire to have an appropriately inclusive and diverse game, and why you particularly want to turn to characters of color to bridge the gap; however, substituting characters of color for queer characters to claim diversity in a project is possibly something that will receive the wrong kind of attention. Furthermore, assuming that writing characters of color well is any less complex than writing queer characters potentially suggests that said characters could end up underdeveloped or tokenized. (See Nines' and Roast’s response below for more context)

All of that doesn’t mean you can’t make a game that’s genderlocked and restricted to M/F romance, and I don’t think anyone will be offended by such a game, but it might limit your audience. At the same time, there are (many) other visual novels that have this format, so it’s not something unheard of. As far as CoGs and text-based games go, as far as we’ve seen, they are rarely genderlocked unless for plot reasons, etc.

There is also a chance that you may receive feedback requesting that the MC be un-gender locked, or for additional ROs to be added of different gender, or for the ROs to be made gender selectable. These requests may be gentle, insistent, kind, or aggressive, and they may only occur at the beginning of your work, or may occur throughout your game development. Maybe they’ll never happen at all. It’s impossible to predict the future, but in our experience, we have often seen this occur to games in the past with RO gender imbalances, locks, etc.

As for searching for feedback, if you’re looking for feedback but you’re not pursuing the CoG format, may we suggest the Reddit subforum? It’s a little difficult for you to get the feedback/dialogue going here that you’d likely like to get, so Reddit’s format may be more conducive to your needs.

In the meanwhile, those who would like to provide their thoughts are encouraged to respond in the comments of this post. Please remember to be polite with your discussion!

— — —

The above is our general mod response; a few of us wanted to offer some individual thoughts as well, and those can be found below. These are personal opinions and reflect each individual mod’s thoughts, rather than a collective response.

While it can be a little daunting to write about something you’re not familiar with, writing often broaches topics with which we don’t personally have first-hand experience. Additionally, queer relationships are ultimately still relationships between people—they’re not all that different from heterosexual relationships. If you’re worried about the way you’re portraying your content, that’s something well-curated beta readers/testers (from the population you’re trying to represent) can help test for, and give feedback on. And on top of all of the above, that’s not to mention the potential issues associated with substituting in POC to replace queer people, which is perhaps not what your intention is, but is what it feels like your intention is (see Roast and Nines for all the ins and outs on why this is an issue). Ultimately, I stand by the opinion that on the most basic level, most will not be offended by a game that’s about a straight, cisgender female MC—yet some, or even many, may be off-put by such a game. I know I, personally, am. (P. S. Also consider that the MC has to interact with the other ROs that she isn’t romancing, as friends, enemies, acquaintances, what have you—having selectable ROs, for example, also allows the player to “diversify” their acquaintance group, if they so wish.) — Dani

I understand that this ask is coming from well-meaning intent but I would just like to state that writing characters of color is not easier than writing queer characters. One of them isn't a substitute for the other. Writing characters of color and writing queer characters are separate matters entirely, and both come with its own difficulties. Wanting your characters to be diverse, while admittedly lacking the perspective to back such identities, is still a murky water to navigate.

Personally speaking, and I really do have to be transparent about this, the way certain sentences were phrased in this ask rubbed me the wrong way. Still, I understand that this isn't malicious, just someone who is asking for guidance, which is something I can't fault. We all have to start somewhere, you know? That being said, if you really want to write diverse characters, my general advice is to do research. Lots and lots and lots of research. No author is exempt from that, honestly.

Find helpful articles, journals, studies, video essays, etc. to aid you in writing your characters. If you still feel like that's lacking in some way, which is a valid concern, being open to feedback from the appropriate people is also a good way to improve. The integrity of a project is important, but so is reasonable criticism against, for, or about it. Keep an open mind, educate yourself, and don't be afraid to ask for help or clarification should it be needed. — Nines

Nines says it well that queer people and poc are not interchangeable nor any 'easier' than the other. The fact that you're willing to do research and include characters of color yet not include queer characters tells me that you're afraid yet misconstruing how much effort actually gets put into cultural research.

There is a 'purity culture' that goes around tumblr that claims that diverse characters have to be perfect, have to have no flaws, cannot die, cannot have trauma, cannot face adversity, they must be perfect and good and happy.

I think this is bullshit.

I also think the backlash from this 'purity culture' community is what is creating so much fear in authors (including queer authors!!) in making characters with different backgrounds and identities than their own. In making queer characters with flaws and tragedy and negative characteristics.

