darksou07

[darksou07]

Two years after being tasked with commissioning a review of medical evidence surrounding gender-affirming care for trans youth, Utah’s own state health department has concluded that trans healthcare bans “cannot be justified.” The Republicans who commissioned the study aren’t too happy about it.

Back in 2023, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed a bill that placed an indefinite “moratorium” on doctors prescribing gender-affirming care like hormone therapy and puberty blockers to trans youth. That bill ordered the Utah Department of Health and Human Services to compile their report in order to produce recommendations for the state government on whether or not to lift the moratorium.

This week, the department delivered their long-awaited, over 1,000-page report — which is dated August 6, 2024 — to Utah lawmakers. The report’s authors found that “the consensus of the evidence supports that the treatments are effective in terms of mental health, psychosocial outcomes, and the induction of body changes consistent with the affirmed gender in pediatric GD [gender dysphoria] patients.”

The authors added that “the evidence also supports that the treatments are safe in terms of changes to bone density, cardiovascular risk factors, metabolic changes, and cancer.” Trans youth who had received gender-affirming care were within the bounds of normal, non-pathological ranges for these conditions.

y’all this is huge. please don’t “water is wet” all over it! I understand that we all already know this… The point is that the world doesn’t know or care or believe and so these studies really fucking matter!

[darksou07]

[darksou07]

I swear I am this close to leaving the therian community. Some of you are insufferable. I just want to be in a space where I am able to express myself without fear of backlash because of some stupid shit.

Just so some of you know,

I support transspecies alterhumans

I support alterhumans who wear non-human packers

I support beings who draw nsfw furry content

I support beings whose alterhumanity is connected to their sex lives

I don't fucking care if I'm "technically an otherkin" because to you werewolves aren't real. That's crazy fucking invalidating. I am a werewolf therian, a physical werewolf, a werewolf full stop.

I'm sick of the drama in this community, some of you kids need to learn some fucking Internet etiquette like I did. And some of the adults too, you are fucking childish if you choose to involve yourselves in drama that doesn't concern you.

Also, please stop making drama out of nothing and learn that there are adults in this community who are sexually active and express that because they are adults.

No, animalistic packers aren't zoophilia because a penis isn't inherently sexual. Y'all need to shut it with the "eww penis gross, I don't like it" preschool talk. Its a part of the body grow the fuck up, block it and move on. I'm not even going to get into the fact that beings probably act this way because of the fact the penis had been demonised recently because "all men are gross and evil" shit that gets spouted online nowadays. When that is very harmful language considering the fact that some trans men/mascs consider themselves to have a penis pre-op or that some trans men get a penis after surgery. There are trans women/fems who have a penis. There are intersex beings who have a penis and non-binary beings can have them as well.

And no, I don't think animalistic sex toys are zoophilia. THEY AREN'T REAL ANIMALS. If a being is into primal play, or fucking their mate with a werewolf dildo I don't care its their choice and they aren't hurting anyone.

We can't say shit like "being a therian involves all parts of my life" then turn around and say that someone is a freak for saying that their alterhumanity involves their sexuality.

Just please learn the actual definitions of these serious fucking labels and stop accusing every slightly nsfw being in the community of being a criminal.

[darksou07]

Can we PLEASE stop portraying alterhumanity as complete suffering. I understand that shifts and dysphoria can be disorienting and uncomfortable but we also get to experience a side of life humans will probably never experience. There's a sense of adventure and spirituality that I see in at least my alterhumanity that is just intertwined within me and I wouldn't be who I am without it. Not to say that alterhumanity is complete positivity without cons, but I think we deserve to embrace it too.

(Also don’t come complaining on this post about how you can post whatever you want, read the entire post maybe?? Lmao)

[darksou07]

I literally do not understand why TRA's go out of their way to message me, call me things I'm not, and then shit their pants and block me. Do you want a conversation or do you think calling me a conservative bigot because I don't coddle male feelings will make me see the light and bend a knee to the church of "not all men!"

[darksou07]

[darksou07]

I'd pay to watch that episode.

A strange alien doctor stands near the unconscious body of Padme Amidala. “It appears she has lost the will to live.” A older man with a limp hobbles closer with the aid of a cane. “That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard,” says Dr. Gregory House.

