#...because it requires you to see us less as people but as Trans People (derogatory)...

[uncanny-tranny]

The Trans Community is less an amalgamation of every trans person in existence and more of many trans communities with different needs, goals, aspirations, and experiences, so I'm always low-key suspicious every time I hear cis people act as though there is a Singular Hegemonic Trans Community.

When you notice and recognize that there are many trans communities with either similar or polar opposite goals, I think you can recognize commonalities between communities and are able to work with us instead of assuming, you know?

[flecks-of-stardust]

Hey I genuinely don't know this but what is a sysmed?

there's A Lot of community context a lot of singlets (ie, non-systems) don't know about here, so i'll try to explain as i go. and of course, disclaimer that i am only just one person (and one system), so other folks will have other thoughts, and i do not represent all plural folk. for what it’s worth, i have thought about this vein of things a lot, so i hope this is an adequate summary of the controversy surrounding this term.

the short version is in the word itself. ‘sysmed’ is short for system medicalist. system medicalists are systems (usually) that believe that systemhood is inherently a medicalized existence, and often that comes with beliefs such as all plurality requires psychiatric treatment, all plurality is disordered, you have to have either DID (dissociative identity disorder) or OSDD (other specified dissociative disorder) to be a system, etc. if you look the term up, you will likely see people on both sides of the argument referencing transmeds (ie, trans medicalists), because ‘sysmed’ did arise with inspiration from ‘transmed.’

the core of the idea here is that sysmeds believe that systems must form from trauma, because that is the definition for DID and OSDD in the dsm 5. i think this is bullshit, and i don’t want it anywhere near me. i don’t care if they think the term ‘sysmed’ is derogatory, because i have very little patience for this type of gatekeeping behavior. i don’t think it’s helpful to anyone, least of all traumagenic systems (ie systems that formed from trauma), to police people’s existence like this, and that’s why i keep restating this boundary. (i don’t put it in a pinned post because i don’t like having a formal ‘dni’ or some shit. i just block people i don’t like.)

longer version below the cut with more community context:

a lot of this is, frankly, complicated. brains are complex. humans are complex. neuroscience, while having made leaps and bounds in recent years, still hasn’t given many answers to how the brain works, least of all how there can be multiple distinct personalities/people in one brain. a good chunk of what we know of brains now comes from autopsies performed on preserved brains, which, as you can imagine, probably isn’t entirely accurate to how a live brain works.

there just isn’t much research at all on how plurality works to begin with, and so a lot of things are hard to argue. most of what we have now is based on lived experiences, with limited research to back it up. on top of that, a good portion of the research that Does exist is based in eugenics. the psychiatric system very much does Not want systems to exist, and everything paints this state of being as disordered, as broken, as something that requires fixing, and all other sorts of ways to state that they want us gone. so whatever there is out there, it’s very focused on how plurality is ‘damaging’ or some shit. i don’t even know. i don’t care for it.

this is compounded by the dsm 5. i’m less knowledgeable on this than a lot of other people, i’m sure, but the tldr is that the dsm 5 is full of bullshit. it’s a collection of extremely narrow boxes and labels that clinicians stuff mentally ill people into, and it is often and constantly used as a means of enacting violence on marginalized peoples. the whole obsession with labeling certain human behaviors as harmful and certain others as healthy is very misguided, and often misses the point that human existence is fluid and hard to define. what is healthy and helpful for one person can be detrimental to another, and vice versa. there is no one level of disorderedness that you can use a single guideline to determine, and at this point the dsm 5 is just a tool to milk money out of people.

so then coming back to plurality, there are two categories for it in the dsm 5. there’s DID, dissociative identity disorder, sometimes considered ‘more severe,’ and there’s OSDD, other specified dissociative disorder, sometimes considered ‘less severe.’ the difference between DID and OSDD is that in DID, splits between headmates/alters are usually more complete, resulting in two (or more) distinct personalities/people, while in OSDD, it can be incomplete in a multitude of ways. there is a theory that DID results from the psyche of a traumatized child responding to said trauma by not fully integrating their personality, resulting in multiple distinct personalities; the more severe the trauma, the more fragmented this personality is. that’s roughly how it pans out, though of course, it’s not as simple as it being a sliding scale from OSDD to DID. human brains are incredibly complex, after all.

