#one person said it depends on whether it's past or present & i wasn't exactly sure what that meant. 'x is beloved' vs. 'x was beloved'?

[coquelicoq]

i've been dying for a poll option ever since i saw my followers' answers to that text post from february 2022 asking people whether they pronounce beloved as "be-lov-ed" or "be-loved". many people were emphatic about only using one option, and many others use both but were not always able to articulate when they use 2 syllables vs. 3. so out of the goodness of my heart and my insatiable lust for knowledge i have gone through the notes on that post and written down some likely contenders! you're welcome!!!!

BEFORE YOU ANSWER! think about how you would pronounce beloved in the following syntactic contexts:

noun, talking directly to the beloved: hey there beloved

noun, talking about rather than to the beloved: my beloved lives in a pineapple under the sea

adjective in a noun phrase: my beloved x lives in a pineapple under the sea

verb participle: x is beloved by y

okay poll time! there are no wrong answers!! and apologies in advance if i didn't capture your truth, i only had 10 options and life is a rich tapestry!!

[gendercensus]

On plural inclusivity and "plural they"

In the Gender Census feedback box and elsewhere I have frequently been asked:

to make the annual Gender Census survey more inclusive of plural participants, and

to add "plural they" to the checkbox pronouns list alongside "singular they" in order to be inclusive of plural participants.

It's a rambling topic, so I'll address them in sections in that order.

~

INCLUSIVITY RE: PLURAL PARTICIPANTS

I've been inviting plural people to take part in a short survey about the Gender Census, asking questions that help me get a feel for the issues involved and asking about whether people feel included in the survey (and why or why not). At the time of writing there have been 139 responses, I will leave it open for ongoing feedback, and I'm unlikely to be publishing the spreadsheet of results in full because the responses are off-topic and very personal. However, I will refer to some individual responses as well as my personal experience discussing inclusion with plural systems.

Here's a graph based on the responses so far:

I'm asking for direct feedback about this issue because over the past few years plural folks have been one of the more consistently vocal groups in the feedback box of the survey and elsewhere, which would usually be fine, but I've been finding it very overwhelming and confusing. I think that's because the advice/demands/questions have been unusually inconsistent, often to the point of being in direct opposition to each other, and the result is that I have no idea what to do.

Before now, most plural people have understood that it's quite a nuanced issue. When asked I would explain that if they felt that filling it in once for the whole system made more sense they should do that, and if individual system members felt strongly that they should participate alone then they could do so.

This year it got to the point where I had to make a decision and write unambiguous, easy-to-follow guidance about how plural people should fill in the survey, because I had one system submitting dozens of responses and giving the exact same three points of feedback, paraphrased, over and over - making it look like many unconnected people felt strongly about these particular issues, when in reality it was all this one system. I decided that, to be as fair as possible, plural people should fill in the survey once per body.

When I posted about the "once per body" policy on social media I received very little direct feedback, which leaves me in the position of not knowing whether that's because I did it right and you have no complaints or because you've all jumped ship! The statistics and comments from the plural feedback survey are very helpful in this regard:

It seems that plural participants, on the whole, are fairly understanding about it all, often supportive, and are still able to participate. ("Unknown" and "no strong feelings" together are a much higher proportion than I expected.) Some positive feedback included appreciation for the ability to select as many gender identities and pronouns as one wants. Common arguments against the policy include feeling that system members are not treated as people in their own right, which is understandable; the Gender Census is designed to present practicable data about nonbinary people for use within a system that assigns one identity per body, socially and bureaucratically. A "once per body" policy makes sense when prioritising nonbinary people, but adds to the list of crap that only plural people have to struggle through when they're not the main focus of the research.

I was surprised that only a couple of people pointed out that some systems have amnesia between members, and so some systems may participate more than once per body unintentionally. (I understand that this is unavoidable, and I certainly wouldn't be upset about it. Sometimes non-plural people participate more than once by accident, too! On the scale we're talking about, I'm unlikely to even notice it happening.)

Back when I first started to get requests to make the Gender Census more plural-inclusive, my first move was to ask people what exactly they felt excluded by. Responses to this have been continuously nebulous, to the extent that I don't think I have ever made any design changes to the annual survey at all as a result. I also asked what they would do to improve the survey and help them to feel included, but this has yielded very few viable ideas for how to move forward, just because so many of the ideas that people suggest are mutually exclusive.

As an example, I spoke to one member of a system who expressed, understandably, that their experience of themselves as plural inextricably affected their experience of their gender(s), and after some discussion they concluded that the two were so intertwined that it made the most sense for it to be included in the identity question, e.g. a checkbox called "plural" alongside nonbinary, genderqueer, trans, etc. I explained that I don't arbitrarily add things to the checkbox list, but it would be counted if it was typed into a textbox underneath, and if it went over 1% I would consider adding it to the checkbox list. They became increasingly angry. The only way this situation would make sense for them moving forward was if I added "plural" as an identity checkbox option immediately. Conversely, just a couple of weeks previously I had spoken with a member of a system who was very vocally distressed at the idea of plurality being conflated with gender, and wanted to make sure that I never added "plural" as an identity checkbox option.

