#the idea that there is inherent violence in the need to categorize?

[reesedragon]

"The way you were taught every notion about society is wrong, and if you don't unlearn it, you are a bad person"

And

"Unlearning an old thing to relearn a new thing is a special hell challenge for neurodivergents, especially lower functioning ones"

These statements are true on the same Earth and it sure is a something, isn't it?

[giritina]

Lately I've been dipping my toe into the mess that is transandrophobia discourse, and in the process I've been presented with one question in many forms:

"Do trans men experience misogyny?"

My initial answer was "these terms are all theoretical frameworks for a vast range of human experiences, why would you choose to frame your pre-transition experiences as that of a woman?" This makes sense to me, but clearly isn't satisfactory to many of the people sending me anons. As much as I might want to use my own life as a case study, I can't very well tell these people in my asks box "no, you've never experienced something that could be categorized as misogyny." Still, the question bothers me.

I think that's because the question obfuscates the actual debate. It's clear to me the question we are debating is not one of "experience" but "authority." That is:

"Do (binary) trans men understand what it's like to be a woman?"

My answer? No.

How can I justify that when we have, since birth, been raised as women? Well, because we also have, since birth, been trans men. If we cast aside the idea of transness as a modern social construct or anything other than an innate and biological reality, this has to be true. Even before you ever came out to yourself, you were transgender. Transphobia has dictated every moment of your life. Your idea of what "womanhood" is is not at all the same as a woman's, be it cis or trans. Why? Because a woman does not react to "being a woman" with the dysphoria, dissociation, and profound sense of wrongness that you do. [If you do not experience these things, a cis or trans woman, at the very least, does not identify as a binary trans man.] A woman sincerely identifies as a woman, and identity plays a pivotal role in how we absorb societal messaging.

Let's take homophobia as an example. While any queer person has probably experienced targeted episodes of bigotry, the majority of bigotry we experience must necessarily be broad and social. Boys learn to fear becoming a faggot as a group, but the boy who is a faggot will internalize those messages in a completely different way to the boys who only need learn to assert the heterosexual identity already inherent in them through violence. All of them are suffering to some extent, but their experiences are not at all equivalent. This is despite the fact that they've all absorbed the same message, maybe even at the same moment, through the same events. Still, we don't say that a straight boy knows what it is like to be a gay boy. Similarly, cis women do not know what it is like to be a trans man despite being fed the same transphobic messaging in a superficially identical context. It isn't a stretch to say the same can apply to misogyny.

Because I can't speak for you, I'll use myself as an example for a moment. I'll give my bonafides: I am a gender-nonconforming, T4T queer, white, binary trans man. I am on T, and I have recently come out to my family. I do not pass. My career as a comic writer is tied to my identity as a trans man. I can confidently say I have never been impacted by misogyny the same way as my friends who actually identify as women. This manifested early on as finding it easy to shrug off the messaging that I needed to be X or Y way to be a woman. In fact, most gender roles slid off my back expressly because breaking them gave me euphoria. I was punished in many ways for this, but being this sort of cis woman did help me somewhat. It's easy to be "one of the guys" in a social climbing sense if you really do feel more comfortable as a man. It also helped me disregard misogyny aimed at me or others because it seemed like an shallow form of bigotry. It was something you could shrug off, but it was important for building "unity" among women. I thought this must be the case for all women, that we all viewed misogyny as a sort of "surface level" bigotry. However, for whatever conditional status I gained in this role, there was a clear message that if I did "become" a man, every non-conformist trait about me would just become a grotesque and parodic masculinity.

That was the threat that was crushing me, destroying my identity and self esteem. That was what I knew intimately through systemic, verbal, physical, and sexual abuse. I could express my nonconformity as a cis woman, but if I took it so far as to transition to male? I would be a pathetic traitor, a social outcast. I truly believe that throughout my life people were able to see that I was not just a failed woman, but an emasculated man.

I do partly feel that the sticking point for many is the idea that the sexual abuse suffered by trans men is inherent to womanhood, and therefore inexplicable if trans men are men from birth. While this disregards the long history of sexual abuse of young boys, especially minority boys, I do see the emotional core. I'll offer that the sexual abuse I suffered was intrinsically linked to my emmasculation, my boyishness, despite the fact that I was not out to myself or anyone else. I believe many trans men have suffered being the proxy for cis women's desire for retribution against cis men, or for cis men and women's desire for an eternally nubile young boy. I also believe they have suffered corrective assault that attempts to push them back into womanhood, which in itself is an experience unique to transness rather than actual womanhood.

I'll note quickly that many, many trans men cannot relate to the idea of feeling confident and above it all when it comes to womanhood. Many of you probably tried desperately to conform, working every moment to convince yourself you were a woman and to perfectly inhabit that identity. I definitely experienced this as well (though for me it was specifically attempting to conform to butchness) but I can concede many of you experienced it more than I did. I still believe that this desperate play-acting is also not equivalent to true womanhood. It is a uniquely transgender experience, one that shares much more in common with trans women desperately attempting to conform to manhood than with true womanhood.

One key theme running through the above paragraphs is the idea that "womanhood" is synonymous with "suffering." A trans man must know what it is like to be a woman because he suffers like one. It should be noted that actual womanhood is not a long stretch of suffering. It often involves joy, euphoria, sisterhood, a general love and happiness at being a woman. It wasn't until I admitted to myself I had never been a woman that I was able to see how the women in my life were not women out of obligation, but because they simply were. The idea that you are a woman because you suffer is more alligned with radfem theory than any reality of womanhood.

When I admitted my identity to myself I was truly faced with the ways that my ability to stand up to misogyny did not equate to being anti-misogynist. I was giddy to finally be able to admit to being a man, and suddenly all that messaging that "slid off my back" was a useful tool in my arsenal. Much like cis gay men feel compelled to assert their disgust for vaginas and women after a life of being compelled towards heterosexuality, I felt disgust and aversion to discussions of womanhood as an identity. I didn't even want to engage with female fictional characters. I viewed other people's sincere expressions of their own womanhood as a coded dismissal of my identity. Like many people before and after, I made women into the rhetorical device that had oppressed me. Not patriarchy, not transphobia, but womanhood and women broadly. It wasn't explicit bigotry, but the effects were the same. I had to unlearn this with the help of my bigender partner, who felt unsettled and hurt by the way I could so easily turn "woman" into nothing but a theoretical category which represented my personal suffering.

This brings me to another point: I sometimes receive messages from nonbinary trans mascs telling me that it's absurd to think they don't understand womanhood and identify with misogyny in a deeper way. I would agree that, if you sincerely identify in some capacity as a woman, you are surely impacted by misogyny in a way I am not. However, why are you coming to the defense of binary trans men like me? Less charitably, why are you projecting a female identity on us? Perhaps my experience frustrates you so deeply because we simply do not have the same experience at all. Perhaps we are not all that united by our agab, by our supposed female socialization.

So, no. I do not believe that binary trans men know what it's like to be women. I don't believe we are authorities on womanhood. I do not believe that when a trans woman endeavors to talk about transmisogyny, your counterargument about your own experiences of misogyny is useful. I ESPECIALLY do not believe that it is in any way valid to say that you are less misogynist, less prone to being misogynist, or-- god forbid-- INCAPABLE of misogyny because you were raised as a girl. I also don't believe your misogyny is equivalent to that of a woman's internalized misogyny in form or impact.

For as much as many in this movement downplay privilege as merely "conditional," those conditions do exist. They do place you firmly in the context of the rest of the world. Zoom out and look at the history of oppressed men, and you'll find the same reactionary movement repeated over and over. Attacking the women in your community for not being soft enough, nice enough, patient enough, rather than fighting the powers that be. Why do I believe your identity is more alligned with cis manhood than any form of womanhood? Because this song and dance has been done a hundred times before by men of every stripe. Transphobia is real, and your life experience has been uniquely defined by it since birth. This is a thing to rally around, to fight against, but you all have fallen for a (trans)misogynistic phantasm in your efforts at self-actualization. You are not the first, and you will not be the last. Get out of this pipeline before it's too late.

[trans-axolotl2]

Fuck the DSM. Seriously, fuck the DSM.

The DSM is and always has been used primarily as a method of rationalizing mistreatment of the people it labels as "deviant." When you look at the history of psychiatry, it becomes clear that things like drapetomania, protest psychosis, hysteria, and homosexuality as a disorder were not just thrown into there randomly. Rather, it showcases the power of the DSM: labeling and categorizing ways of being as mental illness opens up new paths of incarceration, social control, and curative violence. I need people to understand that the modern DSM still works like this: these classifications of madness/mental distress/neurodivergence into psychiatric labels encourage society to treat madness/mental distress/neurodivergence with the apparatuses used to eradicate "deviance." Diagnosis is not neutral.

As mad/mentally ill/neurodivergent people, we deserve access to more explanatory models of madness/mental illness/ neurodivergence than what the psychiatric language of normalcy and disorder offers us. Whether this looks like rejecting diagnosis, embracing varying cultural understandings of mental experience, or any million different ways of interpreting our bodymind, we deserve the option to move beyond clinical language that tries to convince us not to trust ourselves. We deserve to view ourselves wholly, leaving room for all our experiences of madness/mental illness/neurodivergence--the meaningful, the terrifying, the joyful, the exhausting. We deserve to have our own relationship with our madness, instead of being pushed to view ourselves as an inherent "danger to self or others" simply by existing as crazy.

Here's another truth: I hate the DSM, and I still call myself bipolar, a diagnosis that came to me through psych incarceration. While I wholeheartedly reject the DSM and the system intertwined with it, I simultaneously acknowledge and believe that many of the collections of symptoms that the DSM describes are very, very real ways of living in the world, and that the distress that they can cause are very very real. When I say fuck the DSM, I don't mean "Mental distress, disability, and neurodivergence aren't real." Rather, I mean that the DSM can never hold my experience of what it is like to be bipolar, the meaning I derive from experiencing life with cyclical moods. The DSM can't hold within its pages what it's like to see my mood cycle not as a tragedy or disaster, but instead as an opportunity, a gift, to grow and shift and go back to the same place over and over again, dying in winter and blooming again in spring. The DSM can't hold the fact that even though I experience very, very real distress due to those mood cycles--they're still mine and I claim that as something that matters to me. I call myself bipolar as a shorthand to tell people that I experience many things both extreme high and low, but I do not mean the same thing when I say "bipolar" as a psychiatrist does.