If we only ever wrote what we knew, what we've personally experienced, fiction would be a very boring world.

Being afraid of representing a community wrong is a valid fear, but it shouldn't stop you from trying. You can write what you want to write, but it shouldn't be limited by fear.

Do your research. Get sensitivity readers. Be open to feedback. Be willing to be afraid, but do it anyway.

If, in the end, you decide to gender lock, make it an informed decision at the very least, and if you are including characters of color, know that that is a heavy amount of research too, and should be handled with the same care as what we've said on queer characters.

And like we've said before, we are not the voice of the community, we cannot give you permission or our blessing or flawless feedback, we are just five people running a blog. — Roast

Alright this was already mentioned a bit before but I wish to add my two cents: M/F relationships are the norm anywhere else in real life, and if you feel like there's no space for you and your relationships in a mostly-queer community then you might want to recheck if this is the community you wish to have as your target audience.

No one's going to be offended if your story is cishet, as we said, but you are extremely reducing your audience by doing such. The appeal of interactive fiction is that a good bunch of us have played female-mc-straight-love-interest visual novels in the past, having to endure being misgendered or romancing people we might not be attracted to.

The current interactive fiction community we're trying to promote has opened a million doors for everyone to explore themselves, so don't be surprised if your story, no matter how good, is ignored due to this aspect. Most of us have no interest in being forced to play as something we're not.

Again, we cannot tell you what you can or cannot do. We don't speak for the community, we speak for ourselves and for this blog. Maybe every comment we've made was incorrect and your game turns out to be successful, really, but it's what we believe you should keep in mind. — Cruz

Honestly, I don’t have much to add since everyone here mentioned and discussed important facets of this ask! At the end of the day, we are not a group who can or will ever dictate what you can or cannot write. That is not the purpose of the blog or the reason why we’re working as hard as we are. 

There have always been games with this specific set of characteristics: gender locked MCs and/or ROs. Some people may enjoy it, others may not, for whatever reason. 

Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee anything in terms of how people will respond to a game, because people will react to content differently. All we can do is offer our perspective and the potential things that may happen in the future based on the experience the lovely devs above have had. (fellow interact-if mods, my beloved ❤️)

It’s always admirable for people to reach out when they’re unsure, and I’m sure there are infinitely more opinions that vary or are similar to the ones in this response. But there you have it, some of our thoughts! 

Goodluck with your project! — Mars

[a-dragons-journal]

Hello again. This is the 5-part anon from earlier. I wrote a long response to your post and I think it’d be more convenient to dump the text in a pastebin than split it into asks. The link is going to expire in a few months, so I recommend copying the contents into its own post rather than posting the link: pastebin. com / 2r49iein

I had, sorry; you've just caught me in the lead-up to and midst of finals week, so I haven't been answering asks as quickly as usual, especially ones that will take a significant amount of time and energy xD (No worries about checking in, though, Tumblr does have a horrible habit of eating asks and it's good to check! And also my ADHD no-object-permanence ass will see an ask, go "I'll respond to that later," and then forget it exists sometimes with no Tumblr interference necessary, so good to check for that reason too xD)

Hello again. This is the 5-part anon from earlier. Thank you for your thoughtful answer. First off, I want to apologize to anyone who may have been hurt by my words on the topic of otherheartedness, copinglink, etc. I did not mean to in any way minimize the importance of these identities for others. Because I felt I didn’t have the "right" to claim a "full" otherkin identity, I felt like I had to settle for something that simply didn’t fit my experience, which led to my frustrated, generalized words.

With that out of the way, I’ve been giving what you said some thought. I have to admit I never really participated in otherkin communities, only watching from afar. It’s good to know that I "qualify" as otherkin, but I wonder if it’s such a good idea for me to identify that way. I have so few experiences in common with most otherkin that I would probably feel *more* alienated by calling myself that, not *less*. In my experience, forcing myself into an identifier that is technically correct but feels wrong/bad is not the way to go. At any rate, I’ll describe my feelings in more detail, just because I’m really curious to know if you’ve ever heard of anyone similar, or if this reminds you of anything. I apologize if some of it is repetitive or if it jumps from topic to topic without making much sense.

Some parts of otherkin… culture, I guess? Baffle me. For example, needing to narrow down one’s exact species or the cause/origin of one’s identification as nonhuman. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it’s not valid; just that I don’t personally see the point? All the rules about who gets to call themself otherkin feel constraining to me, because I guess there’s not really any other term that fits, but even that one doesn’t fit that well, so I’m kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place.