As another example, in the plural feedback survey when I asked people how they felt about the "once per body" policy, a member of one system was against it and said "it feels like this policy doesn’t recognize us as separate people", but a member of another system was in favour and said "we're encouraged by our therapist to think of ourselves as dissociated parts of a whole. So we're all one person, just not directly connected like a singlet [non-plural person] would be. From that perspective, it makes sense to keep us as one person in the gender census, no matter how many genders we have." It's not possible to reconcile these two perspectives.

From the very beginning up until now, the unifying theme for feedback from plural people and their allies is "please be more inclusive of plural people." That's a really good start! After that it becomes a plate of tangled spaghetti.

Here are some themes I've managed to tease out, and my thoughts.

"Each system's alter should be able to participate in the survey individually if they want to." Some systems have literally hundreds of alters, and several systems have acknowledged in the feedback survey that this is probably both impractical for many plural people and unfair on singlets.

"We're okay with taking part once for all of us in the system, but we're just checking all the boxes that apply to at least one of us, and some of those are explicitly disliked by at least one of us. This is uncomfortable." I think that's... probably okay, actually. Other subcategories of participants whose identities fluctuate that strongly (e.g. a genderfluid person who is sometimes very male and sometimes extremely not male) or whose pronouns are context-dependent are also in this predicament. Participants often express a desire to rank their identity terms by importance, accuracy, fluctuation or frequency. The survey aims to collect broad and fuzzy data about a very large group of people, to monitor trends and let people know what language we're comfortable with on the whole. This survey just isn't looking for that kind of nuance.

"We're okay with taking part in the survey once for everyone in the system, but there should be a way to separate out responses about different alters within that one response." It's literally impossible to program the survey to have infinite subsections for each alter, but if it were possible, what would I do with the data? I think the most likely approach would be combining into a list of identities etc. "per body". The participant would feel better for being able to enter different words for different alters, but it would be more work for them, and it would be more work for me to process responses from plural people just to have them be counted like those from non-plural people.

"There should be a 'plural' checkbox in the identity list so that we can express that our gender is influenced by our plurality." I consider adding terms to the identity checkbox list when they're typed into the textboxes by over 1% of participants. There are some situations where I'll make an exception to that rule, but it's unusual and this isn't one of them. Whether you enter a term using a checkbox or a textbox makes no difference to how well-represented you are in the results.

Maybe just a question that asks if you're plural, with a checkbox? What would this checkbox do? Plurality is beyond the scope of the survey, along with things like height and eye colour. It would allow curious people to analyse the responses using plurality as a variable, but I wouldn't include it in any analysis in an annual Gender Census report.

That last one is particularly interesting, because it's what I actually did in the supplementary survey. I wasn't 100% sure in advance whether or not I would need that information for the singular vs. plural they issue, so I included an "I am/we are plural" checkbox just to be on the safe side. As far as I could tell, the survey was no more or less materially inclusive than the annual Gender Census survey. There were a couple of interesting patterns to report in the statistics, but the main things I noticed were:

Feedback saying that the survey wasn't inclusive of plural people was non-existent.

Several people thanked me in the feedback box for making the survey plural-inclusive.

Several people promoted the survey on social media by using its plural-inclusivity as a selling point.

Again, the supplementary survey didn't take a different approach. There was no particular difference in language, there was no indication that whether or not you're plural would be integral to the reporting of the results or even used at all, the only difference was the existence of a checkbox that let participants declare their plurality.

That's all it took to cause a complete U-turn in feedback. A checkbox that doesn't relate to gender or connect to any of the other questions in any way, and isn't particularly statistically useful based on the supplementary survey. It doesn't make the survey more inclusive, it just acknowledges that some participants are plural, and gives them a way to declare it.

Whether or not participants are plural is beyond the scope of the Gender Census, which aims to collect broad data about how we as nonbinary and otherwise genderly-interesting people want the world to see and describe us. It just doesn't make sense to include questions about plurality in future surveys. But I'm honestly amazed and a little confused, because until the "once per body" policy was added it seems that there wasn't actually anything about the Gender Census that prevented plural people from participating, at least not more than anyone else whose genders change significantly over time.

~

SHOULD "PLURAL THEY" BE ADDED TO THE CHECKBOX PRONOUN LIST?

This is something that participants often ask me to do in order to make the survey more plural-inclusive, so I decided to seriously consider it.

