a-dragons-explanations - Tumblr blog

a-dragons-explanations · 17 days ago

Text

I can see where you're coming from here - you do have a lot of legitimate concerns; a lot of these things are real problems. It sounds like you've maybe had some pretty bad experiences with the community, and I'm sorry for that; that's really unfortunate. But most of these are problems of behavior and etiquette, not problems that are inherent to the identity existing - and the remainder are I think based on some understandable but ultimately false assumptions. To go point-by-point (this is going to be a long one, sorry, but I don't want to brush over parts of your argument) -

Creators of fanart gets their work stolen to be used as faceclaims. Which makes me uncomfortable and I think is wrong. [...] I would not like creating a character and having someone kin them. I have seen the creator of Phighting expressing discomfort with kins, but they were shushed up just because people shouted they were hateful. [...] Its uncomfortable to share my love for a character and some random person claim that I am their fan, it feels like someone is invading my fictional worlds and comfort characters

Pulling all these ones together because they're ultimately all the same argument - it's absolutely fair to be uncomfortable with these things, but you're conflating identity with how people handle identity here. These are all choices people make that most fictionkin agree are bad choices - the general rule in the fictionkin community is actually to separate fandom and fictionkinity completely and not interact with fandom openly, definitely not with source creators, because it usually just leads to conflict. It's extremely unpopular with most fictionkin to do that. Spend long enough in fictionkin communities and you'll hear a common refrain that separating the two and remembering that the canon "you" isn't literally you and is a fictional representation of you (at most - often it's just someone who looks vaguely similar), and that people aren't doing anything wrong by treating your source like fiction.

Unfortunately, it's the small minority that ignore that rule and blur the line between fandom and identity that non-fictionkin usually hear about, for obvious reasons - so from an outside perspective, it often looks like that's just How Fictionkin Are when that's not generally true. Most fictionkin don't pull this shit and there's whole guides floating around in the community on why you shouldn't do that. This is an etiquette problem, not a problem inherent to the identity existing.

Sourcecalls are dangerous and lean in parasocial territory.

Yep, I honestly half agree with you on this - source calls absolutely can be handled in a stupid and sometimes outright dangerous way, and people acting like if you knew each other in a past life/in-source you should automatically have the same relationship in the now is fallacious and setting yourself up for manipulation (or to do the manipulating). Most of the time I do honestly think it's better to Simply Not Do That for safety reasons.

But... again, spend enough time in the fictionkin community and you'll see plenty of people putting out PSAs about that very potential problem. And it's entirely possible to do source calls in a healthy way - it's the same as putting out a "hey anyone who likes xyz fandom/activity/etc come chat with me, I want to make some friends" notice; as long as you don't expect that to automatically garner a close relationship, and are willing to let it go if the two of you don't actually mesh well, you're probably fine. Again, this is a behavior/etiquette problem, not a problem inherent to the identity existing.

Fictionkin is not the same thing as gender. Gender is wheter you identify as a boy, girl, genderfluid, nonbinary… Etc. Fictionkin is saying that you are a fictional character, someone who isnt real.

This is the one that's really just a philosophical question: Again, what makes one feeling real and the other not? Yes, the character is fictional - but the experiences are not. Why is one set of subjective, internal experiences "real" and another not? What makes dysphoria caused by, for example, inability to read a fictional language that feels like it should be instinctive, or lack of cat ears and tail, "not real," but nearly identical dysphoria caused by genitals or secondary sex characteristics "real"? Why does someone's experience happening to line up with a fictional story make it less real, especially if the experience predates exposure to the story in question (a well-known phenomenon in the fictionkin community) and thus can't possibly have been caused by it?

Its unhealthy because you blur the lines between fiction and reality. You distance yourself from your own self because you feel like you are actually Sans from Undertale. That to me, seems dangerous because you dont allow yourself to just be yourself, you are just being another person, and one that doesnt exist.

This is the one that I think is based on a false assumption - you're assuming that to be fictionkin means you can't also be "just you." That's not true. We were all someone before we awakened, and we don't just stop being that someone after awakening. It's true that there can be some sense of pressure to "fit the mold" for some people, usually because of insecurities about the identity not being "real enough" - but again, a common refrain in the fictionkin community is reminding the newly awakened that it's extremely normal to not have every aspect of yourself line up with your fictotype. Someone who's pressuring themself to be exactly like their fictotype or limiting themself based on it is approaching it in an unhealthy way, I agree - but that's not the vast majority of fictionkin. For most fictionkin, it's a matter of embracing, expressing, and naming what is already a part of you, not of changing yourself to be something or someone else. As I mentioned in the point above this one, a fictionkin individual's experiences predating exposure to their source media is very common. Embracing one's fictotype is "being yourself" - that's the whole point.

It is dangerous to enable delusions, people can get hurt depending on what they believe in. [...] I feel like this is chronically online behaviour, it is not healthy, its a delusion.

First, I want to put out a link to an old post by someone with schizophrenia about why the whole "don't encourage their delusions" thing is generally kind of a sketchy argument to be having in the first place, because they articulated it well and I always feel it’s something I should link when the discussion inevitably comes up.

Second, I do want to point out that fictionkinity factually does not fit the criteria for a delusion. A delusion is an unshakeable belief in something despite evidence against it - which inherently disqualifies something that can't be empirically proven true or false, ie, things like religion and fictionkinity. I get where you're coming from here, but you're assigning a level of pathology to this that doesn't fit. (I'm also not a big fan of then turning around and calling it "chronically online behavior," if I'm honest - acting like those two things are the same strikes me as a little dismissive and ableist toward people who do experience delusions.)

it feels dehumanizing to deny your own humanity as if being human is a bad and pathetic thing (i have seen posts were people claimed that "anti kins" are just jealous that they are humans and "nothing special").

And lastly, again, this is something that's a behavior/etiquette problem, not a problem inherent to the identity. I fully agree that that's shitty behavior, though dehumanizing isn't necessarily the word I'd use. Misanthropy is the fucking bane of my existence in this community, especially as someone who's both human and nonhuman, but the problem is the misanthropy, not the nonhumanity. (Which, there's a conversation to be had about the way each can feed into the other, but that's a different conversation and the answer for sure isn't "nonhumanity makes you a misanthrope".)

...I think that's everything; if I missed anything you said forgive me, and sorry for how long this got. Hopefully this all makes sense? (And thank you again for being willing to discuss this and hear me out - a lot of people aren't.)

I miss when sharing your kins just meant that you found a character relatable or said you were "literally them" jokingly. Now people get angry if you do that because "thats not real kin".

Are we really that connected to our phones that we need to create our identity around fictional faces on our carrds, flags that are unnecessary (not xenogender and lgbt, im talking about other flags) just to share more and more with complete strangers, and also make systems to be less lonely?

Please. What are we doing. Why are we just doing this and encouraging each other without questioning anything?