So I’m more inclined to just say, yeah, I’m a bird. Do I behave like a bird? Do I have bird instincts? Not really, but I’m still a bird. Adopting an otherkin identity throws a wrench in that, making me feel like a failed nonhuman, because it’s *hard* not to feel invalid when everyone else seems completely different from you. If anything, I feel more valid doing my own thing! I didn’t come to this bird identity because I felt like I was Different somehow and needed to find an explanation for it (been there, done that with the autism, lol). Instead I came to it because it felt good, and right, and it made me happy.

You say since I don’t know if I chose this or not, it’s unlikely to be voluntary. I guess I just… feel weird about this? I don’t really have words to describe it. Maybe it boils down to "does it matter?". And I know when it comes to the term "otherkin", it *does* matter, which is kind of one of my problems with it.

I looked at that daemonism post you reblogged and found myself relating to the way Rook described Tukuxa: "She lacks a shark’s instincts, fears and drives - but her core is still shark." I wouldn’t say I *lack* these things, just that I simply don’t have them. Do I have a human mind in a human brain? Sure, but that doesn’t mean I have to be a human, nor does it make me any less of a bird. It makes me happy to conceptualize myself as a bird, to design my own appearance as a bird with qualities that can’t physically exist in this world, to daydream of flight. Is that such an uncommon experience?

I have a headmate who is a dragon. She was born as a dragon, she looks like a dragon, she simply Is A Dragon. She’s not dragonkin, she’s not based on any fictional dragon, she just… is. (Not to say that dragonkin folks aren’t dragons, just that she doesn’t identify as dragonkin.) But she doesn’t have any of the typical dragon traits you might expect; like me she has a "human mind" in a "human brain", and yet she’s just a dragon. I guess it’s sorta the same with me.

I just feel like it’s better for me to say "I’m [X]" and keep the specifics to myself. Despite these asks, I have no intention of holding my identities up to the scrutiny of others. If I say I’m a thing, I could mean it in a number of ways. Total or partial identification as/with, or even just a passing attachment. Ultimately, it’s my business, and trying to define it beyond just "I am this thing" or "I relate to this thing" or "This thing is me" feels sort of obnoxious? (For context, I do have nonhuman identities other than a bird, I just used that one as an example/shorthand.)

I guess that about covers everything. What do you think? If your followers/anyone who sees this wants to chime in, I’ll be looking at the notes. Thanks again!

(Regarding the 'hearted/'linker stuff, I figured that wasn't what you meant in your previous asks; I just wanted to bring it up because it's a conflation that gets made a lot, accidentally or on purpose.)

Honestly, these are all incredibly valid points, and if you just want to call yourself nonhuman or bird but not otherkin/therian then that's entirely up to you. If the label doesn't work for you, then it doesn't work for you! You are not obligated to use every label that you technically fit under (gods know I don't), and I didn't mean to imply so - just to make it clear that it's available to you if you do want it. I can see now that I probably kind of missed the point in that response.

And you're right that frankly, even though there is a wide range of experiences under the otherkin umbrella, there's also a set of common experiences that almost everyone seems to share at least a few of, and when you don't share those I can imagine it makes it kind of hard to connect with others in the community. Unfortunately, like I said, I don't know that there's a way around that other than trying to host a platform for those atypical experiences to speak, which is a good idea but probably not very effective in practice because of the sheer numbers game.

So you've decided you're probably better off not trying to make the "otherkin" label or community fit, and that's entirely valid - I guess the question is, what now? If you're wanting to find others with similar experiences to you, you still need somewhere to look, and it seems like this isn't it.

You might want to look into other nonhuman terms - "nonhuman" and "transspecies" come to mind, and while neither of these might fit you, they do collect different subcultures that might be less alienating for you or easier to find others with similar experiences within. The broader "alterhuman" label may also be useful, though that can be a bit like trying to find a needle in a haystack just because of how many things are included in "alterhuman" and I don't know that you'd have any better luck than with "otherkin".

Or you might want to try older platforms, if you haven't already - forums, IRCs if they still exist. The community wasn't always as focused on some of the things you noted as it is now (pinning down a specific species, voluntary vs involuntary, etc.), and platforms with a population that trends toward people who've been around longer sometimes still have more of that culture than Tumblr and Discord tend to, though they come with their own problems of course.