The first draft of the supplementary survey asked over 1,000 participants about this issue, but I had to scrap those responses and then redesign and restart it because, even though dictionaries are fairly clear on what exactly "singular they" is, a lot of survey participants who are not dictionaries seemed to be in disagreement (or confusion) about what singular they and plural they actually are. I have been unable to find any academic or reference articles online using the phrase "plural they" at all.

Here are some of the things people have told me recently:

"Singular they" is when you use "they" with singular verbs, e.g. they is a teacher.

I can't say that I use "singular they" pronouns because I always say "they are". "They is" just sounds wrong to me.

"Plural they" is when you use "singular they" pronouns to refer to a system/someone who is plural.

"Singular they" and "plural they" are grammatically identical except for the name.

"Singular they" and "plural they" are functionally the same and should be combined into one option called "they" in the annual survey.

Let's start by stating what we do know for sure.

~

THEY VS. SINGULAR THEY

For the record, "singular they" is defined by its purpose and context, not the specific words used.

Wiktionary says:

they (third-person, nominative case, usually plural, sometimes singular, objective case them, possessive their, possessive noun theirs, reflexive themselves, or, singular, themself)

It then goes on to specify three use-cases:

third-person plural, referring to two or more people

third-person singular, referring to one person

"indefinite pronoun" - people; some people; people in general; someone, excluding the speaker. E.g. "they didn’t have computers in the old days."

So we've got "they" (groups), "singular they" (individuals), and "indefinite they" (an "other" that is ambiguous in number).

Again, I have never found anything academic or, er, dictionarical (lexicographical?) that calls any of the forms "plural they", so my first job is to find out whether what Gender Census participants are calling "plural they" is the same as what the dictionary just calls "they", which is defined as the set used to refer to two or more people. For the purposes of this article I will call it regular "they".

~

WHICH WORDS MAKE UP SINGULAR THEY?

Even though most dictionaries will state which words make up singular they, and it's usually they/them/their/theirs/themself, if you change individual words within the set or even around the set it is still called "singular they" if it is used to refer to only one person. This might happen due to regional or cultural variations. So whether you say "they is a writer" or "they are a writer", whether you say "themself" or "themselves", if you're talking about only one person, it's still singular they.

In the annual survey, singular they is consistently chosen in the checkbox pronoun options by the most participants, usually more than twice as popular as the next most popular option. (I use the dictionary-provided set, and I've checked it's still the most commonly used in several polls and surveys along the way.) In the annual survey, singular they is presented as:

singular they - they/them/their/theirs/themself (e.g. "they are a writer")

~

WHICH WORDS MAKE UP PLURAL THEY?

I had never heard of "plural they" before people started asking me to add it to the checkbox list in the feedback box of the annual Gender Census survey, but it seemed clear from the name that it is meant to be contrasted with singular they, and I wondered if perhaps everyone else had been calling regular "they" (for referring to two or more people) "plural they" this entire time and I just hadn't noticed.

It was specifically presented to me by participants as a pronoun that a plural system could claim, and that a plural system might prefer over singular they. This tallied with my initial assumption that "plural they" may just be regular "they" referring to groups, since a system is a body containing two or more distinct individuals, so if they wanted to be referred to as a group then singular they would be inappropriate and regular "they" would fit.

I went to the pronouns spreadsheet of the 2021 Gender Census, and took every pronoun set that was named and copied it into a new spreadsheet. I ran a query to list all sets that contained both the words "plural" and "they" in the name field. There were 71 results, out of ~44,500 total responses. I ran another query to find out what these people were entering in the reflexive field, and here's what I got:

themselves - 61 (85.9%)

theirselves - 3

them - 2

themself - 2

themself (plural) - 2

theirself - 1

So I think it's safe to say that the set that people are calling "plural they" uses "themselves" as the reflexive, which is consistent with dictionaries' reporting of regular "they".

I conclude that most people do mean regular "they" when they refer to "plural they". "Plural they" seems to be they/them when used to refer to two or more people, including the plural reflexive "themselves".

As in "singular they", if you change individual words within the set or even around the set it is still called regular "they" if it is used to refer to two or more people. This might happen due to regional or cultural variations. So whether you say "they is writers" or "they are writers", whether you say "themself" or "themselves", if you're talking about two or more people, it's still regular "they" (or plural they).

~

IS PLURAL THEY GETTING SMUSHED INTO ANOTHER PRONOUN/GROUP?

I recently explored the (apparently unintentional) overlap of Spivak (e/em) and Elverson (ey/em). In case you've not read it, here's a brief overview: I found that it might be that Elverson (not on the checkbox list) is many times more popular than Spivak (on the checkbox list), even though it isn't being written into the pronouns textboxes often enough for it to reach the 1% threshold. Since the two sets are identical except for that one letter in the subject form, it is very likely that many of the people who use Elverson (ey/em) pronouns are choosing the Spivak checkbox option in the annual survey because they don't realise the spelling is different, or they think that they are minor spelling variants of the same set. I concluded that in order to get a fair count of both sets I will need to list both in the checkbox options next year, even though Elverson hasn't been typed in by over 1% of participants yet.