Why share my name? My pronouns? My age? My sexuality? My gender? If Im trans or not? My EVERYTHING with the internet?

There is nothing wrong in being yourself, but I feel like the internet is too exposing. Its like i have a second life here with a full time job and i need to say everything and a bit more. The bit more being identities like alterhumanity and kin and now also disorders (why share our disorders online? I dont want to just tell that to random people!)

I feel like the internet is too much and so little people criticize it. Everyone just accepts without knowing if something is harmful or not because "its my belief" or "i suffer x thing so you cant criticize me".

#dragon chatter

41 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 17 days ago

Text

The space you're looking for is fandom, I think :P The words you're looking for might perhaps be "mood," "vibe with," "relate to," or perhaps "faceclaim". (EDIT: I realized after hitting post this may have come off a little dismissive - it's not meant to be. I do feel the struggle of having a hard time finding a community you work well with. But, genuinely, relating to characters is (among other things) exactly what fandom is for.)

Genuine questions, because I would genuinely like to discuss this if you're open to it - what makes you think being fictionkin is inherently unhealthy? And what makes a gender a "real feeling" but a fictotype not (or in other words, how are you defining what's a "real feeling," when feelings are inherently something subjective that can only be measured by self-reporting from the person experiencing them)?

I miss when sharing your kins just meant that you found a character relatable or said you were "literally them" jokingly. Now people get angry if you do that because "thats not real kin".

Please. What are we doing. Why are we just doing this and encouraging each other without questioning anything?

Why share my name? My pronouns? My age? My sexuality? My gender? If Im trans or not? My EVERYTHING with the internet?

#dragon chatter

41 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 17 days ago

Text

You do have some valid concerns and valid points here that I agree with - the Internet has gotten so goddamn weird about sharing every facet of your identity, including ones it's frankly dangerous to share sometimes (age, triggers, disorders), and acting like you're somehow suspicious if you defend your online privacy at all. People have also gotten... really weird about the things they hinge their identity on sometimes, though I think it has less to do with phone addiction and more to do with lack of genuine, strong community bonds (especially IRL) making people feel like they have to latch onto labels harder and harder to feel like they're a part of something - which is a deep human need that we've got to fulfill somehow.

But... I think you may be pointing your frustration with this phenomenon in the wrong direction in this case. While I understand where you're coming from, the "that's literally who and what I am" meaning of "kin" was here first - that's its original meaning. The term otherkind, from which otherkin came within a matter of months, was coined in 1990 to refer to people who felt they were nonhuman; the community that coined the term goes back at least to the 1970s. The "it just means relatable" thing only started maybe a decade ago, and it's been pushed back against by actual nonhumans and fictionkin since Day One... well, frankly, largely because it leads to posts like this - where people try to tell us we're wrong for using our own words in their original definitions because we're "taking it too seriously". It's a little like if people started calling playing a D&D character of another gender "transing" because they misunderstood what it meant, and then got weird and freaked out when they met trans people who actually genuinely identify as a gender other than what they were assigned at birth and started shouting that they're "taking it too seriously" and "ruining transing", y'feel?

Moreover, I don't think it's really fair to blame the otherkin community - which is, let's be real, incredibly small and niche - for a much larger trend over the Internet, especially since we predate that trend's existence. (Though we've certainly been affected by it, don't get me wrong! Oh boy do I have thoughts on how the otherkin community has been affected by this phenomenon at the core of what you're complaining about. But that's for another conversation.) Otherkin are just trying to exist, my friend; if we tend to be a little desperate for community, it's for the same reasons queer people tend to be a little desperate for community - being the only nonhuman in your vicinity IRL is often an isolating experience. Which might make us more susceptible to this thing the Internet's currently got going on about in-group signaling and whatnot, but it doesn't put us at fault or mean the community as a whole is a product of that phenomenon. You're being a little unfair to us in your frustration, friend - though if your main exposure to the concept has been through the "kinning for fun" community (that "haha relatable" thing you mentioned as being what you'd previously understood to be the original/primary meaning), I can certainly understand why you'd come away with the impression you have.

I miss when sharing your kins just meant that you found a character relatable or said you were "literally them" jokingly. Now people get angry if you do that because "thats not real kin".

Please. What are we doing. Why are we just doing this and encouraging each other without questioning anything?

Why share my name? My pronouns? My age? My sexuality? My gender? If Im trans or not? My EVERYTHING with the internet?

#i can grab source links for the dates mentioned if you want 'em but i'm making myself late already sorry jfkdjgsf #dragon chatter

41 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 6 months ago

Text

Forgive me for saying this bluntly, but: do you have a real argument to actually counter my point, or are you just knee-jerk responding with a "nuh-uh" in anger? (The point and challenging question in question being, if it wasn't clear, "if hating people for a trait that isn't inherently harmful and probably wasn't chosen to boot is wrong, why is it suddenly different when that trait is being human (or, for that matter, being cis or neurotypical or straight) instead of being gay?")

(This is OP, for the record, I'm just moving this to this sideblog because I'm sure my followers are tired of this post by now.)

Sometimes I genuinely want to reblog some of these posts just swapping every instance of "human" for "gay" and "misanthropy" for "homophobia," because it really puts it into perspective.

"But of course I know there are good humans out there -" Saying something to the effect of "Gay people are horrible" and then following up with "but of course I know there are good gays out there <3" doesn't actually make you not homophobic.

"But humans have actually done bad things that destroy the planet -!" 90% of my mom's internalized homophobia stems from real gay people she knew who intentionally spread HIV to other people, and that being her only exposure to the queer community before, like, me. Do you think that makes it fair for someone to be homophobic? Because a small proportion of the gay community does terrible things? Like, no, right? So why do you think it's fair for you to act misanthropic because a small proportion of the human species does terrible things?

#misanthropy #dragon chatter #through doubt you have unlocked sideblog #<- snarky tag for posts originating from my main sorry #the snarkiness is less of a problem when i'm responding to antikin which was this post's original purpose lmao

438 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 7 months ago

Note

Okay, I'd initially decided not to respond to this chain any further because it didn't seem like we were going to get anywhere other than stressing us both out, but in the interest of... idk, respecting the fact that I appreciate you stopping to explain what this has looked like from your end and clarifying some things, I guess? I do want to actually respond.

Which - thank you for doing that, genuinely, because I think we've been talking past each other for a lot of this conversation, and I apologize for my part in that. I have clearly misunderstood some things you've been saying. (For instance: at no point did I get the message that you thought I'd misunderstood something, and to be honest even reading back I can't parse that out of anything said prior to this response.)