When we build community as mad/mentally ill/neurodivergent people, I want us to have room to share, relate, and care for each other in ways that isn't calling to the authority of a fucked up system with strictly defined categories. I don't want us to take those same ways of thinking and rebrand it into advocacy that claims to fight stigma, but really just ends up reinforcing these same ideas about deviance, cure, control, and danger. I dream of the day when psychiatry doesn't loom as a threat in all of our lives, and I think part of that work requires us as mad/mentally ill/neurodivergent people to really grapple with and untangle the ways we label and make meaning of our minds.

ok to reblog, if you want to learn more about antipsychiatry/mad studies check out this reading list.

[smaller-comfort]

So how do you imagine snail love darts and necrontyr working/combining? Cause I am interested~

Aksjdhsk ahahaha oh god okay here we go

(Tumblr crashed on me three times while I tried to write this, but I will not let that stop me from rambling at length about snail sex, speculative xenobiology, and various ways that necrontyr get to be fucked up little guys.)

Okay. Some assumptions/general thoughts: necrontyr do not have "dual-use" reproductive/waste elimination systems (inferred from Trazyn's hilarious disgust at the idea, but honestly it would be entirely believable for him to have completely lost any and all memories of necrontyr biology). A lot of higher order animals do (they're efficient!), but you start to see ones that don't when you get down to bugs and marine creatures, so that's what kicked off this train of thought.

I'm assuming also there is relatively little sexual dimorphism among necrontyr (not for any particular reason, although my understanding is that actual female necrons are a relatively new thing in wh40k lore, so that fits). And finally, everyone constantly dying of turbo cancer has led to a 'throw everything but the kitchen sink at it' evolutionary approach to reproductive strategies.

Okay, now snails: they use the darts during courtship to deliver hormones that increase the likelihood of fertilizing their partner's eggs; after the several-hours-long mating dance, they'll exchange spermatophores. (Fun fact, the penis, copulatory canal, and dart sac are all located inside the genital pore, on the snail's head. Mating dances can involve a lot of biting.) Snails have bad aim, but it's not uncommon for both snails to end up getting stabbed during courtship.

"Copulatory canal" is a deeply unsexy phrase, btw. So are most words we use when talking about sex, unfortunately. *sigh*

Anyway. While many necrontyr do only have one set of functional reproductive organs by the time they reach adulthood (either because the other set was always vestigial or because it gets removed to reduce the spread of cancer), both sets are usually present in some fashion. Sterility would be fairly common, but medical technology is able to mitigate some of that; the lower classes, at least, need to be able to breed like rabbits to feed the war machine. Gender is mostly divorced from reproductive role by the time biotransference happens; in addition to male and female, there would have been at least one other normative gender, possibly two (to account for both null and multimodal genders). Gender fluidity would have been common and largely unremarkable for necrontyr. (It's still largely unremarkable for necrons, but it's not particularly common; they're mostly fixed with whatever gender they had at biotransference.)

Okay, so, love darts. Pretty much only ever used by nobles/the military, because in the upper classes of society, sex isn't about reproduction, it's about reinforcing social hierarchies. And necrontyr social hierarchies tend to be inherently about violence in one way or another. Sexual dominance is generally more about who gets stabbed with the dart than it is about which penis is going where. (That's still a factor, but it's secondary, since genital configurations/functionality can be a bit of a wildcard.) Snails take an egalitarian approach to sex; necrontyr categorically do not. Both parties consenting to be darted would be considered weird and perverted.

Kind of going off ancient greek/roman sexual mores here; it would be entirely unthinkable, for example, for Obyron to be the penetrative partner in either sense with Zahndrekh. (Then again, Zahndrekh is a shameless pervert.) Sex between two social equals is generally accompanied by an agreement- sometimes tacit, sometimes explicit- about not using the darts. Doing so would be an overt act of aggression. Often, to prevent any potential misunderstandings, they'll voluntarily empty their dart sacs ahead of time.

Forcing someone to empty their dart sac prior to sex is a pretty common form of sexual humiliation. When done voluntarily, it's a sign of submission or respect. (Darts usually have a refractory period of a few days, depending on the person's overall health. Single-chambered dart sacs are typical, but multiples aren't unheard of. Leads to occasional 'surprise! You thought I was submitting to you but now you're getting fucked instead' situations.)

The dart sac would be located in their mouths, under the tongue; it's meant to be ejected into the soft tissue of the mouth, but it's sharp enough to pierce the skin anywhere. (This does mean kissing can be Complicated, or at least somewhat subversive, depending on everyone's social standing.) Normally it gets broken down and absorbed by the recipient's body; pulling one out tends to be extremely uncomfortable/painful.

The exact cocktail of hormones and neurochemicals it injects the other person with would vary somewhat between individuals, but can potentially vary widely between dynasties or social classes due to genetic/geographic/cultural differences. Some might include a mild paralytic agent; some sort of euphoric effect is also common. (This is all in addition to the original function, which, uh. Is to make the recipient more likely to get pregnant.) The shape of the dart varies in a similar fashion, ranging from a straight, smooth bone spike to something more elaborate with barbs or fluting.

(A bloody mouth can signify a lot of things to necrontyr- in addition to violence or illness, it's also inherently erotic. Necrons who remember this try very, very hard not to think about it when confronted with Flayed Ones.)

(Yenekh: *very sexily smearing his mouth with blood and draping himself all over Oltyx*

Oltyx: *oblivious, can't stop thinking about how pretty Yenekh is*

The rest of the flayed ones: *still not sure why their king and his consort haven't fucked nasty in a pile of carrion yet. Maybe they need a bigger pile of carrion? Yes, that's probably it. They will take care of this for their beloved king.*)

Crypteks have their own social hierarchies within their conclaves, but they're usually not as concerned with sexual politics as nobles and the military tend to be. Most people believe that crypteks all lace their love darts with poison, and the crypteks don't try to discourage that assumption. Some of them probably do, tbh.

Necrons, of course, don't have genitalia, but they can still stab each other with love dart analogues- this ranges from things like executive buffer override packages sent via interstitial channel, to actually physically jamming a spike of necrodermis into a neural input node. (From a purely aesthetic/romantic standpoint I also like the idea of love darts constructed out of crystallized core flux. The first time Zahndrekh does that to Obyron he goes into complete cascade failure and takes several hours to reboot.)

If Orikan and Trazyn did have sex pre-biotransference, one of them would have darted the other without permission (probably accidentally, being that they are both intensely nerdy losers and thus Bad At Sex by necrontyr standards), setting off a sixty-five million year hate-sex feud that neither of them can even remember the origin of. Orikan would've gone after Trazyn's mouth with a pair of pliers at some point; joke's on him, Trazyn's into that.

(Trazyn does have a collection of necrontyr love darts in the archives- all of them ones he collected personally when he was alive. He has no absolutely no memory of slutting it up back in the day, though, and probably doesn't even realize what they are. Sannet, unfortunately, does remember, and wishes he didn't. He has had to put up with so, so much over the years.)

[ashenmind]

tumblr community content labels really are shit . like they range from “vague” to “useless”

there are the three specific ones and the catch-all:

Violence: not very specific since the description they give is “similar to what you might see in a movie”, so it extends from a punch all the way up to whatever the site limit is (the only description they give is to “don’t showcase mutilation or torture” which I have in fact seen in movies).

Drug and Alcohol Addiction: I get that some people might not want to see content related to drug addiction for a number of different reasons, but why is this one automatically blocked from minors? like in high school health class one of the other teachers came in and talked about their personal experience with alcohol addiction and it did more to help me understand than any number of lectures. and minors struggle with drug addiction too; why act like it’s an “adult only” topic?

Sexual Themes: oh boy, where to even start? I guess right off the bat, this one is just vague to the point of uselessness. like as-described it covers “nudity, erotic writing, or sexually suggestive subject matter”. what’s the goal here? like nudity is both a. not clear cut and b. not inherently sexually suggestive! hell, what does “sexually suggestive” even mean? this is on top of tumblr’s already shit rule against sexually explicit content.

Mature: what are we supposed to do with this? like it seems to be intended as a “none of the above” but it ends up being “I didn’t feel like specifying” which makes the rest of the categorization useless.

This all wouldn’t be quite so bad if this was just something you could just slap on as you saw fit, but this is something that is moderated. tumblr says “it’s your responsibility to label your content appropriately” but give so little guidance as to what that actually means.

hell, tumblr will slap the “mature” label on to things, because apparently some other topics also need labels but you just gotta find those for yourself I guess.

and an additional issue is that these stupid things are sticky; if you reblog something and put a label on it then any reblog down the chain will have it. what if the person before me was just being over cautious?

heck, why does the entire post get labeled anyway? what if it’s just one line or image that people might not want to see?

the prospect of letting people avoid content they do not want to see is reasonable, but tumblr seems very opposed to actually giving people the tools to do that. content labels do not work if I have no idea what is actually behind them.

[sapphicsvibes]

this post is largely inspired off of @closet-keys (please let me know if tagging you is okay) but the idea of all afab people sharing one universal experience baffles me because well we don't. i am a genderfluid black person, and though I can be considered afab, if you look at my socialization it is completely different from an affluent white queer afab person. we faced misogyny growing up, both had/have periods but that is where it stops.

as a black genderfluid person, i've found this type of categorization so counter productive because if I really really get into it, with forced masculinization, white supremacy, and every day antiblackness placed on me, my socialization is a lot closer to perhaps a black trans fem person. it's not the same, at all. but i'd relate more to a black trans fem person, having to face racism, masculinization, threat of police brutality or intracommunity violence, not fitting into the western beauty standards, etc., than i would a white afab person. a white afab person is inherently more privileged than me, and their life and experiences are often times prioritized over mine. even we we talk about an 'afab experience' we usually, if not always, hyperfocus on a very white queer afab experience.