Ultimately, if "I'm a bird" is the easiest way to communicate your experiences, then that's that on that. These words only exist because people find them useful - if you don't find them useful, don't feel like you have to use 'em. As far as finding community when so much of the otherkin community feels alienating to you, I'm afraid that's all I've got - y'all got anything for anon?

[aggressive-positivity-network]

So I (A white cisgender heterosexual woman who likes pumpkin spice lattes and Animal Crossing, so yeah) grew up in a very, VERY LGBTQ+-phobic household, and that translated into me having basically no knowledge on the LGBTQ+ community. Could you do me a massive favor and just lay out straight the words and phrases and generally help a dumbass out?

Oooh, no problem! And believe me, you aren’t a dumbass. I knew next to nothing for a while, and I grew up in a very supportive household. I just didn’t have the means to learn about it.

Here’s a phrasebook for some common phrases you might hear:

TERF: Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist; they believe that trans women should not be included in their fight for gender equality, and that because trans woman “used to be men” they shouldn’t be allowed in women safe spaces because they might rape someone. Sooo yeah. Keep away from them. They are pretty nasty and misguided. Also known as radfems.

Pansexual: Attracted sexually to anyone of any gender identity.

Panromantic: Attracted romantically to anyone of any gender identity

Bisexual: Attracted sexually to two or more genders.

Biromantic: Attracted romantically to two or more genders

Pan/Bi Discourse: Some people think pansexual and bisexual should become one or the other because they’re very similar to each other, but whether you identify as either of them is a personal choice, and you shouldn’t let anyone dictate your identity - ever. You can even be both at the same time, if you choose to identify that way! Honestly, it isn’t that big of a deal which one you choose, as long as you feel comfortable between them!

Demisexual/Demiromantic: Needs to form a strong emotional bond with someone before pursuing a romantic or sexual relationship. They probably wouldn’t enjoy speed-dating or sleeping with someone they just met. They might not experience sexual attraction for someone unless they knew the person very well.

Asexual: Does not feel sexual attraction for anyone; however, they still might like to have sex, may be neutral about sex, or might even be repulsed by it. Most people confuse this with chastity (not choosing to have sex, usually for religious reasons) or abstinence (choosing not to have sex until married). However, they still might get horny, or want to pleasure themselves. The usual difference is having it with another person. If they see a hot guy, for example, the immediate thought may be, “Wow they’re attractive,” rather than, “Have my babies.”

Aromantic: Does not feel romantic attraction for anyone; this may mean that usual romantic relationships don’t appeal to the person, or that shows of romance (flowers, dates, etc.) doesn’t appeal to them. However, they can still have very strong platonic relationships, and still do enjoy sex, but might not develop crushes or want to go on a date with someone. They might marry platonically, or marry romantically on certain terms.

Grey/Graysexual: Anyone who is in that “gray” space between being asexual and being sexual. They might like the idea of sex, but hate the product. They might have fantasies they’d like to live out in the bedroom, but not actual sex. They might like sex, but under certain conditions. People have their own names for the different facets of graysexuality, but are all under this umbrella.

Grey/Grayromantic: Anyone in that “gray” space between romantic and aromantic. They might like huge shows of romance in novels, but wouldn’t be a fan of it happening to them. They might have a crush on a person, but would never be in a relationship with them, even if asked. Graysexuality also has different names for different facets, but it’s still all under this umbrella.

Queer: Usually used as a temporary or even permanent label for when someone is still trying to figure things out. They know that there is something inside of them that’s different - but they’re not quite sure yet.

Non-binary: People who are neither male nor female, and are outside the gender spectrum. A few have androgynous (gender-neutral) styles or body types, but no matter what they wear or what they look like, they are still non-binary!

Trans: Someone who was born gender, but knows in their heart that they are another. Someone may be born a boy, but always feel like a girl, vice versa, or both genders may change to non-binary, bigender, genderqueer, or genderfluid. Being trans simply means you are making the physical and/or mental transition from one gender or another.

Transmasc: A trans person that presents as masculine, with both clothes and manner.

Transfemme: A trans person that presents as feminine, with both clothes and gender.

Bigender: Someone who identifies as male sometimes and female sometimes.

Genderfluid: Someone who drifts from one end of the binary spectrum (male on one side, female on the other) and may have several sets of pronouns. They may feel more feminine one day, more masculine another, and somewhere in between later that week.