I will be honest in saying that I do think that disagreeing on whether people are allowed to exist or not is not "just having a different opinion." I did not start thinking you were interacting in bad faith until the last couple of messages (where if I'm completely honest, I started getting the same "being dense on purpose" impression you've clearly been getting from me in turn), however expressing disbelief in the legitimacy of someone's experience is not really something you can just agree to disagree on. (Bad faith is different from malice.) I do appreciate that you weren't trying to be rude, but the fact remains that coming onto someone's post defending endogenic systems calling me "genuinely insane" and "probably why people say leftists are sensitive" for doing so is rude by I think anyone's measure. That's not a very neutral or respectful way to express an opinion, and it came off to me as starting an argument on purpose, which is why I responded the way I did.

My second response, to your initial "I don't want to discuss this right now" reblog, was not me getting upset about it again - it was me trying to explain why I'd gotten frustrated, while acknowledging that forgetting to respond to stuff happens and that explained why it had looked like you'd ignored me the first time.

The context that you lost the headspace for having the discussion after the initial comment explains why you suddenly reversed course after you started the conversation initially, and that's much more understandable now that I know that - if I'd known that to start with I wouldn't have been so annoyed. Without that context, from my perspective, the exchange basically looked like:

A: here's my opinion defending an often-bullied group's right to exist. B: hey this is a stupid opinion you have and I disagree. A: why do you think it's stupid and disagree? I'd like to talk about it. B: I don't want to talk about it actually.

Does it make sense why that felt frustrating and like shit-starting for no reason to me? (I don't want to keep overexplaining myself, just - this conversation looked very different without that piece of context you just provided, which is why I've been reacting the way I have.)

I'll be honest, I completely misunderstood what you were apologizing for. It sounded to me like you were apologizing for either not realizing I was the same person (???), or more likely apologizing for doing this twice on my posts/reblogs, without acknowledging the thing I was actually annoyed about, which was the perceived A-B interaction I just described above. This was a misread on my part, and I probably should have asked for clarification; that seemed clear enough to me that it didn't even occur to me that I might have misunderstood. (To the point where to be honest, even rereading it now knowing that's an incorrect interpretation, it still reads that way to my brain.) I apologize for that; that one's on me.

Given that understanding that the apology was actually meant to be for the thing I was annoyed about and not the mostly-unrelated things it seemed to be about, I appreciate the apology, and I think we can probably let this conversation rest there, unless some part of my explanation for why I've responded the way I have to all this needs more clarification?

Genuine question, does our system need to label ourselves as ‘endo-neutral’? (Mostly because we just really, really cannot bring ourselves to care. Also people are people and we can’t care (low empathy))

I ask asking because I (and the system) are not involved in syscourse, and I’m not sure what to put in the tags to prevent people from being upset.

Ignore this ask if it is rude in any way (genuinely)

(This was written by the co-host)

If you want my opinion, if you want to say “we don’t want to be actively involved in syscourse,” that exact sentence is the only way to say it.

Personally, I’m kind of of the opinion that “endo-neutral” isn’t a real thing unless you’re “neutral” in the sense that you haven’t done enough research on it yet to have formed an opinion (which, that’s valid but a different thing than true neutrality). You can’t really be neutral on whether people are allowed to exist or not. Either you’re okay with people fakeclaiming other people, or you’re not. “Endo-neutral” just tells me you are okay with it, you’re just not actively doing it yourself - which is a little like this comic:

Y’feel?

This is not me saying you have to involve yourself actively in syscourse. As a matter of fact, I recommend you don’t actively seek that out, in most cases - it’s not really good for you, generally speaking. Not wanting people to drop syscourse on your doorstep is perfectly reasonable. But unfortunately, if you interact with other systems much, it’s probably going to come up eventually, whether you like it or not. Eventually you are going to be in a space where someone starts talking about how endogenic systems aren’t real, and you’re going to have to decide how to respond to that and whether you’re willing to tolerate it.

Ultimately, I don’t think you have to be emotionally invested to decide whether you think something is right or wrong. I know there’s probably some extra energy investment required for that for you, but unfortunately I think that’s just something you’re going to have to deal with, as harsh as that might sound. I don’t really see a way around it. Which, it’s as good a time as any to ask yourself - where do your morals lie? What basic principles do you build your morality on? Are they internally consistent, and if not, what needs to change to make it so? And if you follow those principles to their natural conclusion, what does that tell you about the situation you’ve been given?

(Also, entirely pragmatically, if your goal is to avoid people getting mad at you, “endo-neutral” in my experience kind of just gets both sides upset anyway - endo supporters because of everything I just said, anti-endos because anyone who tolerates endos is the enemy according to them. You’re probably better off just stating you don’t want to argue about syscourse to achieve that goal.)

But that’s just my two cents’ worth. Hopefully it’s good food for thought at least.

#dragon chatter #syscourse #long post

43 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 7 months ago

Note

I'm disturbed by how you handle some issues on Tumblr by responding to someone with a reblog that all your followers will see (which singles this person out and brings them unwanted attention) and attempting to continuously engage with them even after they felt really uncomfortable with your interaction It doesn't matter if they were wrong or right, you are overstepping boundaries multiple times over the course of a conversation. And I haven't forgotten that at one point a while back, someone asked that you remove your reblog of a post because it was getting them unwanted attention, and you. said. NO. You said you wouldn't remove your reblog because it wouldn't make a difference. Whether it did or not, that's really weird behavior to just refuse to remove someone's reblog. I'm in your circle of alterhuman bloggers and sometimes I have to turn off reblogs on specific posts because we're mutuals and I'm scared that you will bring unwanted attention to my much smaller blog (even if we generally have the same views, it still gives me anxiety.) You are not a very good representative of this community and yet you are a valuable resources, which frustrates me to no end.

I'm gonna break this down into chunks so it's a little easier to digest. I do want to say right off the bat that I appreciate you saying something when you feel like I'm not handling things well, and I did sit and chew on this feedback for a good while.

I'm disturbed by how you handle some issues on Tumblr by responding to someone with a reblog that all your followers will see (which singles this person out and brings them unwanted attention) ...

Honestly, I do worry about this. Sometimes I reblog people to this blog specifically because it's got a much smaller following than my main 'kin blog (a few hundred as compared to a few thousand) and I'm trying to avoid putting them on blast. My other option is to a) be significantly hampered by how much clunkier asks and replies are, including struggling to keep things coherent and having character limits that prevent me from having a discussion to the level of depth I prefer, or b) not say anything at all. I do worry about it sometimes, but I also don't feel like it's fair to hamstring me and basically disallow me from participating in discussions and discourse because I have a relatively large follower count. How else should I handle it, besides Simply Not Saying Anything? (Genuinely, not a rhetorical question.)

Ultimately, as harsh as this might sound, if someone puts an opinion out in public, then people are going to respond to them. Unfortunately sometimes that's going to mean interactions you'd rather not happen; that's the risk you take by posting in a public space. There's tools to help mitigate that if you want to - blocks, turning off reblogs, etc. - and I encourage people to use them, as it sounds like you've been doing, but the only way to avoid it completely is to only post to private spaces. I can't control how my followers act, unfortunately; the best I can do is preemptively warn people off from harassment and actively slap their hands when I do see people doing it.