This idea that there is an afab vs an amab socialization is also heavily rooted in terfism. Do you think trans women are going to have the same socialization as cis men just because they are both amab? Do you think there is the same type of oppression and struggles they face just because they are both amab? No.

And it's concerning to me that at large, queer spaces tend to exclude trans women from these discussions of misogyny simply because they are not afab. And then it makes me wonder, where do you guys expect trans women to go if they cannot talk about how they've had a life filled with misogyny because of their socialization?

and again, when transfems do make spaces for themselves because they are excluded from platforms because they aren't afab, afab people tend to get upset and try to fill up these spaces because the idea that someone else other than themselves has a say on misogyny, oppression and transphobia based off of misogyny angers them. And also because most people, most queer afab people consider trans women to be oppressors simply because they are amab.

To cut this short, the term afab was supposed to just stay exclusively in intersex circles. It left, and now we see just how poorly it's been used. Most people are just casually going around sounding life terfs and it shows in ways you interact with people who are not afab.

I'll never forget the 'afab only housing' or 'afab only group chats' on twitter, as if we are all the same, monolith when we are not. And try telling non-black or non - native afabs that they have privilege over us, AND trans fems, and they get upset. The usage to me, and this idea to lump is all into one group because supposedly we were all socialized the same...is just bonkers.

The reality is if you are afab, and you think you need a space where only people who are afab can interact, then it is not queer inclusive and you are not a safe space for trans people, nonbinary people, etc, who don't fall into your binary.

And personally, I hate the term afab, I'm literally only using it to make this point lmao.

*also this isn't me saying that i face transmisogyny, because i don't believe anyone but trans women can face transmisogyny.

[vermilionstarlight]

"Jewish state" doesn't inherently mean any of those things, yeah. However, Zionism does in fact mean many of those things. It means colonization and forced displacement. It means the attempt at an ethnostate. It means seeing Israelis (and Jews in general, as Israel so often likes to conflate) under a very similar light to the Scared White Woman that fears for her life when an uninterested black man happens to visibly be within 100 feet of her (except instead of black men, it's Arabs, Palestinians, and any Jew that disagrees with Zionism). It rejects the idea of ending antisemitism anywhere else in the world, and posits that the only way to be safe is to never be exposed to anything that could possibly be construed as a threat, no matter the cost. To carve out a place for oneself using violence and coercion, until there's no Other group to pose a threat.

Zionism is the belief that the only way the Jewish people can be safe is by making a state where the Jewish people are either the only ones there, or making a state where the Jewish hold such an overwhelming majority and degree of power that the presence of anyone else is negligible. That is what an ethnostate is, by strict definition.

I'm not claiming that you, SPECIFICALLY, believe that. I'm saying that the larger ideology of Zionism is that of a colonization project attempting to institute an ethnostate. You may believe something different, but that is what Zionism is as a whole.

And that's fucking awful! Cuz ethnostates fucking suck, universally. We as a species are past the point where there's completely unexplored, unsettled land. That time passed an insanely long while ago, when humans were still migrating every which way. Unless you plan on starting your ethnostate somewhere in the arctic/antarctic, you categorically cannot form an ethnostate without displacing or eradicating people.

It doesn't matter who has the right to the land. It doesn't matter that X amount of years ago, some of your great great great etcetera grandparents lived there. It matters that there were people there when the Zionist project began, and they had lived there alongside family and numerous other cultural groups (INCLUDING Jews) for generations past, and the only way to achieve that Zionist ethnostate was to get rid of them. Famine, forced displacement, disease, bombing, whatever works.

Zionism is a shitty ideology not because of the Judaism, but because of the ethnostates and colonizing efforts. It's a shitty ideology cuz it fucking hurts people. It's the large-scale, colonizer state equivalent of someone getting abused over decades and then lashing out and abusing people and loved ones around them because they don't feel like anyone is trustworthy. An understandable reaction, but not any more okay because of it. It hurts people, and it needs to stop. Being traumatized is not a pass to hurt others in an attempt to protect oneself.

Nobody has the right to displace people from their home. If the settlers that started Israel had just immigrated to Palestine like normal fucking people do, instead of trying to start their own state where people already live, all of this shit would've gone different. The homes Israelis live in are stolen, the land they work is stolen, the water they drink and the infrastructure they use is all stolen. Rather than joining the Palestinians as neighbors and countrymen -- rather than sharing -- they took it for themselves, because they were too afraid to let anyone else close. And the only thing that cost is the ongoing genocide of an entire people.

Btw when we say “the only Jewish state on Earth” we mean that there are

Six officially Buddhist countries, or countries where Buddhism holds special privilege,

Thirty-six officially Christian countries, or countries where Christianity holds special privilege,

Thirty officially Muslim countries, or countries where Islam holds special privilege,

And three officially and mandatorily atheist countries.

Meanwhile there is one officially Jewish country. And that doesn’t mean the same thing that it does for the other countries above. Israel does not have an official religion. Israel officially recognizes dozens of religions, including Christianity and Islam. While there isn’t a separation of church and state in the traditional Western and secular sense, all officially recognized religions in Israel have the same governmental rights and powers as Judaism does.

Jewish state just means a state with a Jewish majority. It doesn’t mean religious rule. It doesn’t mean ethnostate. It just means self-determination on our ancestral lands.

[none-gender-left-man]

It took me a lot of sitting back to figure out where I stand on this, I had to confront my own reactivity and almost fell off the wagon a bit, but after really thinking on it and confronting my own negative biases I need y'all who are throwing fits about "able bodied" ND ppl using cripple to take into consideration that ND conditions aren't somehow removed from the body. The brain is a material organ not some nebulous metaphysical entity.

I am clinically physically disabled, but even if I wasn't in the ways I am, would I not have the right to call myself a cripple when I dissociate and lose control of my body for hours or even days? That doesn't "count"? Why? Because it's isolated to the brain in origin? Even though it clearly has a material affect on the physiological body? Even though it unequivocally devastates the way I am able to interact with the world? I never heard anyone say neurological disorders "don't count bc it's from your brain". That's bc they have physiological impact, right? Why is it different when it's mental?

What about the fact that even things as common as anxiety and depression DO have long term physical effects on cardiac health among droves of other things? The long term effects of anxiety that can cause hypertension independent of any other condition? Why are y'all so obsessed w this strawman idea of "the able-bodied ppl with anxiety want to steal our slurs!!!!" Why do you presume to know the qualia of their life and MindBody experience better than they do? How do you KNOW they're "able bodied"?

Why do you presume anxiety and depression (or any mental disability) has no physiological toll?

What about people with mental disabilities that prevent them from speaking not due to any neurological or physiological reason? Where is the line between the body and mind in their dysfunction? Can anyone at all clarify or quantify this??? No. You can't. Their MENTAL disability prevents them from a PHYSICAL action, independent of a clinical physiological disability, yet they are STILL physically experiencing disability.

What about eating disorders that are inherently tied to both body and mind that WILL end in fatality if untreated?

You're building strawmen again, y'all.

Other disabled people aren't your enemy and mad pride has its place, you're right about that- but mad pride does not cover everything that a mental disability causes PHYSICALLY for every subject. Mad pride works to convey a pride in your lack of "sanity", but it conveys nothing related to how that affects the body. For those whose mental disability is intrinsic to their physical health it is not even remotely fair to gatekeep this word. To tell them their health symptoms aren't "enough". This is no better than the debate that tried to claim that chronic health and autoimmune disability should be 100% separate from other disabled people in the movement. This is no better than the people who tell me I can't claim cripple because I'm not a 24/7 wheelchair user. This is useless semantics.

Compartmentalizing the movement into multiple neatly categorized folders, further pathologizing and dividing ourselves, weaponizing trauma against one another, and acting out lateral violence does nothing. We work better as a god damn unit.

To ignore that mental disability can and usually does cause physically disabling effects without the presence of a "physical disability" is sanism and ableism. It's yet another way to gaslight ND ppl into a corner and frame them as attention seeking hypochondriacs. Congrats for joining the war on ableism on the side of ableism.

It's disappointing to see some people who's takes on transandrophobia I respect completely slipping.

How can you recognize in the context of another form of oppression that policing the use of language in theory like this is useless distracting semantics- but then turn around and pull the same shit w disability activism?

I am psychotic. I am a dissociative system. I am autistic. I have hEDS, NCAH, dysautonomia, and more. I belong to both of these communities and I don't want to see us tear each other apart for fuck's sake.

Learn to address when you're being reactionary!!!! I get where y'all came from with this but it doesn't mean it's right just because I understand it and almost fell into your logic myself at first. Y'all need to do what I did, identify your reactionary impulses, and SQUASH THEM.

We thrive together. If we tear one another part, the ableist and sanist system will simply laugh at us for self sabotaging, because we'll have served their goal.

Mindlessly jumping on the next wave of "YOU ARENT [BLANK] ENOUGH" discourse is almost always the wrong fucking move.

I want you all to take into consideration how truly debilitated and incapable of functions (INCLUDING PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL) some ND ppl are, even without a clinical "physical disability".

Because of my mental disability I'm less able to seek help for my physical disability because my being insane means I'm a "hypochondriac" that's not worth testing or taking seriously.

You are all very eager to forget that a lot of people who are mentally disabled are less likely to be given proper clinical care for physical symptoms, are more likely to be dismissed, and are more likely to go undiagnosed in many areas of health. You're not even considering that a large portion of these people also very likely HAVE clinical disabilities that they're not aware of yet and are actively experiencing symptoms of, and that them being brought into the cripple community with welcome arms could help THOUSANDS find answers and seek better care that they're being denied bc of sanism and ableism. You're too focused on feeling threatened and undermined to realize you're throwing your own under the bus materially.

Mental disability IS physical disability because the brain is a physical part of you. The mind isn't somehow alienated from the physical body. You can be physically disabled without a clinical physiological disability. If your mental disability impacts your physical capabilities, you are physically disabled even in the absence of a clinical physiological disability. You can claim cripple if you are physically impacted by disability of any kind. Period.