It's possible that the same thing is happening with singular and plural they. I ran a couple of Twitter polls, asking people whose pronouns are they/them which set they prefer, and presented answers like this:

a) Singular they, referring to only 1 person: they are themSELF

b) Singular they, referring to only 1 person: they are themSELVES

c) Plural they, referring to 2+ people: they are themSELVES

Here's the results, with 927 usable responses:

The results of this poll are really useful, because it allowed people to choose between singular and plural they AND themself and themselves, in combination. We can see that of the people who call their pronouns "singular they" (referring to only one person), the majority prefer "themself" as the reflexive, but a respectable proportion prefer singular they with "themselves", even when presented with the option of "plural they" (referring to two or more people).

(I have a policy of providing the most popular word choices in checkboxes, so I will continue to provide a they/them checkbox option that says "singular they - they/them/their/theirs/themself", but since singular they is consistently the most popular pronoun this is something I like to keep checking in on.)

If we apply these proportions to the 2021 Gender Census responses and imagine that everyone whose pronouns are they/them chose "singular they - they/them/their/theirs/themself" regardless of how accurate that is, this would mean that 3.7% of all respondents would check a "plural they" box, which is well above the 1% threshold for adding something to the checkbox list. Why not add it to the list, the way I'll also be adding Elverson to the list? This graph may help:

I generally consider it unwise to make big decisions based on Twitter polls, because the sample is much smaller and more biased than a standalone survey. Twitter requires membership, Twitter membership is skewed younger, and younger members are more likely to use Twitter often and see polls when they appear.

However, even I can't deny that there is a very clear mandate here for Elverson to be added to the checkbox list. When given a straight choice between the Spivak, Elverson, both, and neither/something else, participants were over six times more likely to choose Elverson over Spivak. (For context, Spivak got 4.3% in the 2021 Gender Census as a checkbox option.) Even if this poll were somehow put to the entire Gender Census participant group, it's hard to imagine a scenario where the results shift enough that Elverson gets a lower percentage than Spivak.

4.7% of a smaller sample of younger Twitter members just isn't enough to push me to add something to the checkbox options. I really hope that everyone whose pronouns are "plural they" takes the time to type it into next year's survey as a pronoun distinct from "singular they", so that if they do end up being over 1% of participants I can add "plural they" to the checkbox options.

~

IN CONCLUSION

As far as I can tell, the Gender Census doesn't particularly exclude plural participants. Systems are still able to take part, so it is at least as inclusive as any other survey of a similar nature, maybe even more so thanks to the ability to choose multiple gender identities and pronouns "per body".

There isn't sufficient evidence to support adding "plural they" to the list of checkbox pronouns at this time, and systems can be represented in results by typing any plural-inclusive terms and pronouns that are not on checkbox lists into some of the many textboxes provided, as any other participant would be expected to do.

The "once per body" participation policy is uncomfortable for a significant number of plural people. However, due to the intensely varied experiences of plural people, any policy on that issue that I impose would make some plural people uncomfortable - and it turns out that I chose the "side" that plural people are more likely to agree with. The survey isn't intending to collect or convey the more nuanced information that plural people (and others) have said that they would like to provide.

A separate question that specifically asks participants whether they're plural makes systems feel seen and acknowledged, but is beyond the scope of the project and doesn't add value to the data or analysis.

So, I will not be making any changes to the Gender Census at this time, based on the information I've gathered so far. However, I welcome further feedback in the plural participants' feedback form, which will remain open, anonymous and private.

~

Edit: Follow-up.

[reiven2017]

Happy birthday to you.

His son was a professional killer, Robin, the grandson of a bloodthirsty psychopath, and an insufferable child. Damian could have been expected to do anything and more, but when he approached Nim, his expression more somber than before, and quickly asked what seemed like a simple question, Bruce fell into a stupor.

Bruce was busy working in his office, completely focused on the documents and didn't even hear the door to his office open. He glanced briefly over the top of his glasses before returning to his work. "I'm listening, Damian. "it's been a few minutes. Damian wasn't happy about the idea of asking Bruce for help, but he wasn't going to listen to Dick's taunts, and Alfred, with his stiffly English manner, wasn't the right person to turn to with this question, so he didn't have many options. Wayne finally asked.

Bruce stopped writing, raised his head, and looked at his son with a strange expression on his face.

"Did he hear correctly?»