the thing is, there is, as far as i’ve heard, no actual research to back up that theory. i wish i could link some sources here, this whole post is Dude Just Trust Me, but i really don’t have anything on hand and i’d have to slog through pages of medicalization if i were to look now. but we really don’t know for sure that trauma is required to cause this type of personality fragmentation, nor do we know the exact mechanisms for how it works. the idea that systems have to form from trauma is really just based on community experiences. and certainly, there are a lot of community experiences here. i won’t deny that there are a lot of systems who have experienced childhood trauma, and severe childhood trauma at that. i’m in no way discounting it.

i am, however, saying that there are systems that did not result from trauma. they are called endogenic systems (as opposed to traumagenic systems), and they just... are plural. they have headmates or alters, and their system origin is not traumatic. that is literally it. no one really knows how that works either, and honestly i don’t really care that much. they exist, they’re talking about their experiences, and that’s good enough for me. it is so not my place to question them on how they came to be.

a lot of traumagenic systems do not like the idea of endogenic systems. because their systems resulted from trauma, which requires a lot of work and healing, systemhood is inherently tied to trauma for them. and, i mean, that’s fair, honestly? but a lot also believe that because their systemhood is tied to trauma, there is no way to exist as a system without medicalization, ie receiving treatment for it. some may go as far to believe that their systemhood is something that requires fixing, and some may go to the lengths of integration, which is when all headmates/alters in a system integrate and form into one singular person. so when endogenic systems come along and share their experiences of plurality and how it’s not linked to trauma for them, a lot of traumagenic systems that buy into this idea of medicalization get very angry. they say that by implying that it is possible to be a system without trauma, it devalues their trauma because their systems formed from trauma, and the two are inextricably linked. they also get mad because some endogenic systems don’t see a problem with their plurality at all, not seeing it as a disorder or something that requires treatment, and it’s in direct contrast to how some traumagenic systems may have highly disordered systems with lots of internal conflict.

i am not trying to deny the painful reality that some traumagenic systems face. there can definitely be a lot of disorder in a system, where alters will argue and fight and hurt each other, and communication can be poor, or dissociative barriers prevent information from one alter passing to another, and just the general difficulty of existing in a world that is so built around singlets. i’m not denying any of that, and i sympathize with it. but i really can’t say that endogenic systems don’t exist either, because they’re talking about their experiences, how they sometimes lack these issues (and hell, they can have these problems too), and it’s just not my place to argue that this can’t exist. we don’t know that. it is not any of our places to argue whether someone else’s experiences are valid or not. that is gatekeeping.

also, note my wording above. i said that endogenic systems didn’t form from trauma. this doesn’t mean they can’t have trauma, because there are so many ways to be traumatized. someone can be an endogenic system and still be traumatized, and it’s not an oxymoron. and this is where a lot of the conflict arises, i think; traumagenic systems argue against endogenic systems with the idea that these ‘fake’ systems are stealing resources from traumagenic systems, and/or that because these endogenic systems have trauma, that must mean they are actually traumagenic and just denying their reality. or, because endogenic systems exist, they will make singlets think being plural is trendy and not painful and difficult, and it demeans how hard it’s been for traumagenic systems. and i’m sure there’s a bunch of other arguments that i can’t think of off the top of my head right now.

if you really read that and think about it, it’s just rehashed respectability politics. there are no resources to ‘steal,’ because you can’t use up a resource. therapy is expensive and hard to get for everyone, and endogenic systems aren’t blocking traumagenic systems from receiving help. and i hope i don’t have to explain why saying ‘you’re actually traumagenic and just denying it’ is shitty. i’m sure you’ve heard similar veins of thought before.

to be honest, i really don’t think medicalized systems are necessarily bad, because some systems can really only be medicalized. i won’t deny their existence, and at the end of the day, there will always be systems who choose to regard their system as a disorder and wish to fix it. that is the nature of how things are; disability is a complex thing, and you’ll find lots of varying opinions across the board within only one type of disability, and the same goes for mental illnesses or other conditions that affect the brain and how one experiences the world. there will always be systems who will want to integrate, and i take no issue with it, even if i don’t understand it. it’s just not my business. the problem here is that these system medicalists, sysmeds, are pushing their beliefs onto everyone else, and they get Violent. there are reddit threads dedicated to ‘exposing fakers,’ and i haven’t seen much of it because i know actually reading what they say about other people would make me sick and angry, but this is the exact same type of lateral violence that plays back into the comfort of those in hegemonic rule. i don’t want sysmeds interacting with me because i’ve seen the type of damage they can cause, and i’m not interested in dealing with it.