AMAB: Assigned Male At Birth; this has no bearing on current gender identity, but it’s medically useful and can help trans people talk about themselves before they transition.

AFAB: Assigned Female At Birth; this has no bearing on current gender identity, but it’s medically useful and can help trans people talk about themselves before they transition.

Two-Spirit: A Native American who identifies as the traditional third gender, with both a masculine and a feminine spirit inside of them. It’s a pretty new term, and not all Indigenous people choose to label themselves or others that way.

Femme: A woman who dresses and acts in a traditionally feminine way.

Butch: A woman who dresses and acts in a traditionally masculine way.

Beard: Describes a partner in a relationship that exists for the purpose of keeping someone’s true sexual attraction status a secret. A gay man might have a relationship with a woman, who would be considered his beard.

Queerplatonic Relationship: A relationship that is a mixture of the traditional platonic relationship and the traditional romantic relationship. People included in this relationship can raise children and own a house together, but most likely won’t participate in sexual and/or romantic activities.

Polyamorous Relationship: A relationship that includes three or more people at any given time. This may look like a couple having an open relationship, where they can date others as they please, or it may be a set few people that stay together. Two people can be attracted to one other person, three people can all be attracted to each other, two couples can have sexual or romantic relations with each other’s partner - there are infinite combinations, and, as long as it’s healthy, they’re all valid!

I hope this helps! This is not an exhaustive list, but these are pretty much the basics and a little bit more. If you have any specific term you’d like me to define, I’d be more than happy to! Also, if I got any wrong, please feel free to correct me, and I’ll edit the post as soon as I can!

Also, who’s your favorite Animal Crossing character? I like Blathers a lot! Nerds and professors have my entire heart.

[otp-armada]

If Jason wanted to convince me that Lxa was the love of Clarke's life, he wouldn't have killed her off, effectively cutting their love story permanently, with 4.5 seasons left of the show. Their arc, starting with their introduction in 2x07 and concluding with L's death in 3x07, is 17 episodes long, accounting for 17% of the entire narrative. If I generously add 3x16 to the count, an episode in which L is already dead in the corporeal world Clarke is trying to return to, it's a whopping, grand total of 18%. An 18% congruous with Clarke's intense connection to Bellamy and vice versa, which even A.lycia confirmed as romantic. Feelings romantic enough to spur the formation of a love triangle. An 18% ignoring Clarke's ultimate choice to go back to her people when L wanted her to stay.

CL is a chapter in the story begun and wrapped up in the first half of the narrative. And that's omitting further illumination on the finer details making CL so problematic for Clarke. Do you expect me to believe it was coincidental for CL to occur at a time when Clarke was spiraling down a dark path, commencing with Finn's death? Who played a hand in forcing Clarke's own hand, with Finn, and TonDC, and Mount Weather? Whose example inspired her to ensnare herself in armor and warpaint to be strong enough to save her people? Whose behavior did she emulate in the pushing away of support from her people? Who gave her a place to continue hiding from Bellamy, her mom, and her friends? A place to be someone other than Clarke Griffin? In lieu of facing her fears like the heroine she is? The purpose of CL wasn't to provide Clarke with a magnificent, fairy tale romance gone tragically wrong. I believe Jason's intent with the relationship aimed to further damage Clarke's psyche after L's death, to solidify the belief that her love is not only deadly to its recipients but renders her too weak to do what must be done for survival.

After 3x16, CL is an often superfluous namedrop or two per season for Clarke to briefly react to before carrying on with the plot. Season 5 aside, most of these references are needless enough to be able to interpret them as attempts at reparations for the L/CL fandom's benefit -and their views- without altering the course of the story. Crazy me for thinking it's not enough to constitute an ongoing love story. Crazy me for not thinking this was on par with interactions between living characters. Crazy me for thinking it doesn't befit a love story for the protagonist.

This sliver of the story is what Jason and the CLs would have us unquestionably believe is the pervasive love story of The 100's seven seasons?

Despite his lie and the constant gaslighting from the pineapple CLs, some of us know how to decipher what a temporary love interest is. Lxa? I think you know where I'm heading with this.

I'll acknowledge my admittedly negative appraisal of CL as someone who recognizes its value to the LGBT+ community and treats it as valid while not caring for L/CL on a narrative level. I felt, when swayed by L's influence, Clarke became the antithesis of what I found admirable about her. I resented Clarke's acquiescence of her power to the commander. I wanted nothing more than to remove the wedge L had driven between Clarke and Bellamy.