... and attempting to continuously engage with them even after they felt really uncomfortable with your interaction It doesn't matter if they were wrong or right, you are overstepping boundaries multiple times over the course of a conversation.

Assuming this is about the most recent discussion on this blog - once again, they started the conversation. They have chosen to continue the conversation. No one is holding a gun to their head forcing them to continue it. I'm not even trying to get them to continue the conversation, really, I just want my words to be clear and not misconstrued, because initially it seemed like they hadn't understood me. (And for what it's worth, I had already decided I probably won't be responding beyond this even if they do, unless there's an unexpected turn, because at this point I have no hope of this conversation going anywhere constructive anymore.)

What boundaries have I been overstepping, exactly, genuinely? I don't see how it's "overstepping boundaries" to respond to someone who came onto my post to respond to something I said. I don't think them getting upset changes that - again, it's within their power to stop the conversation; I'm not, like, hunting them down and spam reblogging them or anything. You (general you, not you specifically) can't come onto my post, be mean to me and people I'm friends with, and then cry that I'm "overstepping boundaries" when I tell you to not do that if you're not ready to have a real conversation about the criticism you're making because it upset you that I said that.

I also don't feel like it's unreasonable of me to say "hey, if you aren't ready to actually have a serious discussion about this, you shouldn't have come onto my post to be mean about it, and if you do it again I will be blocking you" - which I have to point out is literally the only point I have made for this entire conversation since they said they didn't want to discuss the topic their original reply brought up.

And I haven't forgotten that at one point a while back, someone asked that you remove your reblog of a post because it was getting them unwanted attention, and you. said. NO. You said you wouldn't remove your reblog because it wouldn't make a difference. Whether it did or not, that's really weird behavior to just refuse to remove someone's reblog.

I'll be honest, I vaguely remember this happening but have zero recollection of what the post or the context were, so I can't really speak as to why I made that decision. If you happen to have the post link on-hand I can probably elaborate on why I decided what I did and whether I still think that was the right decision. (Sorry, my memory's just genuinely garbage and while I can probably guess some reasons why I would do that, I don't want to take shots in the dark and end up being wrong.)

You are not a very good representative of this community and yet you are a valuable resources, which frustrates me to no end.

I'm sorry you feel this way, and I'm sorry you feel you have to say this on anon when it seems like you're implying we at least vaguely know each other. (I'm guessing that has to do mostly with not wanting the exposure to followers, which is fair.) I'm happy to take feedback if people think I'm doing something harmful and wrong (and like I said, I promise I did think seriously about the feedback you've already given before posting this reply, I'm not just dismissing you without even considering what you've said).

Ultimately I'm just doing my best, and on this blog I'm mostly doing my best to have genuine conversations about difficult topics and dissect different viewpoints in order to better understand them - largely because it's fun for me, not because I'm trying to represent the community to anyone. (This last conversation hasn't been a spectacular example of a fun conversation for me, for the record, before anyone misunderstands me, but like. the conversation I was trying to start, about worldviews and why people believe what they believe, which the person in question decided they weren't up for, was the kind of conversation I mean.)

So... yeah. Thank you for the feedback, genuinely, even though I do ultimately disagree with you on most of it. I do appreciate you checking me when you feel like I'm out of line - everyone needs that now and again, and I don't want to be the kind of person that other people don't feel like they can say "hey, that thing you said was hurtful" to. But I just don't think it's "overstepping boundaries" to respond to someone who came onto my post to talk to me and has continued to do so, and I have tried very hard to be about as polite to them (and everyone I respond to) as I can without losing my point. Hopefully you understand.

#dragon chatter #asked and answered #anonymous #hope the waiting for a response on this hasn't been too anxiety-inducing sorry #wanted to chew on it for a while and give it the respect it deserved and not reply too hastily

4 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 7 months ago

Note

Which is fine. That's your right. I'm not trying to force you to. All I said in response to that is that if you're not up to having a discussion, then you shouldn't open a discussion, especially if you're going to do it in a way that was, frankly, kind of rude and mean. That's setting yourself up for failure. The only reason I repeated it is because you brushed past it to focus on something completely beside the point, then seemed confused, giving me the impression you didn't understand the first time and I needed to clarify, not because I was trying to force you to have a discussion you said you weren't up for.

And with all due respect, that is exactly what happened. Reread the thread. You came onto a post about endogenic systems, went "omg why do you guys support something that doesn't make sense this is why people say leftists are sensitive", and when I went "okay, why do you believe that it doesn't make sense, and even if it doesn't, why does that make it okay to fakeclaim them?", you immediately backpedaled and said you weren't "in the right headspace" for discussing it, despite the fact that you are the one who started the discussion.

I'm sorry if you're having a trauma response over... something in this conversation? right now, and I encourage you to take a breather to calm yourself down if you need to, but that... doesn't change the thing that happened, nor does it make doing that not rude. I'm really not sure where your being traumatized is coming into this.

I ask asking because I (and the system) are not involved in syscourse, and I’m not sure what to put in the tags to prevent people from being upset.

Ignore this ask if it is rude in any way (genuinely)

(This was written by the co-host)

If you want my opinion, if you want to say “we don’t want to be actively involved in syscourse,” that exact sentence is the only way to say it.

Y’feel?

But that’s just my two cents’ worth. Hopefully it’s good food for thought at least.

#dragon chatter #syscourse

43 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 7 months ago

Note

My point, if you'll reread what I said, was that it is pointlessly rude to be mean to someone (for example, publicly doubting the existence/legitimacy of a group of people because you don't understand them) and then retreat and claim that you're "not in the right headspace" to discuss it as soon as someone confronts you on that and tries to actually talk to you about it. It remains rude regardless of whether the person who engaged you on it is the same person you were originally responding to. Therefore, me being the same person is beside the point, and I'm not sure why that's the thing you chose to focus on while brushing past the point I was actually making.

I ask asking because I (and the system) are not involved in syscourse, and I’m not sure what to put in the tags to prevent people from being upset.

Ignore this ask if it is rude in any way (genuinely)

(This was written by the co-host)

If you want my opinion, if you want to say “we don’t want to be actively involved in syscourse,” that exact sentence is the only way to say it.

Y’feel?

But that’s just my two cents’ worth. Hopefully it’s good food for thought at least.

#dragon chatter #syscourse

43 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 7 months ago

Note

I mean… yes, but that is kind of beside the point. My point stands even if I’d been a different person from the OP.

I ask asking because I (and the system) are not involved in syscourse, and I’m not sure what to put in the tags to prevent people from being upset.

Ignore this ask if it is rude in any way (genuinely)

(This was written by the co-host)

If you want my opinion, if you want to say “we don’t want to be actively involved in syscourse,” that exact sentence is the only way to say it.