- sincerely a pissed off insane cripplepunk 🙃

Bad faith gets blocked.

[s0ulm8s]

boys like you (2.0)

✿ summary : alone and left in a mansion with nothing but your canvases and the dust slowly collecting on the window sills - a commission and a call from a childhood friend completely changes your life

✿ genre : hybrid au, deer!seokjin, black panther!yoongi, wolf!namjoon, great dane!hoseok, calico cat!jimin, tiger!taehyung, bunny!jungkook

✿ warnings : mentions of death, abuse, angst, maybe some mentions of assault, some fluff (let me know if i’ve missed anything)

✿ word count : 3.0K

✿ taglist : @gee-nee @narcissism-iskey​ @anongirl007​ 

✿ series masterlist! | 3.0

you had spent all night examining each pack member’s file, each hybrid had vastly different personalities, likes, dislikes, etc. - and you had to admit it was a lot to take in. you had also taken the time to search online and purchase all that you thought would be necessary in helping assimilate the hybrids into your home, new beds, dressers, food, utensils, etc. even scheduling reconstruction of your estate, updating the model and calculating up floor plans to change the biggest common room in the home in order to accommodate all seven of the hybrids, incase they wished to stay together in a bedroom where they could all fit comfortably. perhaps you were way too ahead of yourself, but that inheritance money needed to go somewhere.

it was now 3 hours before your scheduled time to meet the hybrids, and possibly sign their adoption papers. that is, if all parties want to be adopted by you. you scanned their files again.

name: kim seokjin (진)

birthdate: december 4, 1992

sign: sagittarius

age: 28 years

type: white-tailed dear

class: prey

role: care giver, protector

(tends to be subordinate, dominant traits)

as the oldest, kim seokjin falls into role of protector and caregiver naturally within the dynamics of his pack - trusting that there is no imminent danger. but outside of pack dynamics, he can fall into prey instincts quite quickly. this explains his dependance on wolf hybrid, kim namjoon. he shows more care- giving nature, resorting to protection in that case of the younger members more than the older predators.

seokjin enjoys spring, cooking, and familiarity. though he is quite outspoken and quick to defend, he is not the natural leader of the pack. he can be skeptical of humans, as in the wild, humans can be the deer populations top predator. he is respectful, intelligent, trustworthy, and resourceful. he is family orientated and selfless, as expected.

name: min yoongi (민윤기)

birthdate: march 9, 1993

sign: pisces

age: 27 years

type: black panther

class: apex predator

role: protector

(predominantly dominant traits)

as the second in age, and an apex predator, min yoongi is a fierce protector. maybe even sometimes to a fault. he doesnt shy away from threats, especially those directed toward his pack.

he is quiet, and quite reserved. he enjoys the piano, writing, and sleep. his harsh exterior is hard to break through as those within his pack are the only ones who have managed. he is quick to action. he, along with the instinctual pattern of his panther tendencies, sports an “act first, ask later” attitude. his counterpart, great dane hybrid, jung hoseok, helps balance this.

name: jung hoseok (정호석)

birthdate: february 18, 1994

sign: aquarius

age: 26 years

type: great dane

class: predator

role: protector

(predominantly dominant traits)

jung hoseok is the level headed protector, along with that of his successor in age, kim namjoon. as a domestic predator, he still sometimes falls into that category of protectee, but not inherently. in terms of owner, this is where his loyalty lies. where his instincts decide protection is needed most, as his pack members know how to protect themselves.

his personality is very bright, and quite bubbly. he is easy to talk to and offers sensible advice. his is found to be a bit goofy, and tends to lift the packs spirits when needed. hobbies include primarily dancing, and writing. he enjoys deep thinking.

name: kim namjoon (김남준)

birthdate: september 12, 1994

sign: virgo

age: 26 years

type: black timber wolf

class: apex predator

role: protector

(predominantly dominant traits)

kim namjoon is the packs natural leader. though he isn’t the oldest, he seems to be the one they look to for answers. in terms of owners, it seems he will display what’s best for his pack while keeping his own desires hidden. but much like his descendant, the domesticated hybrid, he will still put owner first when accepted as part of said pack. he is exceptionally intelligent and wise, violence isn’t his first instinct - but it is still a prominent trait.

though he is the leader, and can sport a hard and critical exterior, he has been observed to show a quite fun and loving side. as ancestor to the domesticated hybrid, he shows immense loyalty. sporting a bond for an owner that cannot be broken once trust is established. he can be very playful, he loves to read, and write music. he enjoys stimulating conversation.

name: park jimin (박지민)

birthdate: october 13, 1995

sign: libra

age: 25 years

type: calico cat

class: predator

role: protectee

(both dominant and subordinate traits)

though a predator, he is domestic, and when his instincts don’t call for action - park jimin knows he is protected by his elder counterparts. with this knowledge, he falls into the role of protectee quite effortlessly. though, he does show protector qualities when it comes to their youngest, jeon jungkook.

he is feisty and argumentative, but exceptionally loving. as a domesticated hybrid, he can be quite lazy and enjoys lots of rest but displays many burst of energy that seem to stimulate the rest of the pack. he enjoys singing, and is extremely affectionate - unafraid to show his affection for those he trusts.

name: kim taehyung (김태형)

sign: capricorn

birthdate: december 30, 1995

age: 25 years

type: bengal tiger

class: apex predator

role: inconclusive

(both dominant and subordinate traits)

as an apex predator, kim taehyung should fall into category of protector. over years of observation, the hybrid is willing protect but doesn’t display it prominently. as he is just as easily protected by his elders as that of counterpart, park jimin. and much like him, he will fall to defense of youngest, jeon jungkook, quickly. but his position remains inconclusive as he displays traits of both equally. the dynamic still works with the pack seamlessly.

he can seem quiet upon first meetings, but the hybrid is quite playful and excitable - especially with his agemate and younger counterpart. he likes to protect and be protected. he is an art connoisseur and seems to always be collecting new knowledge where he can find it.

name: jeon jungkook (전정국)

sign: virgo

birthdate: september 1, 1997

age: 23 years

type: rabbit

class: prey

role: protectee

(predominantly subordinate traits, does occasionally show dominant qualities)

youngest, jeon jungkook, falls into category of protectee quite easily. as prey, and categorically falling so low on the tree, it makes sense that his predator pack members would shield him. but he also shows fervent attachment to prey, kim seokjin.

the youngest can be rather shy when it comes to those who may or may not pose a threat, the ambiguity alone is enough to trigger is prey instincts. though, within his pack, those he trusts, he is extremely impulsive and affectionate. he also enjoys music, and singing, along with drawing and creating art. he is very lovable and fun.

* all pack members have experienced past neglect, abuse, and trauma.

each file was as meticulous as you could expect it to be, giving you the rundown of their diets, habits, personalities, etc. you heart stung at the last sentence and the realization that they had been observed for years, meaning they had been in the shelter for years.

though the idea was a bit overwhelming, you had to admit reading about them felt like a little glimpse into who they were - and you were suddenly very hopeful you’d be able to adopt them all.

though that didn’t come without nerves, you skimmed over each file, realizing then that even the youngest was a year older than you. you hoped your age wouldn’t pose a problem to seeing you in the light of owner, as someone they could look to for help or protection. you wiped away the thought, saving it for when it happened instead of creating a problem that didn’t exist yet.

looking up at the clock, you decided you should get ready. putting the files away into your bag neatly, you climbed up the stairs to the room you had made you own. wearing your hair down and applying a light layer of make up, you decided you should look somewhat presentable.

you didn’t know why you were so nervous suddenly, discarding outfit after outfit before realizing you were about to be late and finally deciding on a pair of loose jeans and a fitted sage green top. you hoped you looked as friendly as possible.

finally, you made it to the shelter, letting out a heavy breath and turning your car off - you tried to ease your nerves. you greeted yeosang at the front desk once again, along with dr. park as they directed you to the “interview deck.” there you found mingi, waiting for you with a stack of papers.

“y/n!” he called happily as he wrapped you in a firm embrace and you paid him a sweet smile. seven sets of ears perked up on the other side of the door, growing anxious as the seven boys paid each other glances. their skin buzzing wildly. “they’re all inside now. knowing you, i’m sure you did extensive research... i’m confident they’ll love you.” mingi reassured, as you stayed quiet. “whenever you’re ready.” he finally spoke, moving out of the way as you finally let out the breath you were holding.

you gripped the handle before thinking fuck it, and twisting it completely, stepping inside almost silently.

you can’t say you had expected the hybrids to look the way they did as you started at them wide-eyed, the moment seeming to move in slow motion as the tingling feeling you felt the day before returned, except it was incredibly more intense.

“hi -” you tried to speak before a large body came crashing into yours, almost knocking the wind of out you as you stumbled slightly. the tall boy wrapped his long arms over you shoulders, burying his face into your neck. you could feel him smiling against you skin.

“i’m so glad you came back for us.” the small voice rang out muffled against your hot skin. heartbeat thumping rapidly, and you know they could all hear it with their heightened senses. as you scanned the group, six set of eyes watching you intently, you noticed the only pair of ears missing were those of the bunny you met the day prior

“of course i came back.” you muttered softly, returning his embrace as he exhaled into you at the contact of your arms joining around his toned waist. you can’t say you figured the bunny would be so tall and broad, he clearly worked out to maintain his figure, perhaps to make up for being prey.

“jungkookie, let her breathe.” a deep voice echoed. the tone so deep and domineering you almost shook.

“right.” the younger boy laughed, pulling away with a deep blush that matched your own. “sorry.” he breathed out.

“that’s okay...” you whispered softly. “it’s nice to finally meet you properly, jungkook.” you finish, genuinely, giving him a happy smile and watching the tension fall out of his broad shoulders.

the owner of the deeper voice had now stood and was approaching confidently. gaze trained and focused on your much smaller frame, as you looked up at him towering about you, tall and strong.

his eyes raked your figure, petite and short, even shorter than jimin - and his instincts were screaming at him to protect you and usher you even further into the room, away from any possible danger. he ignored it, for now.

you observed his ashy black ears and tail, the traits matching his shaggy hair perfectly. “you must be, namjoon.” you concurred, as he tilted his head, just like a wolf would. his gaze made you squirm a bit.

