#they agreed etho would be a twink

[flojouno]

"you cannot take twink etho from my cold. dead. body."

[darkaviarymc]

Hermit cubito gender and presentation headcanons

These are just my headcanons, agree or disagree, it's all in good fun.

Iskall: Nonbinary, any pronouns. He usually defaults to he/him because it's simpler that way, so a lot of people don't realize he's not exclusively he/him. Lately, they've taken to giving out a different set of pronouns every time she introduces itself just to watch the chaos unfold (especially with the new guys) Cleo caught on pretty quickly to what Iskall was doing and intentionally helped confuse people even more.

Cleo: Gender apathetic, she/they, doesn't consider herself nonbinary but also doesn't like to be called cis. They're what you get when you order "woman" off of Wish, and she's fine with that.

Xisuma: Literally the he/they version of Cleo.

Stress: The proudest trans woman to have ever trans womaned. That color scheme is not an accident. She used to be stealth, so when she told everyone she was trans, they thought she meant the opposite direction, and she had to clarify that no, she's been a trans woman this entire time.

Etho: Skiny twink trans man. The mask used to be because of disphoria because he thought his lips were too feminine, but now it's become so much a part of his presentation that even after hrt fixed the "problem" he can't let go of it. It's the kleenex box of gender euphoria.

Cub: Trans man. He wanted hrt to turn him into a bear, but he just couldn't manage to grow enough hair to qualify (the season 7 beard was fake). He's still fat and sexy, though, and he can live with that.

Grian: Cis+. He thought maybe he was transfem to some degree at one point and explored that through drag. Turns out, nope. He just has trauma. Once he worked through that trauma, cross-dressing became a way to genuinely express his feminine energy. He's a guy, except for when being a girl is funny. He's committed to the bit way more than to his gender.

Scar: Cis, but doesn't understand why clothes need to have genders. Does he look hot in it? Yes? Awesome, let's wear that dress. He doesn't like the term gnc or consider what he does cross-dressing because that would imply that he's wearing something not meant for men, and clothes are meant for everyone!

Mumbo: Very stubborn egg. He's almost certainly agender, but look at that fabulous mustache! Nothing makes a man a man more than a fabulous mustache, right? He's a man... whatever that actually means. Suits are manly, right? See? He's so manly of a man! Anyway, here's Wonderwall...

Impulse: Agender, he/him, most people don't know. He's not closeted or anything, he's just too busy to come out. He has farms to build! His lack of gender is the last thing on his mind. He does, in fact, realize that the nonbinary flag could be color picked from his outfit, and he finds that funny.

Doc: Intersex, he/him. He certainly identifies more with the "masculine" end of the gender spectrum. What could possibly be more manly than than a butterfly filled with explosives! Males of many animal species are supposed to be the brightly colored ones! You're all just narrow-minded and jealous!

Jevin: He/him or it/its. Slimes don't have genders or sexes. People started using he/him for him because it was the societal default, and he didn't question it for a long time. Recently, it's been liking the sound of it/its, as that more accurately represents its sense of self.

[ramrodd]

(via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MUUP4l6l4)

COMMENTARY:

+Burnt Toast

>>>>You seem to enjoy an elaborate story, but it seems to lack any evidence<<<<

There is a great deal of projection in this statement, given your embrace of Carrier's Marvel Comics version the Gospels.

The only story I have to work with is the greatest story ever told, In examining it, a holographic portrait of the social milieu emerges around Jesus.

He remains opaque to me.

>>>Where is the evidence of this circulation of "some version" of the Gospel of Peter?<<<

Where is your evidence it didn't?  As I say, by 37, Christianity was a subject brought before the Roman Senate, in spite of 90% illiteracy in Palestine, no printing press, no internet, instant messaging measured in weeks and the Marvel Comics League of Justice 2000 years in the future.  

>>>>Do you accept the common view in biblical scholarship that 6 / 13 of the canonized Pauline Epistles were forgeries?<<<<

Pretty much,

Paul offers me nothing nor any of the other epistles,  

I am working my way through NT Wright's on-line tutorial on Romans as due diligence and it has been valuable, but, as I say, it is a legal argument to establish the continuity between the Torah and the ethic of Jesus in order to establish the basis to elevate Jesus to a divine status, number one, and, number two, to extend the same status to Christians regarding Emperor worship as Jews.