Personally, I’m kind of of the opinion that “endo-neutral” isn’t a real thing unless you’re “neutral” in the sense that you haven’t done enough research on it yet to have formed an opinion (which, that’s valid but a different thing than true neutrality). You can’t really be neutral on whether people are allowed to exist or not. Either you’re okay with people fakeclaiming other people, or you’re not. “Endo-neutral” just tells me you are okay with it, you��re just not actively doing it yourself - which is a little like this comic:

Y’feel?

But that’s just my two cents’ worth. Hopefully it’s good food for thought at least.

#dragon chatter #syscourse

43 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 7 months ago

Note

All right, that's your prerogative. I will, however, encourage you to not go out of your way to attack someone if you're "not in the right headspace" to actually discuss it seriously if they respond, in the future. That is, bluntly, just being mean and starting shit for no reason, and if you do it again on one of my posts I will be blocking you. When it comes to doubting someone's existence/experiences, if you're not ready to have a serious conversation about it, you shouldn't say anything at all. When you are in the right headspace for that discussion, I'll be more than happy to have it with you.

(Re: forgetting to respond - fair enough; that happens. It's just kind of aggravating to have someone make a disparaging comment on your post (or your reblog, as the case may be), try to engage them on it, get zero response, and then have them make basically the same mean comment again on a different post as if you didn't say anything at all, y'feel?)

I ask asking because I (and the system) are not involved in syscourse, and I’m not sure what to put in the tags to prevent people from being upset.

Ignore this ask if it is rude in any way (genuinely)

(This was written by the co-host)

If you want my opinion, if you want to say “we don’t want to be actively involved in syscourse,” that exact sentence is the only way to say it.

Y’feel?

But that’s just my two cents’ worth. Hopefully it’s good food for thought at least.

#through doubt you have unlocked sideblog #dragon chatter #syscourse #tagged more for blacklisting than anything

43 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 7 months ago

Note

@rribb0n Okay I see I reblogged before you were finished, sorry LOL. Original response still stands, but in response to your other replies:

I’ll be honest, I think I explained my feelings on being “neutral” on whether someone is allowed to exist or not pretty well; I think we might just have to agree to disagree on this one. The only more clarification I know how to give is this: being “neutral” on homophobia is not as bad as being homophobic yourself, but it does mean you’re going to tolerate homophobia in your vicinity, which means you are effectively helping the homophobes win. You may or may not agree with me on that, but that’s my assessment.

The thing I said about not having done enough research not being “true neutrality” is exactly that - “I have formed an opinion and my opinion is neutrality” and “I haven’t formed an opinion at all yet” are different things. It’s technically a kind of neutrality, but if someone’s actively labeling themself “neutral” on something, I’m going to assume they’re in the former camp because clearly they feel strongly enough about it to be labeling themself about it. That’s all I meant.

I ask asking because I (and the system) are not involved in syscourse, and I’m not sure what to put in the tags to prevent people from being upset.

Ignore this ask if it is rude in any way (genuinely)

(This was written by the co-host)

If you want my opinion, if you want to say “we don’t want to be actively involved in syscourse,” that exact sentence is the only way to say it.

Y’feel?

But that’s just my two cents’ worth. Hopefully it’s good food for thought at least.

#plurality #through doubt you have unlocked sideblog #dragon chatter #syscourse

43 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 7 months ago

Note

@rribb0n I’m gonna give you one more chance to actually engage seriously with me on this, because last time you did just ignore me and I do genuinely want your thoughts and a real discussion on this:

A) Why exactly do you think endogenic systems “[don’t] make logical sense”? What doesn’t make sense about it to you?

B) Even assuming for the sake of argument that that statement is correct, why should someone’s experiences “not making logical sense” mean it’s all right to decide their experiences aren’t real? Whom exactly do they have to “make sense” to in order to qualify as real and valid? Many things don’t make sense to portions of the population and are nonetheless real.

(Edit: fascinating. I can’t seem to get the link to that last post to work. It’s the previous post on this blog, sorry to anyone seeing this via a reblog in the future.)

I ask asking because I (and the system) are not involved in syscourse, and I’m not sure what to put in the tags to prevent people from being upset.

Ignore this ask if it is rude in any way (genuinely)

(This was written by the co-host)

If you want my opinion, if you want to say “we don’t want to be actively involved in syscourse,” that exact sentence is the only way to say it.

Y’feel?

But that’s just my two cents’ worth. Hopefully it’s good food for thought at least.

#plurality #through doubt you have unlocked sideblog #syscourse #dragon chatter

43 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 7 months ago

Note

Not OP, so I hope they don’t mind me responding since you reblogged this off my (other) blog, but: But you don’t have to understand something for it to be real. Sexual attraction doesn’t make sense to a lot of asexual people; that doesn’t mean other people don’t experience it. Advanced astrophysics often doesn’t make sense to me; that doesn’t mean it isn’t a real and valid field of science. Something doesn’t have to make sense to you for someone else to experience it. That’s just the way the world works.

I guess my thing is: in my opinion, the default position you (general you, not you specifically) should hold when it comes to other people’s experiences and identities is that they’re real and as the person describes, and the person has the right to self-define. You should require evidence to move you away from that position - you shouldn’t require evidence to decide that that’s the case (unless and until you’ve encountered evidence that it’s either not genuine or inherently harmful in some way, at which point it becomes a matter of deciding which side has the better argument). This remains true even when your knee-jerk reaction is “but that doesn’t make sense” or even “ew gross” - a knee-jerk reaction does not evidence make.

Why does it feel like it’s not a choice to you? I don’t really understand how deciding whether or not you believe a group of people about their own experiences isn’t a choice, and I’d like to understand where you’re coming from better. And why does the existence of endogenic systems feel invalidating to you? (Genuine questions - I’m trying to open a dialogue here if you’re up for it, not yell at you or anything.)

hey, i saw a post on here saying you guys support non "traumagenic" systems and I was wanting to know if thats true.

You guys are so amazing and have helped me with my identity a lot, but this information is really important to me as a trauma survivor with severe PTSD. If you are pro endos but are open to listening to trauma survivors and phycology sources, I absolutely will provide them. I want you guys to be a safe space for people with PTSD and dissociative disorders so bad, as people who has OSDDDID tend to have more "contradictory" labels in the first place, due to the complex relationship all the different alters identities make combined.