Let me try to give L/CL the benefit of the doubt for a minute. I don't hold L as responsible for Clarke's choices, but I recognize the prominent role she played in their upbringing. The push and pull was an intriguing aspect of their dynamic, as was the chance to meet a manifestation of who Clarke might have been if she was all head, no heart. Her fall from grace was arguably necessary for her to be a fully-rounded character, not a Mary Sue. It wouldn't be realistic for the protagonist of a tragic story about a brutal world to be a pure cinnamon roll. When forgiveness is an innate theme with Clarke, it would be my bias at work if I was content with her applying it to everyone but Lxa. Clarke saw enough commonalities between her and L to identify with the latter. When she extended forgiveness to L, I believe it was her way of taking the first step on the path to making peace with herself by proxy. None of this means I wanted them paired up. At best, I made my peace with seeing the relationship through to its eventual end. In time for L's death, ironically. My passivity about them notwithstanding, my conclusions are, however, supported by canon.

If I may submit a Doylist reason for romantic CL? Jason knew he had a massive subfandom itching to see them coupled, thereby boosting ratings and generating media buzz. A Watsonian reason? Without relevance, I think L would have been another Anya to Clarke. Grapple shortly with the unfair taking of a life right as they choose to steer towards unity, melancholy giving way to the inconvenience of the loss of a potential, powerful political ally. Romance ensured her arc with L would have the designated impact on Clarke's character moving forward in the next act.

For a show not about relationships, Jason has routinely used romantic love as a shorthand for character and dynamic development. It's happened with so many hastily strung together pairings. And when it does, everyone and their mother bends over backward to defend the relationship. It's romantic because it just is. Didn't you see the kissing? Romantic.

No, The 100 at its core is not about relationships, romantic and otherwise. But stack the number of fans invested exclusively by the action against those of us appreciating a strong plot but are emotionally attached to the characters and dynamics. Who do we think wins? Jason can cry all he wants over an audience refusing to be dazzled solely by his flashy sci-fi.

Funnily enough, "not about relationships'' is only ever applied to Bellarke. Bellarke, a relationship so consistently significant, it's the central dynamic of the show. The backbone on which the story is predicated. Only with Bellarke does it become super imperative to represent male-female platonic relationships. As if Bellarke is the end all, be all of platonic friendship representation on this show. In every single television show in the history of television shows.

Where was this advocacy when B/echo was foisted upon on us after one scene between them where he didn't outright hate Echo? When one interaction before that, he nearly choked the life out of her. If male-female friendship on TV is so sparse, why didn't B/ravens celebrate the familial relationship between Bellamy and Raven? Isn't the fact that they interpret Clarke as abusive to Bellamy all the more reason to praise his oh-so-healthy friendship with Raven as friendship? They might be the one group of shippers at the least liberty to use this argument against Bellarke, lest they want to hear the cacophony of our fandom's laughter at the sheer hypocrisy of the joke. Instead, they've held on with an iron grip to the one sex scene from practically three lifetimes ago when the characters were distracting themselves from their feelings on OTHER people? They've recalled this as "proof" of romance while silent on (or misconstruing) the 99% of narrative wherein they were platonic and the 100% of the time they were canonically non-romantic.

Bellarke is only non-romantic if you believe love stories are told in the space of time it takes for Characters A & B to make out and screw each other onscreen, a timespan amounting to less than the intermission of a quick bathroom break. If it sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. And yet, some can't wrap their heads around the idea that maybe, just maybe, a well-written love story in its entirety is denoted by more than two insubstantial markers and unreliable qualifiers. B/raven had sex, and the deed didn't fashion them into a romance. Jasper and Maya kissed but didn't have sex. Were they half a romantic relationship? Bellarke is paralleled to romantic couples all the time, but it counts for nothing in the eyes of their rival-ship fandom adversaries. Take ship wars out of it by considering Mackson. Like B/echo, the show informed us that Mackson became a couple post-Praimfaya, offscreen, via a kiss. Does anyone fancy them an epic love story with their whisper of a buildup? Since a kiss is all it takes, as dictated by fandom parameters, we should.

If Characters A & B are ensconced in a romantic storyline, then by definition, their relationship is neither non-romantic nor fanon. "Platonic" rings hollow as a descriptor for feelings canonically not so.