“yes, that’s me.” he nodded, gesturing toward the chair sat directly in front of the couch that seven of them were sat on. “please.” he said firmly, as you nodded. finally, taking a seat and feeling a bit more at ease. “this is seokjin, our oldest” he spoke for the group, gesturing to the broad shouldered man on the far side of the couch, closest to the door. there was an empty spot next to him from where namjoon had just stood.

his skin was fair and spotless, and his clean cut dark hair was adorned with a pair of clean antlers. his plump lips formed in a small u-shaped smile as he bid you a polite nod that you returned.

“hoseok,” he introduced next. referring now to the honey-skinned great dane hybrid. he seemed to be bursting at the seems with energy but hid it well, despite his tail wagging quickly - grey/brown ears perking upward.

“hello!” he cheered happily, taking all of his energy and focussing it on not wrapping you in a tight embrace, much like jungkook had. he could smell you so vividly, they all could.

“hi!” you giggled a bit, his ears turning toward the noise. “it’s nice to meet you.” you both beam. you think maybe he was made by the sun itself, at how much warmth and happiness he radiates.

“yoongi.” he spoke next, just as the man next to hobi swatted the great dane’s wagging tail with a small snarl. he barely tilted his head back at you, seemingly uninterested in the whole encounter.

“jimin.” he said next, sending yoongi a death glare that the panther pointedly ignored. you smiled genuinely at the panther, before looking to jimin.

“ah, yes! we met yesterday as well.” you cheer softly as jimin cracked a proud smile at your acknowledgement, leaning forward to shake your free hand and place a quick kiss to it.

“i’m glad you’re here.” jimin spoke hushed, before letting your hand go and smirking at your blush, only nodding your head to him.

“and you’ve met jungkook,” he spoke next as the bunny waved at you again, one ear flopping down, long hair falling into his eyes. you waved back and he smiled brightly.

“and then finally, taehyung.” namjoon introduced last, as you face the last hybrid. his skin was tanned and soft, and his dark hair parted down the middle in soft waves. you could see his bengal features in his eyes. he paid you a respectful smile, reaching forward to shake your hand formally.

“it’s lovely to meet you.” he said, voice just as deep as namjoon’s, laced with a low purr. you gave another small smile, face tense.

“and you, taehyung.” you replied, as his soft hand let go of your own. namjoon let out a breath and sat down in his previous place as you met all of their gaze once more, only yoongi’s was trained on the floor. they looked expectant.

“i take it mingi has told you most of it, but my name’s y/n. i own an estate off the countryside, it’s quiet there. and, to be entirely honest with you, i never saw myself adopting a hybrid in general.. let alone seven but... i want to give you a proper home, and the freedom you deserve. if you’ll let me.” you spoke softly, but loud enough for each hybrid to hear. they studied your features, and the growing heat of their skin, staring quizzically.

“if you -“ you started speaking just as namjoon did. you chuckled lightly. “go ahead.” you gesture.

“would it be alright if we asked you some questions?” namjoon asked respectful, as you immediately nod your head in approval.

“of course. anything at all.” you encourage as you met seokjin’s trained gaze.

“not to be.. abrupt or rude, but, how old are you, y/n?” seokjin asked, voice melodic and pretty.

“oh, i-i’m 22... i know i’m younger than you all, but i can confidently say i can provide for you. i had to grow up pretty quickly.” you admit, and the boy take note of that last thought. namjoon wonder’s why but chooses not to pry. fore now.

“i trust you.” seokjin spoke, ceasing your explanation as the two of you held a piercing gaze until you nodded to him - silently thanking him.

“what do you do?” hoseok asked next, leaning forward a bit and smiling. they watch your expression beam a bit at the question.

“i’m an artist! i - i work from home so i’ll be able to devote as much time to each of you as possible, if that’s what you want, of course.” you tell him happily, reflecting on your work as he takes note of every expression you make.

“an artist? kookie likes to draw a lot, too!” jimin explained, wrapping an arm around jungkook’s shoulders and ruffling his hair as the boys laughed.

“i’d love to see your work sometime.” you admit sweetly as jungkook blushes. the rest of the boys ask you basic questions abbot your life, why you’re here, all except yoongi.

the conversation dwindles quite naturally before yoongi finally speaks up, “so why would a 22 year old girl want to adopt seven hybrids? what are your intentions?” yoongi’s voice is laced with venom, his question makes you sit straight as your gazes finally meet.

the two of you stare at one another, studying the other’s gaze, trying to read them. both parties becoming inwardly frustrated when they fail.

though hoseok gives yoongi’s thigh a squeeze in quiet warning, he also looks at you expectantly. along with the five other boys. you take in a deep breath.

“just like you, i have to gain your trust just as much as you have to gain mine. if you give me a chance, let me get to know you and in turn get to know me - i think i can give you what the seven of you need. a home... a safe haven... i want to be that for you, if you’ll let me. i’ve been blessed with the resources to do so. my heart aches at the thought of the seven of you being here for so long, and there is no string of words that i can say to even begin to ease the burden of what you’ve been through, but i want to try. i want to understand. and i want the seven of you... if you want me, too.” you answered honestly, voice lower as you start at the floor, rolling your hands together.

you finally look back up at yoongi whose dark gaze has now softened. previous potentials who had even considered meeting all seven of the hybrids would give up on them at yoongi’s harsh tone and hot attitude - using it as an excuse to decline their adoption. but you didn’t. you met his words with sincerity and kindness, and it’s not something any of them had experienced. and the fact that you hadn’t given up yet, spoke wonders to the seven of them.

they all shared a knowing glance, “okay... we want you, too.” namjoon finally spoke, as you broke into a happy smile.

✿ author’s note : thank you so much for all the love on the first part so far, I really wasn’t expecting it. i’m posting part one and two tonight as to get the story rolling and will hopefully have part three out tomorrow night! i can’t have a set schedule as my work and school schedules fluctuate but i’ll be as consistent as possible as i’m just as invested! thank you! 

[mylieutenant]

REDUX: Roy regaining his vision was the right narrative choice [META]

The idea that Roy should have stayed blind as punishment for his crimes is far too prevalent, and I believe this misses the point of Roy’s journey. Here’s why.

As a preface, I’m going to add a bit of a disclaimer that disability as a punishment is a bit of a sensitive issue, and I don’t subscribe to the mentality that disability is a valid form of punishment (or inherently a punishment altogether). This stems from prior discussion so I think it’s important to set this straight.

In the context of the series, Truth takes away something a person values (most often an ability of some sort) as toll for performing Human Transmutation and seeing past the Gate. The characters often interpret it to be their punishment for committing the ultimate taboo, and readers often interpret it as narrative punishment for hubris. I will be discussing it in that context regardless of my own moral stance. To counter that, though, the series introduced theme that every character who lost an ability gained something unexpected out of their adventures, implying that disability shouldn’t be interpreted as unequivocal punishment.

When viewers say “Roy should have stayed blind”, they are often using disability to punish him. Furthermore, they are using it to punish him for the one crime they did not commit. In fact, he categorically refused to perform Human Transmutation, against great temptation. He did the right thing there. If we take this into account, the narrative would be enacting revenge, not fair retribution, if it left Roy blind because of a misguided sense of karma. This is exactly the sort of revenge Arakawa consistently painted in a negative light.  A clear message this series sends is that an eye for an eye accomplishes nothing, and that the cycle of violence must be broken. Scar is a good example of this. Winry breaking the cycle of violence drives this home. Roy refusing to kill Envy after being so close is the last straw. This series pushes the idea that revenge is fruitless, violence brings more violence, and it expects the viewer to internalize that. Using disability as retribution for an unrelated crime was never to be expected.

Now, Roy has committed acts of true evil. It is not my intention to justify, condone, approve or downplay the Ishvalan genocide (nevermind that there are rarely similar clamors for punishment regarding other war criminals like Riza and Hughes). Arakawa makes it clear Roy and Riza will face justice. That said, whether one as a bystander thinks that they can be forgiven, that is entirely personal, and not the topic of this meta. Arakawa doesn’t condemn the reader for either opinion. I’ll go as far as to say that we’re forced into the role of bystanders. I’ll go a step further in that the viewer’s say is irrelevant altogether - Roy’s actions are powerful because they are not dependent on forgiveness. It’s not something he’s after, not something he believes to be entitled to. He’s doing the right thing for its own sake. That’s all there is to it. He’s not seeking for redemption - at the end of his road, he still expects he’ll be condemned.

An argument can be made that it is perhaps unfair for a man to choose his own path to justice. However, by this point, the Military dictatorship is likely to continue if Roy doesn’t accomplish his goals. If he never makes it that far, his crimes may never be recognized as such. He’s digging his own grave, and doing so with his eyes open (pun intended). I don’t think it can be said this is an easy fate.

I will admit that I’ve seen interesting takes on how a blind Roy could have been given a fitting ending, but in all of these, Roy still finds a way to be of service for the greater good. And thus, in this angle, the permanent loss of his vision has little narrative significance that isn’t achieved by letting him regain his sight (unlike, for example, Edward never recovering his leg and keeping the one Winry made for him to stand on). We got the one moment of Riza being his eyes, which made a great point, but making it permanent would have implications for Riza that I don’t believe would be for the benefit of her journey.

Sure, there’s plenty a blind Roy could do for his country, but there’s no denying this path would make his way forward harder. This is also why I’m so Brotherhood-critical on this subject - Brotherhood glosses over the massive difficulties a blind man in the Military would have to go through to have the amount of power Roy would need for his plans.

The different endings (Manga vs. Brotherhood) give a different take on Roy before accepting the Philosopher’s Stone. I originally wrote this meta based on the manga, but it didn’t occurred to me then that Brotherhood alters these interpretations. The manga shows us a lonely, defeated Roy that doesn’t know how he’ll push forward. Meanwhile, Brotherhood has him surrounded by his trusted ones already determined to act for the betterment of Ishval (and he also asks Marcoh to restore Havoc’s mobility, but that’s mostly irrelevant to the point and meta for another time).