I'm hoping so much that you'll be open to listening if this is true.

hello! i'm good, i don't need any!

if you only have severe PTSD and not a dissociative disorder and do not identify as plural, you should NOT be commenting on plurality at all. like i hate to break it to you, but if you do not deal with plurality, you do not know what the experience is like. reading papers about it will not give you insight into how people actually live.

i'm an inclusive Dissociative Identity Disorder system who is 100% pro endo, and any other type of system. i support ALL plurals, i don't cherry pick. you're correct, this blog is a safe space, especially for people with "contradictory" identities or ones that "don't make sense." why wouldn't i be here for endogenic and non traumagenic systems?

that would go against everything i stand for.

i am a trauma survivor as well. i *have* DID, i don't really need any resources on the matter- before I was diagnosed i spent years researching, and i still do keep up with research. i am aware that DID and OSDD are caused by trauma! generally it's severe, repeated trauma and/or neglect. i have no memories of my life before the age of 10. i too have severe PTSD, i have a diagnosis for C-PTSD in specific. i live with this every day of my life. i still have a lot of trauma and triggers. i black out and lose time and regularly forget who i am or where i'm at.

something to keep in mind is research on DID has literally 0 bearing on other types of plurality. just because there is a lot of research into DID, OSDD, etc. does not mean that other plural experiences do not exist. when ONLY siting medical sources and saying that because there's no other "proof" or "evidence" that other types of plurality "can't" exist, it's an appeal to authority. there is no research data to point toward because studies on DID and OSDD and other dissociative disorders have really only gained traction within the last 10 - 20 years maximum. this is an extremely recent phenomenon! just because there are no (paid, keep in mind that studies have to find funding, and investors are picky) medical papers or studies to point toward doesn't mean something isn't happening.

someone identifying as plural without trauma is not an affront to plurals who do have trauma. someone identifying as a system who doesn't have or know of any childhood trauma is not spitting in your face. i've seen this take around and it's just not it. don't take someone else's mental health as an attack on yours. it's not hurting you at all for people to identify as plural if they don't have trauma. it's not spitting in *my* face, so it's not spitting in yours, either. it's okay to let non traumagenic systems exist. it's not exacerbating your trauma or re-traumatizing you or subjecting you to new trauma.

they're not saying that your trauma is invalid just because they don't have any. i don't like people who get on a high horse because they have a dissociative disorder and act like they get to police how other people's brains work. you only know how your brain works. you do not know how any other type of system works.

endogenic systems are not identifying as endogenic to spite you or dissociative systems. they're not doing it to hurt you. they're doing it because they identify as multiple people. that is not being done with the intention to hurt anyone. this is about THEM, not you. nobody is the protagonist of the plural community. no one.

as a plural, myself, i get to choose who i support. and i choose to support people who aren't hurting anyone or doing anything wrong. i really don't care how offensive some people find non traumagenic systems, but they're not hurting you, me, or anyone else. live and let live. you don't know how someone else's brain works. you will never be able to know how someone else's brain works. accepting that will make your life easier.

being angry at other people for not having trauma will not make yours go away or undo what was done to you. you should never take out your frustrations on people who haven't hurt you. endos haven't hurt you, you just don't agree with them. these are 2 separate things. also you really don't have the right to comment on the nature of how complex non traumagenic plurality is or is not- endogenic systems can have just as many nuanced and complex identities regardless of whether or not they're dissociating. they're still multiple people whether or not you see them that way. they also have complex identities, why wouldn't they? being different people leads to a lot of complexity. you should still see them as multiple people even if you don't think it's legit. that's basic respect for another person who, again, literally hasn't hurt you.

also endogenic and non dissociative systems are still people, and we should still care about them. they're still people even if you don't agree with them, and again: they have not hurt you by virtue of existing.

hope that helps and makes sense. i am not open to changing my mind on this, but i appreciate you giving me a good reason to explain my stance on the matter. i don't have the right to police other people and tell them how their own brains work. you don't have that right, either. i'm not here to police anyone. that goes against everything i stand for. i don't gatekeep.

i'm not a cop.

#op if you’d like us to have this discussion not in your notes please lmk LMAO #plurality #syscourse

457 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 8 months ago

Note

I can get that. It sounds like it might well be that same self-doubt I mentioned, latching onto a convenient reason why you're "not enough." It's hard sometimes when there's no physicality to it, especially when you're in a situation where expressing it too openly is dangerous for you! (And I'm sorry you're having to deal with that - I hope that someday you find yourself in a situation where you no longer have to be afraid of expressing yourself however you want.) That impostor syndrome - I think you're correct in calling it that, but at minimum it makes a convenient shorthand - is very, very common.

Unfortunately, the only way to get past it - and, I suspect, the only way to get past that wall, which you will likely eventually need to do, because cutting yourself off from becoming something else is cutting yourself off from all personal growth - is to stubbornly participate in the thing your brain is afraid of until it eventually realizes it doesn't have anything to be scared of. You can rewire these pathways - I've done it myself, though in a slightly different context. It takes time and work, but it can be done, and while the way I did it isn't an easy process, it is a relatively simple one: take small steps toward the thing you're afraid of, the change you want to make; reward yourself for every step made (no matter how small); and stubbornly answer every "you can't" with "yes, I can," even if you don't believe it yet. Eventually you'll start to. But to get there, you've gotta break away the edges of the groove your brain is stuck in and carve out a new one manually. The process kind of sucks, I won't lie, but you will get past the impostor syndrome eventually if you stick with it, and it is a glorious feeling when you do.

(And, again - this remains true even if you end up deciding that calling yourself nonhuman isn't right for you. You don't have to identify as nonhuman. But you do eventually have to find a way to cope with these feelings that isn't ripping yourself apart.)

Anyway. I'm glad I've been able to help at least some. I know this is a really hard spot to be in, so I'm glad talking about it helps. Take all the time you need to chew on it - this is deep and difficult stuff we're talking about, it's normal to need processing time. (And don't worry, you're completely understandable. :3)

i don’t think my words hold much value to people like you, and i don’t think you would be willing to listen or take it to heart, but it’s still worth trying. i would like you to realise that you are human in every way. you are not an animal, you are not a dragon. (you probably already know this. maybe you’re in denial. i don’t know) either way, none of you would actually be willing to give it even a second of thought because you’re insecure about yourself, and you’re insecure because you know you’re human. i assure you that you will not reach full personal contentment until you live out your life without pretending to be a mythical creature. wtv have a good day

Ooh, I haven’t gotten one of these asks in a few years.

So I ask this, and every other question I will follow up with, completely genuinely, and if you’re willing to really get into the weeds discussing it I’d love to do so (though I’ll probably reblog any follow-ups to my other blog): why do you think you know me and my experiences better than I do?

Why do you think you can armchair diagnose me with insecurity? What evidence do you actually have for that, besides the fact that I’m nonhuman? What evidence do you have that I’m not already content and fulfilled in my life?

Is it possible that identifying as nonhuman is unrelated to those things entirely, and you’re making a false assumption?

I get it. It looks crazy, when you’re completely new to the concept. It’s weird - it is! But pause and listen to us when we talk about our experiences for a moment.