-" Damian?" - "What? I didn't think I asked anything so weird. " The boy said irritably, frowning and watching intently. "No, I said. Of course not. Just...why would you do that? " He could see his son pondering the answer for a moment, unsure whether to trust Bruce. - "You need to. "Damian's voice was cold, and there was an impenetrable mask on his face, and the man realized that he would not get a more detailed answer from him. — "So, what do you usually get for your birthday? "The boy repeated the question more impatiently. Despite his cold tone and stony expression, the slightest bit of nervousness in his demeanor was conspicuous. "Usually?" Bruce looked thoughtful. —" It depends on who exactly you are giving to, a woman or a man, and what else this person loves or is interested in. Probably the most common gifts are books or some useful things." Bruce continued to watch his son, finding his behavior strange, to say the least. Damian was still a rather obnoxious and sullen child, he had no friends and it didn't seem to bother him much, but his son never did anything for nothing, so there was something to worry about. He could see the gears turning in Damian's head as he pondered Bruce's words. It was several minutes before he seemed satisfied with the answer, and with a curt nod to his father, Damian left.

A week had passed since that incomprehensible conversation between him and Damian, and Bruce was still wondering why his son needed this information. Just as he was beginning to forget about it, the man standing in the doorway caught Damian doing something very strange. Sitting in his room, surrounded by a variety of new, apparently just bought things, from the TV to the candy, the boy stared intently at the wrapping paper in front of him. His gaze, pinned to the object in his hands, did not bode well for this colored piece of paper, and over his angry mutterings, Bruce heard a couple of words. —" It shouldn't be any harder than holding a gun." the man heard his son repeat it a couple of times, as if to convince himself of this, but the crumpled pieces of paper, scattered and viciously crumpled, said otherwise. Bruce could see how Damian was annoyed by this activity, but despite this, the boy continued to try to wrap something that looked like a box more or less neatly. Alfred stopped beside the man, carrying a tray. "Master Damian has been doing this since this morning. I am absolutely sure that I heard a couple of obscene expressions in Arabic and saw a spot of glue on the carpet, but despite this, he makes a success. This box looks neater than the last one." "The last one?" Bruce asked. "Yes, sir. If my memory serves me correctly, this is the 8th box in his hands in the past five hours. The first two were painful to look at. "The butler spoke in a monotone, but then his lips stretched into a small smile. —" I'm surprised Master Damian is so diligent and patient." "Me, too. Patience is not the best side of his character. Do you know who this is for, Alfred?" "No, sir. Master Damian didn't tell me who we owed this debacle to, but I think we'll find out soon enough. Bruce heard a crash in the room and turned away from the other man to look at his son. Damian struggled furiously with the tape, his eyes burning madly, and Bruce wasn't entirely sure that he wouldn't tear down the mansion by the end of the day.

November 15. An unremarkable day for everyone else except Damian. A whole week of effort, his frayed nerves, and his unequal battle with scotch had been all for this day. He got up, a few hours early for school, and in less than a minute, his nervousness had reached its limit. Thinking about it, he squeezed out almost the entire tube of toothpaste, then spilled coffee on his pajamas, forgot to walk Titus, and the most terrible thing for him almost lost the object of his efforts. Gift. Beautifully packaged, with purple bows at the top. He ignored the questioning looks from his father and Alfred as he stalked back to the car, clutching the gift in his right hand and the flowers in his left. Amazing white roses from the main garden of Gotham City. Don't go into the details of how he got them. Damian continued to ignore the strange smiles of the butler and Bruce, mentally rolling his eyes and realizing that this was not all they had to do.

When the stone mass of Gotham Academy finally came into view, Damian was already nervous. Not that it was so difficult for Damian Wayne to walk up and hold out his hand with a gift, saying a few words, but now he was as worried as ever. It was the first time he'd ever given her anything.< i> Yes, it was the first time when he gives something. . He just didn't know what to expect or what to be prepared for. Maybe she wouldn't like the gift. Or she doesn't like gifts. Or something else, and that was all he was thinking about right now. But the moment X has arrived. Alfred dropped him off at the main entrance, smiling calmly at him and wishing him a good day. Damian stumbled out of the car, almost tripping over his own feet, and frowned grimly. As if it's his shoes that are to blame for his being such a mumbler. His gaze swept the landing in front of the main entrance, and Damian stiffened as his eyes caught the girl. Rachel found Damian's gaze as well as his, and smiled at him warmly, waving her hand vigorously. The boy sighed softly, mentally urging himself to calm down, and in one superhuman quick step, he was at her side. Raven stared in surprise. Damian, without taking his eyes off the floor, in some uncoordinated movement, handed her the flowers, literally thrusting them at her, and quickly began to repeat them. - "Happy birthday, Rachel Michaella Roth! I bought you a present and I'm going to give it to you and I really said it." he pulled out the gift with the same quick movement, placing it in the girl's hands, without looking up from his shoes in embarrassment. It was a few agonizing seconds before he caught a movement from Rachel, and then the warm touch of her lips on his cheek. Damian blinked dumbfounded, pinned to the spot only by touching the tips of his finger to the cheek where the girl had kissed him.