and this is really why they’re often likened to transmeds. doesn’t the ideology sound similar? you must have dysphoria to be trans, you must have traumatic origins to be a system; you can’t experience transness in this way because it’s not possible, you can’t experience plurality in this way because it’s not possible (according to the dsm 5); there are trans fakers who make us look bad and we should expose them, there are system fakers who make us look bad and we should expose them; etc etc etc. it is the same vein of thought, and it is just as damaging, to both the people being targeted and the perpetrators. and both of it panders to cis/singlet people.

so yeah. i don’t want that nonsense on my blog. i don’t want to interact with people, systems or otherwise, who buy into that ideology. it’s damaging, it kills people, and it’s just respectability politics. i tried to stay as neutral as possible when describing this, but it’s a lot. either way i hope it’s some useful context.

[baeddel]

Please. Please can you tell me what a baeddel is and why people (terfs?) used it in a derogatory manner on this website for a hot minute but now no one ever uses it at all

you asked for it, fucker

[2k words; philology and drama]

baeddel is an Old English word. i have no idea where it actually occurs in the Old English written corpus, but it occurs in a few placenames. its diminuitive form, baedling, is much better documented. it appears in the (untranslated) Canons of Theodore, a penitential handbook, a sort of guidebook for priests offering advice on what penances should be recommended for which sins. in a passage devoted to sexual transgressions it gives the penances suggested for a man who sleeps with a woman, a man who sleeps with another man, and then a man who sleeps with a baedling. so you have this construction of a baedling as something other than a man or a woman. and then it gives the penance for a baedling who sleeps with another baedling (a ludicrous one-year fast). then, by way of an explaination, Theodore delivers us one of the most enigmatic phrases in the Old English corpus: "for she is soft, like an adulturess."

the -ling suffix in baedling is masculine. but Theodore uses feminine pronouns and suffixes to describe baedlings. as we said, it's also used separately from male and female. but it's also used separately from their words for intersex and it never appears in this context. all of this means that you have this word that denotes a subject who is, as Christopher Monk put it, "of problematic gender." interested historians have typically interpreted it as referring to some category of homosexual male, such as Wayne R. Dines in his two-volume Encyclopedia of Homosexuality who discusses it in the context of an Old English glossary which works a bit like an Old English-Latin dictionary, giving Old English words and their Latin counterparts. the Latin words the Anglo-Saxon lexicographer chose to correspond with baedling were effeminatus and mollis, and Lang concludes that it refers to an "effeminate homosexual" (pg 60, Anglo Saxon). this same glossary gives as an Old English synonym the word waepenwifstere which literally means "woman with a penis," and which Dines gives the approximate translation (hold on tight) male wife.

R. D. Fulk, a philologist and medievalist, made a separate analysis of the term in his study on the Canons of Theodore 'Male Homoeroticism in the Old English Canons of Theodore', collected in Sex and Sexuality in Medieval England, 2004. he analysed it as a 'sexual category' (sexual as in sexuality), owing to the context of sexual transgressions in the Canons. he decides that it refers to a man who bottoms in sexual relationships with another man. i don't have the article on hand so i'm not sure what his reasoning was, but this seems obviously inadequate given what we know from the glossary described by Dines. Latin has a word for bottom, pathica, and the lexicographer did not use this in their translation, preferring words that emphasized the baedling's femininity like effeminatus, and doesn't address the sexual context at all. Dines, however, only reading this glossary, seems to decide that it refers to a type of male homosexual too hastily, considering the Canons explicitly treat them separately. both Dines and Fulk immediately reduce the baedling to a subcategory of homosexual when neither of the sources to hand actually do so themselves.