[darksou07]

J.K. Rowling is a Misogynist

Something I find so telling about the entire TERF movement is, that they celebrate Rowling as a feminist - despite Rowling so clearly, clearly being a giant misogynist, who has tons of internalized misogyny. Rowling hates most women, and it was always clear in her books.

Some people will still act as if Harry Potter is somehow a progressive book with nothing questionable inside. But that is total bullshit. The books are full of racism, antisemitism, ableism, fatphobia, queerphobia (including very much homo- and acephobia, even though she clearly never even knew ace was a thing), but also tons of misogyny. Heck, I would argue even that just from a pure number of instances of clear misogyny I would argue it is even the form of oppression the spouts in her writing - both in HP and then the Strike books - more than anything else.

Let's make it very clear:

The only acceptable woman in Rowling's world is a woman who is or aims to be married to a man in a monogamous marriage and has children. If she does not have children, she at least has to want have them. Ideally she is also white, thin, pretty in a way that does not use much make-up, and fairly conservative. She also cannot want the attention of men and cannot like things that culturally are coded as "feminine", as in Rowling's world traditionally feminine things are evil and a clear sign of mental instability. Rowling is capable of forgiving a woman for falling out of this norm in maybe one way, rarely for two. But not more.

We see this in the books constantly. The only female characters who generally are portrayed somewhat constantly positive are Hermoine, Molly Weasley, Ginny Weasley, and McGonagall. And even they will at times be portrayed as negative.

Both Hermoine and Molly will again and again be potrayed as unreasonable and hysterical, overbearing in a way that is clearly framed negative. Most notable this is with Hermoine and the way she is portrayed in regards to the house elves, but also in how she overworries about classes and school. We see this with Hermoine obviously clearly given she is one of the main characters. With Molly it is rarer as she shows up more rarely. With Hermoine this is even text, most notable in GoF. When Ron abandons Harry due to the entire tournament thing and him not believing Harry, Hermoine is the only one who stands up for Harry. And Harry? His thoughts go: "But Hermoine is not wrong. She is so much of a girl, and she cares too much about school and homework." Which is... Oof.

McGonagall at times gets depicted as somewhat antagonistic, but generally as a largely fair person - I would argue she is the best female character, or at least the one with the least negativity associated. And her entire thing is that she is a widow who did not remarry and hence never had children, so now she looks after other people's children to have children in an indirect way, because a woman not having to do with children is a sign of mental instability again in Rowling's world. I am not even kidding. In Rowling's worldview women exist to have kids. That is their primary function. If they don't have kids, something is definitely wrong with them, according to Rowling.

The last not really negatively depicted female character is Ginny, which is not surprising, because as soon as she becomes as a love interest for Harry, she has her personality surgically removed to become the ideal girlfriend. She has no longer any wants or desires but being Harry's girlfriend.

Meanwhile, look at the other girls in the book: Lavender, Padma, and Pavati are either there to annoy the main characters, or quite litereally are the butt of a joke. They do not have any character past being kinda cringe and liking girly things. Which, sure, the books are written from the POV of a young boy, you could say this is natural for Harry to be like that. But an author who was concerned about women's rights and the way society views women... Well...

Cho - besides the racism stuff - also is then there to be awkward and weird by being feminine and crying. Rowling hates people who cry and show their feelings, which she hammers down onto several times in the books. And yeah, Cho gets very negatively depicted, which only gets worse when she stands up for her friend who gets at the very least blackmailed, if not outright TORTURED to tell about the Order of the Phoenix. (And mind you, it is also notable that this was a girl who did so, not one of the boys.)

Then we have Trelawny, who gets depicted as a crazy woman - which obviously is not surprising, given that she has no children - and also is constantly the butt of the joke.

Fleur, who objectively does really nothing wrong at any point whatsoever gets constantly talked about badly not only by our POV teenage boy, but literally almost any other character. Boys will sexualize her, but anything she does is framed negatively. She gets also basically slut-shamed despite, from all we know, being in a committed relationship with Bill.

Any perceived feminine interests throughout the books (be it interest in romance, interest in cute things, or interest in Trelawney's class) are being riduculed constantly.