Just for the record, it is my sense that Paul is as gay as a South Beach drag queen. His sensitivities, as revealed by his idiom, are the same as Gore Vidals. It strikes me that John Paul abandoned the mission with Paul and Barnabus because Paul made a pass at him in some manner; that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was his lust for twinks; and that the circumcision of Timothy represented the first same sex marriage in the Bible,

I think Paul's unaknowledged sexual orientation is the source of much of the sexual abuse associated with the Catholic Church over the centuries (it has always been a subtext in literature) but the up side is that his thinking is very attractive to women, which can't be said of Peter or James.

>>>Do you accept all holy texts from all religions at face value, or just those for Christianity?<<<<

I accept all literature at face value. In fact, a primary objection to Carrier's criticism is his subordination of literature to history: it offends me. I use deconstruction and other methods to look at literature, but, in the end, it transcends my analysis.

I am not an "Evangelical" or orthodox Christian by any measure,  I have far more in common with Cornelius the Pagan than with even NT Wright in the final analysis. I tend to approach the Bible from an anthropological perspective, especially the Torah, which is the test tube from which Jesus emerged but, like the Butterfly, abandoned,  

As a Army officer, Jesus' example of servant leadership is organic to the culture I was raised in and the Army leadership culture. The Gospel of Mark (as well as the binding of Isaac by Abraham), in particular, is a study in duty in a Duty, Honor, Country kind of way and that was one of the things the centurion in Matthew 8/Luke 7 recognized in Jesus.

In this respects, the nature of The One as described in Romans 11:22 would have been immediately recognizable to the members of the Praetorian Guard.

I'm an Army Ranger: Self Discipline and Instant Obedience define the Army ethos in relation to Duty and Roman 11:22 defines the source of the impulse.    

As a former Coastie who likes to compare his experience of sleeplessness with the SEALs, I am surprised Carrier ignores this association.

As far as other "holy" texts (which I assume you mean "sacred", holy meaning complete as in wholly), I seek out the common elements. There is no god but The ONE.  Like Jesus, I am a secular humanist and humanity is the collective repository of the divine spark.  Native Americans have a saying "I salute the warrior within".  Its unavoidable.

>>>>Christianity was growing at probably about 40% per decade, perhaps a bit slower than the growth rate of Mormonism<<<

I appreciate your link to The Explosion of Early Christianity, explained. The temptation is to go through it, line by line, just for the thrill of deconstruction.

First of all, it is anachronistic, which is typical of Carrier-style criticism. Comparing 1st century Christianity with 19th Century mormonism and 20th century atheism ignores the fact that neither 19th century Christianity nor 20th century atheism would exist without Christianity,  There were no atheists in the 1st century.

Well, no anti-theists like you and Richard Carrier.  

The whole idea of evangelical atheism such as you represents a perfect null set for actual atheists in my experience,   I will post some comments from Ely Brayley on the link you provided that captures most of the fallacy represented in the analysis.

>>>>This rate would produce historical estimates of about 5-8 million Christians in 300CE<<<

Virtually all of them within the boundaries of the Roman Empire or, in another context, everywhere the Roman legions marched,  Again, some version of the Gospel of Peter was being transmitted orally everywhere the Roman Eagles appeared, before any text was available from anybody, unless you include the scrolls of the Torah, which Flavius brought to Rome as the spoils of war in 70.  The Christians beat the those scrolls there.

>>>I didn't say Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity.  He did, however, use the Roman Empire's resources to support Christianity.  He summoned the Council of Nicea, and effectively forced at least some agreement between Christians on the Nicean Creed.  Again, showing that Christians sects, even in those times, had a hard time agreeing on anything. Constantine's support of Christianity probably had a lot to do with the fact it was his mother's religion, as well as apparently his own.<<<

I know you didn't say Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity:

I did.  

The balance of your text supports my assertion, including my observation that Christian sects still have a hard time agreeing on anything,

So what?