[kuryoomi]

scars to your beautiful (kageyama x reader)

➸  genre: angst and fluff.

➸  pairing: kageyama tobio x reader.

➸  word count: 1.5k

a/n: wHEW. i wanted to write something meanigful, but idk how it turned out !! honestly idek if this is either angst or not lowkey,,, heart fingers.

synopsis: kageyama helps (y/n) love and embrace the scars from her past.

WARNING! mentions of relationship abuse.

ouch.

warm, red blood oozed out of the exposed wound, the sharp pain visible on your face. from your left side, a little boy was apologizing to you several times with tears in his eyes. and from your right, kageyama extended an arm to lend you a hand.

"thank you." you took his hand and pulled your body up from the ground, blood still gushing out from your scraped knee.

"i'm s-so s-sorry!" the little boy sobbed in between his words.

smiling at him, you shook your head before patting his head, "i'm fine! still moving, you see?" you shook your leg to prove yourself to the little boy.

"still, be careful. you might seriously injure yourself if you don't!" teasingly, you scolded the little boy, causing him to nod his head ferociously.

"i'll b-be careful next t-time!" swallowing his tears, the little boy picked up his skateboard before running off.

seeing as the boy disappeared from their sight, you let out a breath before stumbling to keep your balance.

"oi! don't fall!" kageyama pulled you back up, "c'mon, i'll help you get seated."

he helped (carried) your body while searching for an empty bench in the park. spotting one in the distance, he continued supporting you before setting you down on the empty, wooden bench.

adjusting your position to your comfort, a sigh left your lips.

"of course this had to happen." you thought to yourself, "i knew this day was going too smoothly for my own liking! ugh, why can't my first date with tobio be a success?? curse you, bad luck!!"

"(y/n)." kageyama interrupted your thoughts, "can you roll up your jeans for me?" he was knelt in front of you, one knee up and the other knee down.

"huh?!" you snapped out of your internal conflict, "why?"

oh no.

"so that i can see your injury." he pointed directly at your knee, "the blood is seeping through your jeans."

oh no. anything but that.

"pfft, i'm sure it's fine! no big deal." you swung your legs back and forth, "you see?" unknowingly, your face gave away your pain.

he took one look at your before shaking his head, "(y/n), don't be ridiculous."

you hung your head, avoiding his eyes, before beginning to slowly roll up your jeans. as more skin got exposed, your fingers hesitated.

kageyama noticed your hesitation and helped you roll your jeans up, thinking that the pain prevented you from continuing,

"no— wait!"

a long jagged scar snaked down the side of your leg, close to your knee. the skin around the mark was slightly discolored, suggesting that it did not heal properly. this was something you did not want kageyama to see, at all. but what could you do? lady luck was not on your side today. you grimaced, too afraid to see the male's reaction.

without any comments, kageyama stood up from the ground and turned his back towards the female.

"i'll be right back." he spoke before jogging away from the bench.

oh no.

he thinks they're ugly.

oh nonono.

what if he decides that i'm worthless—

haha, no way.

as if.

tobio isn't that kind of person...

is he?

amidst your worries and doubts, you noticed kageyama return from somewhere with a plastic bag hanging from his grasp. you jumped up from the wooden park bench, ready to explain yourself.

"t-tobio! you're back!" you shuffled your feet nervously as he stopped in front of you with his eyes on yours, "don't worry! i can explain my— my um. my scars! haha see, i was in this crazy relationship a few years back and my boyfriend wasn't exactly the best person alive. b-but it's all good now! he received his punishment and i'm—"

partially listening to your rambles, kageyama silently sat you back down on the bench. without a single word, he retrieved the item he bought from the convenience store (a first-aid kit) and opened it up before quickly soaking a piece of cotton with bottled water.

"we have to clean up your wound, first." he spoke calmly as his hands dabbed the piece of cotton on your knee.

unable to process his actions, you watched as he peeled off a bandaid before sticking it onto your wound. he pressed his fingers against it lightly, the bandaid sticking well to your skin. he was gentle, almost as if he were working with fragile glass, yet firm at the same time.

"and now we're finished." he smiled softly and awkwardly made jazz hands, signaling his finished work. still struck by silence, your eyes were glued on him as you watched kageyama throw away everything except the first-aid kit, "tobio.."

he returned back to the bench and sat down, his hand reaching out to give you whatever was left inside the first-aid kit.