Brotherhood’s fate for Roy is the generally preferred version because it’s so feel-good, but I personally find that Roy being offered a new purpose makes Marcoh’s gesture, and Roy accepting it, all the more powerful. It also gives him a bit more justification in doing so too; if Roy doesn’t know what will become of him, he’ll be more willing to accept to use the Philosopher’s Stone. Either way, the point still stands that him using the Stone is part of a deal.

On that matter, ambiguous morality exists within the FMA-verse and general usage Philosopher’s Stone is the perfect example of this. Often the takeaway is that using the stone is inherently evil, but it really isn’t quite that simple. It’s been used for evil, and the Elric brothers refuse to use it to gain their bodies back, but Alphonse and Hohenheim recognize that these trapped souls have agency and allow them to act for the greater good. This sets precedence for Roy’s decision to be potentially interpreted as a morally sound alternative. Him using the Philosopher’s Stone for the benefit of the reconstruction effort is a pact. He’s vowing to be the voice of the Ishvalans trapped within it. So Roy’s trade-off might be morally ambiguous, as he still derives personal benefit from it, but it’s not devoid of integrity. He’s not being “rewarded” with his sight, but it’s a bargaining chip in a deal that will come at great personal cost.

I think the true power of this moment stems from the fact that we don’t really know what happened next. Arakawa cleverly cuts off this narrative before Roy has to deal with the opinions of those who actually matter - the Ishvalan people. Scar and Miles have their stance, but we don’t know the rest. The implication Arakawa makes with Scar and Miles is that any Ishvalan reconstruction would have to feature Ishvalan voices on the forefront, and for all many of the aspects of their portrayal are a bit questionable (meta for a different time) this is something she got right. In the end, it would be the Ishvalan people’s choice how to deal with Roy’s crimes against them. I respect her narrative choice in not taking this away from them (and by extension, from real-life minorities that have gone through a genocide) by deciding Roy’s punishment/justice should be left for the future.

So that’s where this leaves us. Roy regaining his sight is the narrative refusing to use his blindness as revenge or punishment for a crime he did not commit, instead leaving his fate to be decided by the people he oppressed, and letting him go forward with willingly marching to his own grave. I don’t forgive Roy for the part he took in the Ishvalan genocide and I don’t make excuses for him. The question is, on the grand scheme of things, is it worth for the story to take narrative revenge on him at this point? What are we, the bystanders, accomplishing by enacting punishment on a man that has so clearly changed for the better?

[thorne1435]

Okay, I can't do all of this right now because I am busy with school work that I'm currently using this procrastinate, but I do feel the need to clear up at least one thing because all of the TERFs in the notes have been sending me anon hate about it and driving me crazy in general:

When I talked about our gender roles--I said our gender roles--I was specifically referring to western gender. The kind that any former british colony can derive their gender roles' lineage to. What I meant by that was white people justifying violence against black people tipped their hand too far regarding gender-based oppression and revealed in retrospect that gender and race are both kinda fake, aren't they? I mean if you can just define your entire beauty standard and indeed femininity itself around something that only a rich white woman would be able to achieve, specifically because it allows you dehumanize and oppress an entire group of ethnicities for your economic convenience then...well, that doesn't like it's very backed up by biology, in spite of its starting point.

The source of this information was some video essay I had watched recently at the time of writing that and I admit that that is not great as far as sources go, but I really liked that information so it seemed like a convenient time to share it. Turns out that was a really immature point that I was making that did not go over well at all.

I won't bother defending it beyond saying that I do still believe it but that I did a really poor job of conveying that I only meant western culture and also that I did not mean that gender roles didn't exist until that point because that's fucking absurd. All I meant was that it was a massive restructuring of what race and gender were and that can't happen if it's entirely natural: something about it has to be false for such arbitrarity to be possible.

I will admit, also, that the dawn of human society cross-culturally is believed to be consistently oppressive towards females as a proposed class of people, categorized into "womanhood" as a sort of "lesser personhood". I wouldn't say that means gender is inherent and I would find it weirdly supportive of that misogynist notion to be saying that sex and gender are the same thing. You can't break free of gender-based oppression if gender is real and inherent to your sex, because gender has proven itself arbitrary enough to just...redefine itself to account for the biological facts of femaleness and maleness that we discover as time goes on.

And it does! Females can go on planes now, because it isn't believed that their "vapors" or w/e render them unable to withstand higher altitudes, but we still hear people say that their hormone cycles render them useless in a job setting and that they're just biologically predisposed to staying home and taking care of the kids.

What a strange way of saying "Get back in the kitchen!" Shouldn't you be appalled by that? Isn't it a bit ridiculous that women-as-a-gender's biological tie to females-as-a-sex constantly leads to the assumption that whatever is found in the female sex is the inherently weaker version of human capability? Or that males (and by extension men) have some inherent genetic advantage that females just can't compete with??

I mean, I'm certainly bothered by that idea. The feminist in me won't allow it.

Whatever you use to define the sexes, its effects on you shouldn't be a big enough deal to warrant creating castes over it. It shouldn't define sports, or economics, or permitted social interactions, or "instincts."

Its role for humans in particular (since you have already admitted that we are cultural beings capable of making this happen) should be beginning and ending with primary and secondary sex characteristics. The gametes, if you just prefer. If you start saying that those gametes are going to make people less dominant or less physically strong or w/e, you're just giving in to patriarchal ideas that you were exposed to as a child. I don't know what else to say.

It's not really necessary for us to pretend the differences between males and females are drastic enough to deserve their own social roles anymore. In order to discard those roles, we're gonna have to start actually treating women and men equally. But that's not gonna happen if people keep saying "But think of the genita- or, I mean hormo- no wait, the chromoz--, sorry no, I meant GAMETES!"

The longer you guys hammer home what makes us slightly different, the longer it takes to achieve "female liberation." Which kinda just makes me think you either don't care. I know that isn't true. So come on. Just try. For me :)

Anyway I gotta get back to work. Sorry for the shitty response. As always, anon is on and inbox is open, so please, treat that as a complaints department.

Listen, time for wisdom:

There will never be a trans-inclusive "All-Girl" space.

Fundamentally, to define a space as "All-Female" or even "All-Women" is to define the term female or woman. Both of those things are nebulous at best, and that means they will, usually, resort to the usual take: "Woman means adult human female." And "Female means a fertile, vagina-having, motherly, She/Her cisfem." TERF shit.

The only people who would make a rule with such a premise are TERFs themselves or traumatized cis women who really do believe that the mere presence of a man is a threat to their safety. Neither of which--as you're probably already aware--are going to be very trans-inclusive.

We can talk about why people think this way another time. For now the important part is, if you want to feel safer or more socially integrated, seek out all-queer or all-trans spaces, not all-woman spaces. Queer people will understand you more than cis people ever could.

(And yes theoretically this applies to trans men as well if you replace every feminine thing with a masculine one. Gender restrictions are antithetical to trans people as a whole.)

[the-ghost-king]

the term malewife isn’t a very nice term to use...

A man who acts as a wife and is inferior to his #girlboss girlfriend.

Person A: I just got myself a malewife. He's gonna clean my kitchen and watch me download custom content for the sims.

Person B: Sweet! You must be such a girlboss

^^urban dictionary. It’s just confirming to the sexist stereotypes that perceive and expectation of what a wife should act like. It’s quite harmful

It's a parallel to girlboss which is conformity to the sexism within corporate America:

"it becomes inescapably clear that when women center their worldview around their own office hustle, it just re-creates the power structures built by men, but with women conveniently on top. In the void left after the end of the corporate feminist vision of the future, this reckoning opens space to imagine success that doesn’t involve acing performance reviews or getting the most out of your interns." (here)

The word girlboss comes from a book quite literally called #girlboss, in parallel to the negative aspects of this book people eventually rebranded the term "malewife" to parallel it (malewife was originally an nsfw type thing)

In the malewife/girlboss "system" it's essentially the swapping of the problematic aspects, expectations, and socialization of men and women within a relationship

"Girlboss, gaslight, gatekeep" was a meme started to pick on the idea that women should become men and enforce the sexism within corporate society, and I'm sure it was a jab at the book the word came from as well.... "Manipulate, mansplain, malewife" was created to parallel the original meme

So yeah, the whole concept is mocking sexism within corporations and and modern relationships and showing how ridiculous it is. Girlboss mocks the idea of 2014 (largely) white feminism within America.

In example the original meme (created on Twitter) is intended to make mockery of Karen-types:

On January 12th, 2021, Tumblr user missnumber1111 posted, "today’s agenda: gaslight gatekeep and most importantly girlboss," garnering over 43,500 notes in a month (shown below). On that day, Twitter user @CUPlDL0VE posted, "my agenda is gaslight gatekeep and #girlboss," the first instance of the phrase on Twitter.

And a day later on January 13, 2021 Tumblr user a-m-e-t-h-y-s-t-r-o-s-e reblogged the post along with a photoshopped image of "Live, Laugh, Love" wall art instead reading, "Gaslight every moment, Gatekeep every day, Girlboss beyond words" (shown below). On January 18th, the image was reposted to Twitter for the first time.

Malewife doesn't hold those same implications however... The term malewife which is now being used to parallel girlboss achieves it's origins from p*rn, now I'm not an nsfw blog or someone who blatantly discusses nsfw concepts on my blog so I'm not getting super into it but there's a few places it comes from: femdom, bdsm, and feminization kinks... All of which have a connection to queerness in their own right but I don't feel comfortable going into the complexities of that with so many younger people following me.

On February 15th, Tumblr user @relelvance posted, "Manipulate, mansplain, malewife" as a male-themed opposite to "gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss," garnering over 27,000 notes in four days. The post was screenshotted and reuploaded by Twitter user @nortoncampbell on the same day, garnering over 14,200 likes and 2,800 retweets in the same span of time (shown below).