And then we obviously have the antagonistic female characters, like Umbrige, Rita, Petunia and Bellatrix. Three of them have no children of their own (neither does Aunt Marge, notably), they get all shamed for their looks and just get depicted with way less humanity than any of the male antagonists. Rowling goes so far to mostly make a joke out of Umbrige getting gang raped, and out of Rita being kidnapped for WEEKS. Fun, fun.

Not to mention that every character - male and female - who is fat gets fatshamed without end.

In the epilogue every single character gets married off, most of them to conceive at least half a stable full of children, because what would a woman be without husband and children? In Rowling's world the answer is clear: Women without husbands and children are irreversibly broken. This seems to be one of Rowling's core believes.

And while I did not read the whole Cormoran strike series, I read the first two and saw some excerpts from the books, and it is clearly the same here. As one review put it so aptly: "If I had not known this was written by Rowling, with the pseudonym on the cover, I would have quoted it as an ideal example of 'men writing women'." Women are often sexualized, are belittled, are shamed for their behavior, are judged by their appearance, and so on and so forth. And of course, even though the male hero is neither dashing, nor nice, women love him and show interest in him.

It is bad.

And here is the thing: I have seen people defend it with "Well, but that is the POV of the protagonists! It is only realistic." Which is once more a Bullshit argument. Because nobody forced Rowling to write her protagonists as such. Like, I can very much see the argument that HP would not have sold half as well with Harietta Potter as a protagonist - but either way, it says something about Rowling and her relation to women that it is not Harietta, but Harry. Either she was aware it would sell better with a kinda misogynistic male protagonist, or she subconsciously felt better about writing a misogynistic male protagonist. Either way, does not speak for her as standing up for women's rights.

And with the Strike books? Well, at the point she wrote those books, she was J. K. Fucking Rowling. She could have written ANYTHING and it would have sold well. And she decided to write a misogynist middle aged man as a protagonist, who never learns that his misogyny is bad, and indeed often gets confirmed in his misogyny by the plot of the story. How exactly is this a feminist hero?

Like, even if she for one reason or another feels better about writing male characters... She could write male characters who are not misogynist. I can name you a couple of male writers who are capable of such a feat. (Most notably Craig Schaefer, who is the real one, y'all.) Not to mention a variety of other female writers, who do not even proclaim themselves to be feminists and still manage this feat so much better than Rowling.

No.

Rowling is not a feminist.

Rowling is a misogynist, who most likely has internalized a lot of misogyny and self-hatred due to her father being abusive about her being a girl. And who then, like so many people, never got the necessary therapy for these issues, so she makes them everyone else's problem.

And yes, we see her shaming cis women constantly in the real world as well. See also her entire thing against asexuals. See her outbursts against women fighting for abortion rights (which, according to Rowling, is a thing that men want, not a core thing of women's autonomy). See also her outbursts against women, who do not perform femininity in a way that Rowling approves of - something that notably most often is directed against women of color.

And yes, also see the way she stands behind Johnny Depp and Manson, against the women who believably and at times with a lot of evidence accursed them of abuse and rape.

Like, even if you are a TERF who thinks assaulting trans women and taking away their rights is a great feminist thing to do (you are wrong and anti-feminist for this, but sure, whatever)... How can anyone think that this woman, who clearly hates MOST OTHER WOMEN AND CHOOSES TO STAND WITH ABUSERS AGAINST WOMEN, is a feminist?

[darksou07]

Too many of you conceptualize trans men as having access to all the advantages of cis womanhood and cis manhood combined, when the reality is that most of us just see the disadvantages of failed manhood and failed womanhood combined

[darksou07]

Why I got banned from the Alterhuman Sanctuary

I was considering not saying anything about this and I'm aware I can become a target for harrassment for doing so. Besides, I got no proof of what happened because I didn't think I'd get banned over it. This isn't a post I'm making because I want to end this community or even attack the mods. I'm doing this because I know I'm not going to be the only target and I want that whoever becomes the next banned alterhuman from this community just know that, yes, I believe you.

Anyway, this happened over what I can only say is a very stupid argument that could have easily solved with a conversation. Instead, I got banned. Fair. Being in a discord community is a privilege and not a right. Although I would be lying if I said it didn't affect me in any way. I have been a member of this community for a few years without any issues until this day. What happened according to my memories was that:

There was one person in the community talking in the LGBT channel about their experiences of identifying as a trans man. The reason? Well, this person is actually a cis man and be identifies as a trans man because he started to present in such a feminine way that people started to perceive him as a woman despite his identity as a man, so he decided to call himself a trans man.