For many of us, myself included, finding nonhumanity is a moment of suddenly understanding - of pieces falling into place, of my life experiences suddenly making sense. Awakening is something that made me more content and fulfilled, not less - there’s a sadness in it sometimes, yes, but so too is there the comfort of understanding yourself in a new way, of realizing, oh. I’m not just weird. There’s not something wrong with me. There are other people like me.

(If this sounds a lot like the experience of figuring out you’re queer, there’s a reason for that.)

To use myself as an example of the flaws in your hypothesis: there’s… honestly not much dissatisfaction with my life right now. I’ve got a stable job with decent income. I’d like to be able to cut back my hours a bit, but that will come in time. I’ve got enough free time as it is to do my art and play my tabletop games with friends in my off time. I’ve got family and friends around me. Sure, I miss my wings, but I’m hoping to pick up powered paragliding in the near future and hoping that’ll scratch that itch at least somewhat. I’m doing pretty well, honestly. This isn’t the case for all otherkin, but it’s not the case for all orthohumans (people who aren’t alterhuman in any way) either. What it does indicate, however, is that your hypothesis that being otherkin inherently means you’re insecure and unhappy with your life is false, or at minimum flawed - if it were true, I wouldn’t exist.

So, I ask again: why do you think you understand my own experiences better than I do? And moreover, why does it bother you so much that I am the way I am?

The name for the thing you’re doing here, intentionally or not, is concern trolling - trying to push me out of an identity by professing concern for problems that don’t exist. Why? Why are you going out of your way to tell other people they’re wrong about their own identity? Why is your reaction, when you see an identity you don’t understand, to decide it’s unhealthy, or just make-believe, or whatever, and then to make that the problem of the people who identify that way? What exactly makes you think this is inherently unhealthy?

Would it not be better to devote that energy to trying to understand us, instead of trying to change us?

You don’t have to answer these questions to me, obviously, but I do encourage you to answer them to yourself at least. Pick apart your worldview for a minute and see if it actually holds up under scrutiny - it’s good for you, and mental enrichment to boot! If you are willing to really get into the weeds of this discussion with me, again, I’d love to do that - I love having discussions like this, and it’s good for me to have my worldview challenged every so often too! Please, genuinely, pick at the flaws in my logic if you see them - if it can be pulled apart under scrutiny, it needs to be pulled apart and rebuilt. No one on the internet is obligated to let a stranger do that, obviously, but personally I enjoy it - it’s a meat pumpkin for me - so let’s talk, if you’re up for it. It’s been a hot minute since I’ve gotten a good interesting antikin to debate with.

#dragon chatter

65 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 8 months ago

Note

I'm sorry you're going through this, genuinely. It sounds like you've had a really hard time with all of this, and I can see where the temptation to lash out comes from. I'm sorry you've been struggling with these feelings so much - it can be a lot to deal with, I'm well familiar with that.

I'd like to try to help, so I'm going to go ahead and try - please, if you don't want the help and feel like I'm overstepping, feel free to ignore the rest of the post. I don't want you to feel like I'm forcing you into anything, I just want to offer some guiding questions and a little analysis in case it would help you, because sometimes an outside perspective can really help unravel these things.

So:

I'm not going to tell you that you are otherkin - that's something only you can decide - but I can say that what you're describing very, very much aligns with what many, many nonhumans experience, so I've seen a lot of people work through these feelings. I'm not surprised that the otherkin community has become a bit of a mirror for you, even if it's one that feels threatening. As they say, after all, wanting to be nonhuman is one of the most telltale signs of being nonhuman.

I guess the core question, if you want to finally hash out your feelings on this one way or another, is: why are you so afraid of calling yourself a fox? Or at least, why are you so determined that that can't be the case? And whatever the answer to that question is: is that really, when you dig into it, a solid reason, or are you just flinching from something that feels scary but isn't a real threat?

The best guess I have, to facilitate that outside-perspective analysis, is pulling from this quote -

"being told to accept myself hurts, because it implies that there is something to accept; or a prospect of getting closer to the concept of being something else. yet i can’t FIND it. i would jump at the first glimpse of that opportunity, as i have been trying to, but i can’t understand it."

I may be wrong here - I have a very limited view of what's going on inside your head, after all, and if I'm misunderstanding you please correct me - but it sounds to me like what's stalling you out is either a) the internalized feeling that this can't be real, that these feelings aren't "enough" to make you really nonhuman, and/or b) that you're afraid that since you'll never be able to be physically nonhuman, identifying yourself that way is just going to hurt you more.

Both of those are completely reasonable fears, and ones many, many people have faced before you. Again - it's a weird thing, and for years I was dealing with the "this is crazy, this can't be real" doubt periodically.

One answer to this would be to try to walk away and ignore it. Admittedly that's an answer that doesn't work well for a lot of people, but it is an option. But it seems like you've tried that, and you keep finding yourself coming back. It sounds like you have some very strong conflicting feelings about this - and maybe like you've determined (for whatever reason) that you can't be nonhuman, even though you want to be, so your brain is (consciously or unconsciously) doing the "if I can't have it, no one can" move and lashing out at people who are embodying a thing you want but feel like you can't have.

That's a very normal instinct. It's - maybe a little ironically - the Fox & Grapes fable, right? If you want something and can't have it, it's often easiest to decide it was never really desirable (or possible) in the first place, so that the loss doesn't hurt as much. But then there are people right there who are having it, proving that it is possible and desirable and preventing you from cutting yourself off from the loss - so your brain perceives them as a threat, a source of pain, and wants to lash out.

But the pain isn't coming from the people who are living their lives, and it's not fair to lash out at them. You know that already, I can tell from the way you're talking about this at this point. Whatever the right answer is for you, whether you're nonhuman or not - if it is wrong for you, then just because it's wrong for you doesn't make it wrong for everyone.

This verges into questioning advice at this point, but if I may go that far, because I really do think that this lashing-out seems to be stemming from your own confusion and pain regarding your own wanting-to-be-an-animal feelings: I won't tell you to "accept yourself," because you've already determined that's not helpful advice for you, and that's completely fair. Instead, I'll offer a question that might be a more useful framework to look at this through: regardless of whether you are currently a fox or not, would you be happier calling yourself a fox, viewing yourself as a fox, living life influenced by and embracing foxness?

Don't knee-jerk react - pause and imagine it. Say the words out loud to yourself. Think about how you feel when people call you a fox, how it feels to look at a picture of a fox and go "that's me".

And, if the answer is that yes, it's an overall happy imagining - is that not a good enough reason to do it? It's a good enough reason for plenty of us. It's a good enough reason for me. If it's a happy imagining, I'd personally encourage you to let yourself chase that happiness. If it ends up not fitting right, you can always discard it later.

And to address that second potential fear - yes, sometimes it does hurt that we can't physically become what we long to be. It does. But, as gently as I can say this, it sounds like that's already hurting you, despite your efforts to push those feelings down. It doesn't seem to me like you're succeeding in getting away from it. It's a very natural instinct, but that doesn't mean it works, especially long-term. And, much like gender dysphoria, the answer to soothing species dysphoria is often doing things to make you feel closer to what you want to be, rather than trying to push it away and insist to yourself that you can never have it.