Urban dictionary's explaination of "malewife" is not only harsher than what malewife was intended to mean, but also removes the context of origin from the word- making it something new, different, and erasing the history of who originally used this word.

Because of Malewifes origins vs Girlboss origins, malewife is a less problematic term than girlboss and is more "affectionate" because the term malewife and it's use (up until recently) involved the man acknowledging that he wanted to be the "wife" in his relationship. There's a variety of reasons someone might do this, but it can generally be summed up as a mixture of personality and also personal wants.

I do think it's important to also note that although these words are being "glamorized slightly" they're still intended and being used in a memeing manner, but they're also used to quickly denote arbitrary traits in an individual and categorize those traits...

Although there's lots of conversations to be had for a variety of reasons about the origin and use of the word "girlboss" in relation to sexism, up until recently the world "malewife" was something claimed by men, something men wanted to be called, and something that men who used the term wanted to reference them.

Malewife is about "stepping-up" to "take on" "female" social roles, and it's something that at least some women would be happy to see in society:

"...We have been told that we can have it all, but so far we have noticed that it is extremely hard work having it all, because you still have to do everything that your mother did but now you have to do everything your father did as well. Except that your father had your mother waiting at home with a gin and tonic and his slippers when he came home from work, and you have the washing up and the shopping and a few screaming brats as well as a bloke with his feet up on the sofa watching the football... " (via. Victoria Mary Clarke)

And I don't think that she's wrong at all. Women are still expected to do so much more than men in society without equal reward.

Malewife exists as a a sort of fantasy removed from the truth of society. It's an idea that a husband can be waiting at home to care for his wife, and in this instance it benefits the woman- unlike Clarke's situation above, the woman comes home from a long day and is able to relax without the pressures of society and her life.

Where housewife is a word that holds its origins in forced subservience, malewife is a term that is showcasing men "picking up the torch" in regards to housework- where housewife is socially forced, and girlboss is reversed social compliance, malewife is the rejection of social expectations.

Malewife is about men finding a place in their life's and relationships to make themselves more than a paycheck. To say "I can be emotionally there for my spouse, I can clean a toilet, and drive kids to school, and I don't treat my spouses wants as something expendable". In a society in which men are often demeaned, mocked, and scorned for picking up socially female roles (say hello to misogyny and gendered contamination!)

The Urban dictionary definition, is not only too harsh- but not the way in which the word is intending to be used, because that's ignoring the origins of this word, and the fact that men had a choice in becoming malewifes where women didn't have that choice. It should read more like:

Person A: Ah yeah, I have a malewife waiting for me, he's going to clean my kitchen because I've had a hard day at work and need a break, and then he's going to watch me download custom content for the Sims because I enjoy the game so much and it helps me take a break from life!

Women's wants were often ignored in favor of men's wants, so by the malewife saying he's going to watch his spouse play the Sims, he's really saying "I care about her interests" and by him picking up the kitchen cleaning after she's had a stressful day he's saying "I have a lower stress job so I can handle that for her and make her life a little easier" (because malewife doesn't mean he doesn't have a job).

In a society in which a man's worth is tied to his ability to bring home money and be emotionally distant, malewife is the rejection of this norm. Malewifes are going to be there for their spouse, they're going to step up and take on traditionally women's roles and they're doing it because they want to, because they like it, and because dividing chores into pink vs blue is wrong.

I also want to say, you can't flip a word around and say it does "this" because that's not how it works... Men and women are forcibly socialized in very different ways, the two binaries have very different treatment, and expectations within societies social constructs. If you could flip the forms of oppression that men vs women face (because yes, the patriarchy oppresses men) then you could also flip the forms of violence faced by trans masculine people vs trans feminine people- but that doesn't work either, because women will always be oppressed in the most public way to "make an example of them" while the patriarchy expects anyone who is male to "keep his mouth shut and fall in line". (I know that's worded poorly, but I've just written at least a couple hundred words and my brain is a bit fried already from various other things today- basically anyone perceived female or male will be treated in a certain way as a result of others perception of them)

Anyhow, all this isn't to say that the term "malewife" is inherently free of any form of flaw ever... Malewife is a newly mainstream word, it wasn't popularized until February 15 of 2021... So?? 5 days ago?? The origins of malewife and the social implications of malewife combined with the history of the word, don't make the word bad or impressive and it's not "upholding the ideals of a housewife" but instead a word which provides men freedom from male social expectations.

Can the word malewife come to be a word which enforces expected female social behavior? Yeah it absolutely can become a word to mean that, erase the history from the word, and give it to someone who doesn't know the history of the word, and someone who doesn't have an intimate understanding of gender theory, and you've got a recipe for hundreds more asks like the one you've sent me...

I can't find a single positive reason to use the word girlboss in an empowering way, but I can find more reasons to use the word malewife in an empowering way than not to do so.

So at the very least if all you come away from this with is that I don't personally use the word malewife to uphold female social expectations in a relationship but instead I use this word to provide space for guys to be allowed to be feminine, soft, caring, emotionally present, and worth more than their monetary value, then I guess that's okay.

[aronarchy]

Hi! I've been trying to challenge my ideas of violence being inherently bad. Would it be okay for you to elaborate on your views on violence? This is something struggling with recently, and I feel like I need some guidance. You seem to be very knowledgeable and I would love to hear your thoughts.

I seem to be some variant of utilitarian and I want to minimize the amount of harm in the world that people experience. I think the belief that someone can “deserve” violence/“deserve” to be harmed is inherently wrong. I want to minimize the amount of violence in the world.

Which is why I am against the violence of the state, the violence of abuse, the violence of violence which often/usually/always requires violence to stop. I am against violence—except when it is necessary to stop greater violence (which isn’t necessary to stop greater violence etc).

What is or isn’t “necessary to stop greater violence,” what counts/doesn’t count as “self-defense,” is of course debatable. Usually, in this context, it’s about whether or not the abused should use violence against their abusers to stop the abuse, whether the oppressed should use violence against their oppressors to stop their oppression.

It’s useful to remember here that there is no one who is categorically opposed to all violence. i.e. if you are against marginalized people using violence to defend themselves against their oppressors or overthrow oppressive systems, then you support the violence those systems enact upon them. Inaction is still an action; choosing “to not choose” is still making a choice.

Usually the “nonviolence” people come from some variety of neoliberal belief sets—“against violence” as an aesthetic choice, as an abstract quality, which in reality is not actually against violence, just against change and pro the status quo. When you’ve been indoctrinated your whole life into believing that the system is an inherently good idea/right/safe as long as it’s allowed to work the way it’s supposed to, and any disturbances/opposition to it/non-legitimized violence must be from bad actors making things worse, and as long as the individual bad actors are eliminated all problems will go away, even with no underlying fundamental changes.

→ debates about violent protesting, riots, revolts etc. and liberal arguments of reform—that violence isn’t in fact required to stop oppression, because as long as you ask oppressors nicely/convince them through Facts And Logic in the Free Marketplace Of Ideas/Work Within The System then you can effect your desired changes there. Painting rioters as “bad for optics” and “unnecessary,” as aggressors/people wanting to do violence for the sake of violence, rather than people with a reasonable motive (stopping far worse violence).

→ debates about tone-policing in discussions about oppression, obligatory politeness etc

This is a very tl;dr’d version, I tried to cover some basics of what I guessed you might be considering based off what I usually post on my blog but I might’ve guessed completely wrong and you were actually thinking about different specific points, idk.

This is one of my favorites for an intro to the topic; this is very nice (long text with historical examples calculating the utility of violent vs nonviolent resistance).

Hope that helps!

[swamp-world]

like. yall remember how we had to spend so much time talking to people and trying to convince them that “toxic masculinity doesn’t mean all masculinity is toxic, it refers specifically to the kind that is possessive and aggressive above all else and denies men legitimate emotional expression”? i would really love for someone to explain to me why exactly it is that that’s what i’m encountering on a day to day basis in queer spaces, particularly about trans men and non-feminine trans AMAB people. why is it that we went from explaining the above, to actually believing that masculinity is inherently toxic, with like, maybe the exception of certain butch women who engage with masculinity but also like. i don’t even know how to put this. that seems to be the only acceptable form of masculinity for some people? only when it applies to women who consider themselves women. this would categorically exclude butches as a gender/noun, many of whom don’t. this also only really applies to cis butch women, because god knows if a trans butch woman tries to engage with masculinity then it’s the bad kind of masculinity again.

like. i cannot stress enough that a TERF talking point was about rates of violence across genders and transitions. i’ll see if i can maybe find the posts that i’m thinking of but. TERFs love the idea that masculinity is bad and violent, and will weaponize that against absolutely anyone that they can. the one that comes to mind is a post that talks about violence before and after transition, that essentially went as follows, with stats and sources (that i never bothered to check, because most terfs don’t, so when i find it again i want to see where they’re from and if the data is misrepresented in the post):

Baseline level of violence of cis men is higher than that of cis women

Trans women retain that same level of violence after transitioning

Ergo, trans women are still violent men and still a danger

Trans men’s aggression increases to that of cis men after transitioning

Ergo, trans men are also violent men and now are a danger

The idea from this is clear: men’s violence is inherent. Transitioning away from being a man cannot save you from this inherent violence; it is a curse that comes with being AMAB. Trans women will forever be violent and dangerous. On the other hand, it also essentially states that being AFAB can’t save you from the overwhelming power of men’s violence. You become a traitor, you become the oppressor, you end up like The Bad Men, Because All Men Are Bad, Masculinity Is Bad.

Let’s go over a quick question tho: what’s the difference between a straight trans man and a butch lesbian?

How they identify. What labels they use. 

TERFs and transandrophobes don’t always delineate between things like medical/hormonal/social transition and what those mean. So when they say “transition” that can mean anything from “started using he/him pronouns” to ��multiple surgeries and HRT”. Those studies used in the TERF post will have a clear definition of “transition” for their standards, I imagine. This isn’t about that post specifically, though. The idea that trans mascs become aggressive and violent and toxically masculine after transition has a few major points that need to be addressed

This all only works if you consider manhood and masculinity to be inherently violent, aggressive, and bad. It’s not. Full stop.