"here. don't want you being unprepared again." with a kind smile on his lips, kageyama leaned back against the bench and stretched him arms out, "now you can continue your story, if you want. i'm here to listen."

oh.

initially, you weren't sure how to feel when he offered his ears to you. strange, right? just moments ago, you were desperately trying to explain yourself, your scars, to him. but now that he was actually listening, it was odd.

as shocking as it may seem, you weren't used to someone offering to listen to your voice, your past, your story. maybe it was because of this reason that you actually felt nervous to say anything.

but you were compelled to tell him. this guy, who had only known you for a couple of weeks, had knocked down any barrier you had built from a previous relationship, in a matter of minutes.

was it the way he looked? at you? or was it because of his caring gestures— you had no idea. whatever it was, it worked to his favor. you instantly desired to spill everything out to him. after all, you just couldn't hide it in any longer.

"my- uh. my ex-boyfriend was abusive, both physically and mentally. he would verbally tear me down with harsh words before resolving our fight with his fists. honestly speaking, it wasn't even a fight. whenever he spat out insults to me, it was all one-sided."

you paused, contemplating on whether or not to continue. spilling details about your painful past was overwhelming, to say the least. you swung your legs back and forth, allowing your silence calm you down. luckily, kageyama was patient.

"he told me that i was ugly with all these scars—said that i should be grateful he was at least willing to be with me, even though he was the one who gave me these."

another pause, with kageyama's eyes widened the slightest bit out of anger.

"my parents eventually found out, even though i didn't want to trouble them with anything, and they reported him. he received his punishment, and i got a restraining order! happy ending to a not-so happy story." immediately, you faked a laugh and encouraged a smile on your face, as if to show kageyama that everything was alright now.

but kageyama saw through it. vividly. even if both the corners of your lips curled upwards, your eyes betrayed you. no matter how convincing your smile looked, if the eyes weren't sincere then nothing was.

you gulped softly, expecting the silence from him. you figured he was processing the information you had given himㅡ it was a lot to take in, after all.

"your ex-boyfriend seemed like an ass." he stated bluntly after a painful silence as his body turned towards to face you.

"yeah, he was. i honestly don't know why i stayed with him." another laugh escaped your lips, nervously this time, "maybe i depended on him too much. pathetic, right?" you glanced down before lifting your wounded knee upwards, "now, i got all these ugly scars marking me for the rest of my life."

"they're not ugly."

you turned your head to the side, "excuse me?"

he shrugged, "your scars. they're not ugly." kageyama said once more, "nothing on your body should be considered as ugly. why would they be?"

"because they make my body seemㅡ destroyed."

he shook his head, "no. your scars show everyone how brave you are. how you survived through the worst of times to make it to the present."

kageyama crossed his arms before continuing, "the scars on your body from your past make up your own constellations. if anything, you should be proud and embrace them."

you bit your lip. since your previous breakup, the concept of loving your body seemed impossible. of course, you'd been trying for years now, but failed every single time. heck, was it even possible? you wanted verbal assurance.

"doㅡ do you think i'm capable of embracing them?" you asked, your voice laced with hope.

kageyama stared at the female, a brief moment of silence between the two of you. he was positive that you were more than able to embrace your scars. you were strong in his eyes. of course, he was willing to help you in any way, shape, or form.

with a hand on top of your head, he gave you a small smile before nodding his head, "absolutely."

[the-amical-committee]

Emotions, trauma, and plurality 

(There will not be conventionally traumatizing things discussed explicitly in this post. That's kind of the point.)

One question that I keep circling around lately in understanding where I'm at is the question of trauma. I've taken at least one online quiz (I know, I know) that told me that (at least one cluster of) my symptoms are closer to trauma than ADHD, even though I'm taking ADHD and depression meds to deal with them. I believe I have some evidence that would fit that argument. 

I've heard that a lot of so-called symptoms of autism are actually trauma symptoms, just expressed in a way influenced by having a different neurotype. I've had a lot of autistic friends, including ones that assumed I was autistic as well. I really don't know what that might point to. 

Another thing that I've seen poking around in a few plurality blogs and communities is that there's a wide variety of opinions on the role of trauma in alter formation—specifically, whether it's necessary or not. The answer I suspect is the closest to true is, it depends on the person. Or, it depends on what you count as "trauma" as opposed to just, well, natural variation in how brains work—or a very, very early response to natural variation in how brains work. 

The thing is, I really don't know if I've ever experienced trauma. I don't mean that in a memory-issues sort of way. Don't get me wrong, my memory of the past is poor, but not in a way that lets me completely paper over bad memories. I'm pretty dang confident I don't have any major, life-altering traumas blocked off. Except for, well, the trauma of existing as different and not having the language or resources to understand or deal with that. Which, sure, that's been a pretty huge part of my subjective experience from roughly elementary school onwards, but it's not exactly a traumatic event, is it? 