All of this, of course, is just my thoughts as an outside perspective - an obviously somewhat biased perspective, for that matter, given that I happen to be nonhuman myself. Ultimately, to come full circle here, I don't know your experiences as well as you do - you're the only one who can ultimately decide what to do with those experiences and what framework to parse them through. I'm not trying to push you to start identifying as otherkin here, I promise; I'm just trying to offer a way of looking at it that you might not have considered, and some compassion in the face of the agonies.

And... be gentle with yourself. You've lashed out and likely hurt people, and that was wrong of you, yes. You clearly understand that. I hope you'll think twice before doing it again in the future. But you're also hurting yourself, and as you say, you've been trying to get people to snap back at you - I don't know if you realize this, but this is a form of self-harm you've been doing. You don't need to punish yourself for the feelings you're having. Be gentle with yourself. You deserve that much.

Ooh, I haven’t gotten one of these asks in a few years.

Is it possible that identifying as nonhuman is unrelated to those things entirely, and you’re making a false assumption?

I get it. It looks crazy, when you’re completely new to the concept. It’s weird - it is! But pause and listen to us when we talk about our experiences for a moment.

(If this sounds a lot like the experience of figuring out you’re queer, there’s a reason for that.)

So, I ask again: why do you think you understand my own experiences better than I do? And moreover, why does it bother you so much that I am the way I am?

Would it not be better to devote that energy to trying to understand us, instead of trying to change us?

#dragon chatter #boy i hope i'm not overstepping here. forgive me if i am #spiritually i am wrapping you in a nice blanket and handing you a warm drink of your choice. you seem like you need it

65 notes · View notes

a-dragons-explanations · 8 months ago

Note

First off, thank you for hearing me out and answering genuinely - a lot of people don’t, and I know how hard that can be, especially when it’s a topic you feel so strongly about. Thank you also for taking the time to try to understand us - most people who send me asks like this haven’t, so I kind of assumed you hadn’t either, and it’s good to hear that I was wrong about that.

I can see where you’re coming from on the insecurity point. It can be a little scary, the way people talk about species dysphoria sometimes! But I have to point out, as much as I know people don’t like the comparison, that the same thing could be said of the transgender community about questioning how much dysphoria might be just because it’s them for some people. Why is it different when it’s species dysphoria instead of gender dysphoria?

Moreover, you are probably right that for some people that is true - that the dysphoria came first, possibly from other sources, and the nonhuman or alterhuman identity after. But if identifying that as species dysphoria and identifying as nonhuman helps someone deal with that, if they’re happier seeing themself as a dragon or a fox or a seal, is there inherently a problem with that? I don’t think there is - sure, there probably is the rare case where it reinforces problems instead of deconstructing them, but in my experience that’s not the case for the majority of otherkin. It’s an exception, not the rule. (And again, there will be cases like that in just about any community.) If it helps someone live a happier life and understand themself better, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

“it’s actually hard to stand with my own thoughts on this, especially because I WOULD agree. why not? I don’t know. It doesn’t really matter”

I’m not sure I’m following you here - would agree with what? (I don’t want to misunderstand and then start talking about a point I’ve misunderstood completely, LOL.)

“I should again insist that your community is in fact comprised of humans, but the argument doesn’t hold up if I deny that it’s based on self-perception and you are arguably animals in some way. (arguably.) I do not know you better than you know yourself, but outside perception is also something to consider”

You’ve already said half of what I would here in talking yourself through this point, so I’ll just ask the follow-up question: Is outside perception something that needs to be considered, when it comes to internal experiences and personal identity? And if you think it is, then why?

Personally, I don’t think it is. People perceive a lot of things about me that aren’t true. They perceive me as a woman all the time, and I’m not. They perceive, or at least assume, me to be Christian (that’s the default assumption where I live), and I’m not. I don’t see a reason strangers, or even friends, should get a say in my identity. I’m not a democracy.

““Why does it bother you so much that I am the way I am?” I would say that is slightly confusing and kind of vulnerable to explain. I think I have some idea but I’m not sure”

That’s okay. Think about it for a while, to yourself if you don’t want to try to hash it out to me (while it can help to have a rubber duck, I also totally get that I’m a stranger and we’re in public here, and you’re well within your rights to not want to get into stuff that’s really vulnerable for you in this scenario). I’m curious to hear your thoughts if you’re willing to share them (even if they’re a little jumbled still!), because I think it might help me understand where you’re coming from better, but I get it if you want to chew on it privately for a while. I just encourage you not to shy away from it because it’s confusing and scary to think about - that’s often when we learn the most about ourselves.

To go back a bit and bring something you said earlier in your response back - admittedly, self-contradiction is one of the things that my questions are deliberately meant to expose. I’m of the opinion that if a worldview contradicts itself, that means there’s something fundamentally wrong with it and it needs further examination and refinement. After all, the parts of a self-contradicting statement can’t both be true - so either one of them is false (and should be discarded and replaced), or there’s a complication producing nuance that’s not being verbalized/consciously recognized (which should probably be figured out in the interest of self-understanding). It’s the exercise of asking yourself, what do you truly believe, and what is false biases you’re holding onto? That being said, sometimes you have to say the self-contradicting thing out loud before you can see it for what it is and pick it apart - so please, don’t be afraid to do so.

It sounds like you’ve maybe had some rough experiences surrounding this topic - if I’m right and that’s the case, I’m sorry for whatever hardships those may have been. It’s clear to me that you have a lot of strong feelings about this, and I can absolutely understand that. And I totally understand the fear of having to flip your beliefs on their head, especially if you’ve already had to do it recently! That’s a really hard thing to do, and it takes guts to look the possibility of doing it in the eye even the first time. Good on you for not just shutting down and doubling down immediately - that’s already a lot more than a lot of people are willing to do.

Ooh, I haven’t gotten one of these asks in a few years.

Is it possible that identifying as nonhuman is unrelated to those things entirely, and you’re making a false assumption?

I get it. It looks crazy, when you’re completely new to the concept. It’s weird - it is! But pause and listen to us when we talk about our experiences for a moment.

(If this sounds a lot like the experience of figuring out you’re queer, there’s a reason for that.)

So, I ask again: why do you think you understand my own experiences better than I do? And moreover, why does it bother you so much that I am the way I am?

Would it not be better to devote that energy to trying to understand us, instead of trying to change us?

#dragon chatter #(blog change as promised)#through doubt you have unlocked sideblog #<- which is just my tag for stuff that gets transferred here from ADJ #also pls forgiv any minor errors in block quotes. mobile won’t let me copy paste (????!?!?!?!) so I had to type them by hand)

65 notes · View notes