If “transition” isn’t defined clearly, then anything affiliated with trans masc transition immediately enters one into the realm of toxic and bad manhood and masculinity. It doesn’t matter if a person is just using new pronouns or if they’ve fully medically transitioned—a trans masc is a trans masc, and they will always be inherently toxically masculine, is what this message boils down to.

Also, if “transition” isn’t clearly defined, then we also have the issue that it is specifically the label of “man” that causes issues. A trans man who either doesn’t want to medically transition or hasn’t yet, and a butch woman, might physiologically be the same. They are both AFAB people willingly engaging in masculinity. If trans mascs are aggressive and violent, and if the primary difference between these two hypothetical people and their experiences etc. are the labels that they use, then it is the word “man” that is bad, it is the rejection of womanhood that is bad—masculinity can be engaged with but only as a woman. 

like. i cannot stress enough the logical backflips that are occurring here. if two people engage in the same behaviour but one is “man” and the other is “not”, then it doesn’t matter who is cis and who is trans, the “man” part overrides all of it and manifests that aggression and violence

do yall fucking see how this is terf rhetoric. like. terfs believe that womanhood as imposed upon people is bad. this becomes an idea that things that are masculine are the neutral, natural default. the idea is that men kept the good things for themselves, the natural things, and forced women to wear high heels to change their body and posture, to wear uncomfortable clothes while keeping the pants to themselves, to change and paint their faces and shave their hair while keeping theirs natural and the same. natural = good, and if men keep the natural, then natural is affiliated with masculinity. so then for terfs, women can engage with the natural, the traditionally masculine, without it being bad or a danger to other women, because it’s a turn away from imposed womanhood and imposed femininity. but if you engage with this, with the “natural” as actively being the masculine, it’s only then that it is a problem.

to clarify, that means that if you are a trans man engaging with the “natural” for the same reasons that a butch woman does, but using a different label while you do so, you are engaging in gender essentialism, oppression, and toxic behaviours, because manhood is bad.

not only do we have to stop treating trans masculinity as toxic and bad, right, not only do we have to let trans men be masculine with joy and celebration, but we have to let cis men do the same. we have to stop vilifying men and manhood, regardless of who is engaging in it. “man” is a gender too, “woman” is not the only gender, and when we say we need to engage in gender liberation, that includes “man” as well as “woman” and “nonbinary” and every other label.

[illnessfaker]

that post you just reblogged by vaspider has a multitude of problems irt both liberation for physically disabled/ill people and mentally disabled/ill people. ignoring points of solidarity between the two groups isn't helpful towards liberation, no, but neither is saying "mental conditions are inherently physical disabilities because the brain is an organ" as an argument because on top of being a logical fallacy that idea has historically played out pretty badly irt mental illness specifically and neither is ignoring the differences between "physically disabled" and "mentally disabled/ill" as social categories to the extent that people are pretending as if "cripple" somehow isn't a word that people associate with mobility impairment before anything else, even if people who lack mobility impairments are sometimes called that (but i mean everyone and their brother regardless of any specific disability status is gonna get called the r-slur if they play on an online CoD lobby.)

anyway, i'm gonna quote my own post and see if you can glean anything from that in terms of how physical disability and mental disability are distinguished from one another:

trying to locate where the division between mental disability/illness and physical disability/illness using the body/mind is almost entirely irrelevant anyway because that's not where the distinction is actually created because the distinction is sociocultural. in other words, the distinction between mental and physical conditions is not an essential one, it is one that is externally created due to the ways in which they are stigmatized and also categorized and addressed by the medical establishment and society as a whole.

diagnoses of mental conditions revolve around analysis of thinking and behavior. diagnoses of physical conditions revolve around analysis of bodily function. sanism and ableism against mental conditions revolve around punishment for perceived deviations from normative patterns in thinking and behavior. ableism against physical conditions revolves around punishment for perceived deviations from normative bodily functioning.

obviously these two things have overlap. obviously appeals to neurological functioning are often made when it comes to sanism and ableism against mental conditions ("something is wrong with your brain") but that doesn't mean beliefs around brain dysfunction are the backbone of sanism and ableism against mental conditions. obviously appeals to psychological functioning are made when it comes to ableism against physical conditions (medical gaslighting and accusations of physically disabled/ill people just being "crazy" or "hysteric" or "making things up") but that doesn't mean beliefs around psychological functioning are the backbone of ableism against physical conditions.

yeah, conversion and psychosomatic symptoms exist. yeah, there are many cases in which mental conditions create chronic enough physical impairment or physical conditions create chronic enough impairments in thinking/behavior that the lines between mental and physical disability/illness blur. yeah, medications that alter neurological functioning are used in treatment for mental conditions, but again, the goal is changes in thinking and behavior + medication is not the only effective treatment. absolutely none of that means that the distinction needs to be thrown out wholesale because that would be like insisting we shouldn't make any distinction between men and women or transgender and cisgender anymore since gender is also socially-constructed rather than being an inherent quality - we still live in a society where gendered violence exists and where men and women/transgender and cisgender people are, broadly, not treated as if they are the same and have different enough general relationships to gendered violence that those categories are warranted in understanding how our society functions.

notice how none if this is in black-and-white terms, because it is correct that there isn't really a hard line between physical vs. mental conditions. there also isn't hard line between neurotypical and neurodivergent but i'm not out here arguing that neurotypical is a useless term because of that.

overall the idea that "a person with a mental illness has a disability of their physical body" isn't going to start being true and isn't going to start helping mentally ill people in terms of meaningful social change, rather than being something that's justified egregious institutional and societal harm to us just because vaspider - a tumblr user who has displayed a lengthy history of problematic behavior ever since i joined tumblr back in like 2014 - posted about it, i promise you.

So I know every social media site likes to pretend it is better then other social media sites. Right now the disability community on tumblr is trying to exclude disabled people from disability spaces, because only select psychical disabilities are "real" disabilities. On tiktok?! Disabled people are calling out EMS workers for their violent ableism and educating people on why some of us are scared to even call 911 if we need help, outside of the bill. (yes this is US centric, I'm American.) What do you think is going to be more helpful for disabled people in the long term?

I barely post on tiktok because making videos isn't really accessible to me and doing so is very stressful so it would be nice if y'all could stop being laterally violent.

[the-corvidae-collective]

The following post will be very venty and incoherent because I just got negatively front triggered and now I’m gonna talk about it.

There are unironically people out there who unironically use phrases like “anti-psych/anti-science” and who call a history of systems advocating for themselves in spite of institutionalized and system violence “an anti-DID hate movement” and I know, logically, there is a reason. There is a reason the people who say those things and treat anti-psych survivors that way are of the demographic that they are. I know that the fact that DID systems and people who have experienced severe trauma heavily rely on the psychiatric institution and scientific academia as an uncontested objective reality because the truth of a subjective/nuanced reality in which mentally ill and neurodivergent people are systematically abused and subjugated by the entire system that studies and treats them while still existing and needing to be studied is literally unbearable. I remember when we used to believe all those things and how we got there. I remember looking at the systemic abuse of us and people like us (and disproportionately of people even less privileged than us, especially BIPOC) and deciding that I literally could not live in a world where it is simultaneously true that neurodivergence is a real thing that significantly impacts my life and the institution that invented that entire method of categorization and controls everything about it exists historically and currently as a tool for oppression and marginalization. That reality is painful and complicated. That reality forces you to look at the professionals, the only people you’ve ever been able to consistently trust and rely on, and to recognize that they have and continually do harm you, to see that they are standing precariously on a history of violence that is ongoing and unaddressed. For people like us who already experience delusions, including persecutory delusions, it was a terrifying thought that the very little unambiguous trustworthy power we thought might still exist could be unreliable. (Hint: there is no such thing as unambiguous or trustworthy power consolidated on that scale. Once people in positions of power get to decide who gets what rights, they can instantly use that system for whatever they want, and will inevitably use it to maintain that power.) It was far easier, and more comforting, to believe that we were simply the unreliable ones, that our experiences were rooted in personal weakness or inadequacy rather than systemic disenfranchisement.

The thing that changed this mindset for us was seeing all the others who have been harmed. Learning our history, a history in part of systems who insisted they were not the labels and models a psychiatrist forced upon them and that they did not consent to the way their identities were medicalized, showed us a vision of ourselves, of the pain we’ve seen throughout our experience in the mental healthcare system. We saw swathes or other “crazy” people like us, people who weren’t believed, people crying for consent and protection and safety and to be spared from relentless dehumanization. We were not the only ones who had been stripped of our autonomy. We were, and are, in the scheme of all those who have been impacted, one of the “lucky” ones. The severely traumatizing experiences and continual marginalized we have experienced is quite average in terms of what most neurodivergent people experience. We are not a special case, and our case is unimaginably severe.

The idea that people will not believe us and others like us is not even the slightest bit new or shocking. We’ve become extremely desensitized to it, in fact. The thing that hits us so hard when we see people and posts that demonstrate this kind of mindset is that we know it is almost certain that they are the result of disenfranchisement and vehement denial and cognitive dissonance as a literal survival mechanism. They are a reminder of all we have to fight for and how far we are from creating a world that sees ND and mentally ill people as even worthy of basic human rights and autonomy. When we’re fighting for these rights, we’re not just fighting for ourselves, or even for all the other people who have come forward with their experiences of violent oppression and who have tirelessly campaigned for our rights. We’re doing it for everyone who is terrified of a world without material medical realities relating to mental health, and everyone who desperately needs to believe they can trust the system that marginalizes them in order to have anyone or anything to trust at all.

I know other people are probably much less used to or more heavily impacted by things like victim blaming and denial of oppression. I just wanted to say, to leave off, that no matter who you are or how “crazy” you’ve been labeled, we believe you. We’ve seen a lot even in the little advocacy work we’ve done and also in our personal experience. We know how isolating it is to live in a world that constantly views us as inherently unreliable narrators of our own lives. I know it really is that bad. I believe you.