Then again, I've seen it said that trauma isn't just about what happens to you, but about the support you receive (or don't receive) when processing it. And for years and years, if I experienced an emotion I hadn't seen others express, but I could control it (or any physical/visible reactions to it), I'd just tell myself I didn't really feel it. That it wasn't real. It took me a long, long time to even realize I wasn't supposed to be doing that—probably over a decade. But is that trauma, and/or could it result in symptoms of trauma? I don't know. 

And then there's the part where I still can't reliably label my emotions. The only way that I can do it is by attributing them to certain alters. It's pretty darn rare for all of us (or all the alters present/fronting in a given moment) to feel the same thing at once, and so I used to think I was only "partly" feeling emotions, that they therefore didn't count. 

But now I know that I don't have to commit all of me to feeling a thing to say I'm feeling it, and can instead just conceptualize it as belonging to one alter...that helps a lot. It also explains the way I tend to feel one thing, and then in the next moment feel a complementary or opposite thing. Fear and reassurance. Grief and comfort. Anger and calm. The parts of me talk to each other, regulate each other.

Labeling emotions globally is hard for me because I can't pretend that a conversation can boil down to just one word. 

[casuistor]

Hey, I know that people often have quite mixed opinions about this, but I was wondering if, in your opinion, Near shows signs of being somewhere on the autism spectrum. As a guy on the spectrum myself, I always saw a bit of myself in Near and even L to a lesser extent, but I don't know how much of that is me seeing what I want to vs. things that are actually there, even if it most likely wasn't done intentionally. Sorry if you don't like these types of questions, I just figured I'd ask.

Haha, gosh I don’t mind you asking, anon!! That said, I feel like answering this might get me in trouble b/c the topic is a sensitive one, so I’ll just preface my response with this: I genuinely have no interest in taking something that is important to other people away from them. There are a lot of sweet folks out there who take inspiration from Near by viewing him through the lens of autism, and are empowered by that. There is nothing wrong with that and if it’s something that gives you hope or joy, please keep doing it. I was simply asked to play devil’s advocate in providing an opinion and that’s what this is about. 

I think it’s impossible to say decisively whether or not Near has autism. That’s down to .a couple of different factors – most crucially, we simply have no idea what Near was like as a child. In other words, we have no real insight from the text as to whether Near’s behaviors was present at birth (ie. suggestive of autism) or if they were learned adaptive behaviors to external circumstances. 

As an example from within Death Note – let’s just take a look at Mikami. As an adult. he’s a social recluse who lives an extremely rigid and structured life and also engages in somewhat repetitive behaviors (sakujo etc). If we left it at simply that, it might raise some suspicion for potential autism, but when you look into his backstory, we see that he was extremey social as a child, and that a lot of his rigidity specifically comes from attitudes he had in middle school that were in direct response to the bullying and harassment he endured. He enforces a hyperstriuctured lifestyle on himself because he has set the narrative in his head that his behavior is “good” and separates him from those he views as “unworthy.”  That backstory dramatically alters the framework from which you’d view Mikami 

But with Near this isn’t really as clear. We don’t know what happened in Near’s life that led to the death of both of his parents. We don’t know what his life with his parents was like, or how they treated him. We don’t know what his life was after their deaths and prior to his arrival at the Wammy’s orphanage. We don’t know if he was in a stable foster care situation or being shuffled around from place to place – and so on and so forth. All of these factors that are complete mysteries play pivotal roles in the developing mind of a child and depending on what kind of environment Near was in, he just may not have been adequately socialized in childhood and learned a lot of self comforting behaviors like hair twirling, surrounding himself with toys and so on.Though these things may look quite similar to someone who has autism, the reason they exist are substantially different. Hell, it’s even perfectly plausible that Near’s just a person who’s a little on the blunt side who likes what he likes/doesn’t give a damn what other people think about it and has a fear of planes. That’s really not that unreasonable either. 

At the end of the day, it all just solidly depends on what exactly you headcanon for Near’s past. Canon doesn’t rule out autism, but it doesn’t exclude other possibilities either. If you headcanon that Near was born neurodivergent, then you’d argue he’s autistic – but nothing in canon would irrefutably support or invalidate it. If you headcanon Near became the way he is, canon would again neither irrefutably support or invalidate it. Personally I’ve seen interpretations of Near where he is interpreted as autistic and have seen interpretations where Near is not autistic and have enjoyed both takes on his character.

On a somewhat tangential note, I agree with the last thing you said. Any inferences that could be made about Near’s autism I think are entirely coincidental as Ohba doesn’t really seem to care about portraying neurodivergence in a way that’s nuanced or respectful. I’m pretty damn sure from an authorial intent pov, Ohba just wanted to give Near some unique “quirks” just like L and Mello had their own. That’s not to say people shouldn’t headcanon Near as autistic (b/c honestly, fuck authorial intent), but to say that people should be careful before crediting Ohba for things he didn’t actually do.