If the rest of the fandom doesn't want to take our word for granted, Bob confirmed Bellarke as romantic. Is he as delusional as we are? Bob is not a shipper, but he knows what he was told to perform and how. Why do the pineapples twist themselves in knots to discredit his word? If they are so assured by Jason's word-of-god affirmation, then what credibility does it bear to have Bellarke validated by someone other than the one in charge? They're so quick to aggressively repudiate any statement less than "CL is everything. Nothing else exists. CL is the only fictional love story in The 100, nay, the WORLD. CL is the single greatest man-made invention since the advent of the wheel."

We've all seen a show with a romantic relationship between the leads at the core of the story. We all know the definition of slowburn. We can pinpoint the tropes used to convey romantic feelings. We know conflict is how stories are told. We know when interferences are meant to separate them. We know when obstacles are overcome, they're stronger for it. We know that's why the hurdles exist. We know those impediments often take the shape of interim, third-party love interests. We know what love triangles are. We know pining and longing.

Jason wasn't revolutionary in his structure of Bellarke. He wasn't sly. Jason modeled them no differently than most other shows do with their main romances. Subtler and slower, sure. Sometimes not subtle at all. There's no subtlety in having Clarke viscerally react to multiple shots of Bellamy with his girlfriend. No subtlety in him prioritizing her life over the others in Sanctum's clutches. In her prioritizing his life above all the other lives she was sure would perish if he opened the bunker door. There is no subtlety in Bellamy poisoning his sister to stave off Clarke's impending execution. In her relinquishing 50 Arkadian lives for him after it killed her to choose only 100 to preserve. In her sending the daughter Clarke was hellbent to protect, into the trenches to save him. In him marching across enemy lines to rescue her. In her surrender to her kidnapper to march to potential death, to prevent Bellamy's immediate one. No subtlety in Josie's callouts. No subtlety in Lxa's successful use of his name to convince Clarke to let a bomb drop on an unsuspecting village. Bet every dollar you have that the list goes on and on.

There are a lot of layers to what this show was. It was a tragedy, with hope for light at the end of the tunnel. It was, first and foremost, a post-apocalyptic sci-fi survival drama. Within this overarch is the story of how the union of Clarke Griffin and Bellamy Blake saves humanity, ushering in an age of peace. In this regard, their relationship transcended romance. But with the two of them growing exponentially more intimate each season, pulled apart by obstacles only to draw closer once again, theirs was a love story. A romantic opus, the crescendo timed in such a way that the resolution of this storyline -the moment they get together- would align with the resolution of the main plot. Tying Bellarke to the completion of this tale made them more meaningful than any other relationship on this show, not less.

Whereas the trend with every other pair was to chronicle whether they survived this hostile world intact or succumbed to it, Bellarke was a slowburn. A unique appellation for the couples on this show, but not disqualifying them from romantic acknowledgment.

Framing Bellarke in this manner was 100% Jason's choice. If he wanted the audience to treat them as platonic, he should have made it clear within the narrative itself, not through vague, word-of-god dispatches. A mishandled 180-degree swerve at the clutch as a consequence of extra-textual factors doesn't negate the 84% of the story prior. It's just bad writing to not follow through. And Jason's poor, nearsighted decisions ruined a hell of a lot more than a Bellarke endgame.

The problem is, when Bellarke is legitimized, the pineapples are yanked out of their fantasies where they get to pretend the quoted exaggerations above are real. Here I'm embellishing, but some of them have deeply ingrained their identities in CL to the degree where hyperbole is rechristened to incontestable facts. An endorsement for Bellarke is an obtrusive reminder of the not all-encompassing reception of their ship. A lack of positive sentiment is an attack on their OTP, elevated to an attack on their identity. Before long, it ascends to an alleged offense to their right to exist. The perpetrators of this evil against humanity are the enemy, and they must attack in kind, in defense of themselves.

Truthfully, I think it's sad, the connotation of human happiness wholly dependent on the outcome of a fictional liaison already terminated years ago. I'm not unaware of the marginalization of minorities, of the LGBT+ community, in media. I haven't buried my head in the sand to pretend there aren't horrible crimes committed against them. I don't pretend prejudice isn't rampant. When defense and education devolve into hatred and libel for asinine reasons, though, the line has been crossed. You don't get a free pass to hurt someone with your words over a damn ship war. No matter how hard you try to dress it up as righteous social justice, I assure you, you're woefully transparent.