What got me banned? Well, it was me suggesting that maybe the word he was looking for was femboy, which means you are a feminine man/boy who presents in a feminine way. Some femboys can end up by being assumed to be women due to how feminine they are. No big deal saying such, I'd say.

However, the members of the community just got mad over that. I even pointed out that I literary stopped saying I was Self Assigned Male At Birth (SAMAB) when an intersex individual called me out that this was offensive to intersex folks on this very server. So I stopped using any AGAB terms towards myself as a way to avoid causing dysphoria to myself and respecting intersex people.

Apparently, the same courtesy could not be given to a transgender man when he points out it is offensive to call yourself a trans man just because you're a feminine man that is seen as a woman. All because, you see, not every trans man is perceived as a woman and trust me when I say that many trans men would be offended for being called feminine.

While there are trans men who do not pass, it isn't because they are actively choosing to look like women. Our bodies just are working against us because that's just how it is for many trans men. Implying that we are always going to be more feminine than cisgender men isn't just untrue, it is offensive and causes dysphoria for trans men who do not want to be perceived as women, but are anyway. Even worse when the person using this term is a cis man.

You want to have your femininity recognized? Call yourself a feminine man, a femboy or GNC, but you aren't a trans man and I'm not being transphobic for telling you that. However, you ARE being transphobic for implying that trans man = feminine man. That's not what the word means and you don't get to call yourself that.

I find it laughable that I got banned and called a transphobe for calling out a transphobe.

[darksou07]

I’ve never had a reheading go this horribly before. I’d say I’m pretty good at beheading- I may have broken a neck once or twice, but never any parts I actually liked or intended on keeping, and usually a reheading is the easiest thing, right? Just a little squish and a pop and done, a complete person. But this time it just- it just won’t go back on the body?? Which is incredibly frustrating but also, like, why??

And the funniest thing is, I’m not even swapping a head!! This is a curvy dancer head going onto a curvy dancer body!! They match!! This should have been so simple!! But no, this head’s just flopping around like a limp flaccid idiot and my hands are all red and sore now but the head just isn’t attaching all the way!!

Today I did six beheadings and two other reheadings, and I wanted to get this one attached so I could take a picture, but somehow it just isn’t working!! The head is just getting squished around but isn’t stretching over the neck right!! And I’m way too lazy to go and boil the head just to make the slip easier!! And I don’t wanna keep forcing it cuz I might break something but this is!! So frustrating!!

Like, what could I possibly be doing wrong!! Fuck!!

[darksou07]

"Never fakeclaim any system"

"Ofc!! I never fakeclaim any :D except for endos ofc"

What part of "never" "fakeclaim" "any" "system". Do you not understand.

[darksou07]

We are a simple system. A guy fronts for 6 hours and leaves, and miraculously during that time, all 4 apples we owned disappeared. Something ate them, and it totally wasn't that guy. Him having "likes apples" in his SimplyPlural description has nothing to do with this event at all. Simply a coincidence.

[darksou07]

There's something about the Kirby plush in the background that really sells this

[darksou07]

How do you square away the fact that there are other people claiming to be “you” in a system source or fictionkin way? It’s started to make me feel odd lately

(Sorry if this is out of nowhere— you seemed like the most knowledgeable person I could think of on the subject)

Hi, pal! Thank you so much for sending this question our way. It is, perhaps, the question we've gotten the most in our 20 years of being fictionkin online.

We have always had an easy time with this "problem" because some of the earliest media we were exposed to involved the "multiverse" and "many worlds" theory. And that's simply what we believe.

We believe in an infinite multiverse with an infinite number of variations between timelines, some minute and some huge.

So if I'm (💀🎂) Jane Crocker (and I am), and someone else I meet is also claiming to be Jane Crocker, the answer is simple - neither of us is wrong, or fake, we're simply two different Janes from two different universes both incarnated here on earth, in the same timeline where we could have the very strange and amusing experience of meeting one another!

Does that make sense?

[darksou07]

Ideas are cooking for my pride outfit.

[darksou07]

I feel like we need a massive public education campaign to inform people that "natural" and "healthy" are two completely different words with separate meanings