by now it should be obvious why, seven or so years ago, we interpreted it as an equivalent to trans woman. I mean come on - a woman with a penis! these days I tend to add a bit of a caution to this understanding, which is that trans woman is the translation of baedling which seems most adequate to us, just as baedling was the translation of effeminatus that seemed most adequate to our lexicographer. but the term cannot translate perfectly; its sense was derived from some minimal context; a legal context, a doctrinal context, and so forth... the way Anglo-Saxons understood sex/gender is complicated but it has been argued that they had a 'one sex model' and didn't regard men and women as biologically separate types, which is obviously quite different from the sexual model accepted today; in any case they didn't have access to the karyotype and so on. the basic categories they used to understand gender and sexuality were different from ours. in particular, Hirschfield et al. should be understood as a particularly revolutionary moment in the genealogy of transsexuality; the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft essentially invented the concept of the 'sex change', the 'transition', conceived as a biological passage from one sex to the other. even in other contexts where (forgive me) #girlslikeus changed their bodies in some way, like the castration of the priestesses of Cybele, or those belonging to the various historical societies which we believe used premarin for feminization [disputed; see this post], there is no record that they were ever considered men at any stage or had some kind of male biology that preceded their 'gender identity.' the concept of the trans woman requires the minimal context of the coercive assignment at birth and its subsequent (civil and bio-technological) rejection. i have never encountered evidence that this has ever been true in any previous society. nonetheless, these societies still had gendered relations, and essentially wherever we find these gendered relations we also find some subject which is omitted or for whom it has been necessary to note exceptions. what is of chief interest to us is not so much that there was such a subject here or there in history (and whatever propagandistic uses this fact might have), but understanding why these regularities exist.

a very parsimonious explanation is that gender is a biological reality, and there is some particular biological subject which a whole host of words have been conjured to denote. if this were the case then we would expect that, no matter what gender/sexual system we encounter in a given society, it will inevitably find some linguistic expression. if, like me, you find this idea revolting, then you should busy yourself trying to come up with an alternative explanation which is not just plausible, but more plausible. my best guesses are outside the scope of this answer...

anyway, all of this must be very interesting to the five or six people invested in the confluence of philology and gender studies. but why on earth did it become so widely used, in so many strange and unusual contexts, in the 2010s? we're very sorry, but yes, it's our fault. you see apart from all of this, there is also a little piece of information which goes along with the word baeddel, which is that it's the root of the Modern English word bad. by way of, no less, the word baedan, 'to defile'. how this defiled historical subject came to bear responsibility for everything bad to English-speakers doesn't seem to be known from linguistic evidence. however, it makes for a very pithy little remark on transmisogyny. my dear friend [REDACTED] made a playful little post making this point and, good Lord, had we only known...

it went like this. its such a funny little idea that we all start changing our urls to include the word baeddel. in those days it was common to make puns with your url (we always did halloween and christmas ones); i was baeddelaire, a play on the French poet Baudelaire. while we all still had these urls a series of events which everyone would like to forget happened, and we became Enemies of Everyone in the Whole World. because of the url thing people started to call us "the baeddels." then there was "a cult" called "the baeddels" and so forth. this cult had various infamies attatched to it and a constellation of indefensible political positions. ultimately we faced a metric fucking shit ton of harassment, including, for some of my friends, really serious and bad irl harassment that had long-term bad awful consequences relating to stable housing and physical safety and i basically never want to talk about that part of my life ever again. and i never have to, because i've come to realize that for most people, when they use the word baeddel, they don't know about that stuff. it doesn't mean that anymore.

so what does it mean? you'll see it in a few contexts. TERFs do use it, as you guessed. i am not quite sure what they really mean by it and how it differs from other TERF barbs. i think being a baeddel invovles being politically active or at least having a political consciousness, but in a way thats distinct from just any 'TRA' or trans activist. so perhaps 'militant' trans women, but perhaps also just any trans woman with any opinions at all. how this was transmitted from tumblr/west coast tranny drama to TERF vocabulary i have no idea. but you will also find - or, could have found a few years ago - i would say 'copycat' groups who didn't know us or what we believed but heard the rumours, and established their own (generously) organizations (usually facebook groups) dedicated to putting those principles into practice. they considered themselves trans lesbian separatists and did things like doxx and harass trans women who dated cafabs. if you don't know about this, yes, there really were such groups. they mostly collapsed and disappeared because they were evildoers who based their ideology on a caricature. i knew a black trans woman who was treated very badly by one of these groups, for predictable reasons. so long-time readers: if you see people talking about their bad experiences with 'baeddels', you can't necessarily relate it to the 2014 context and assume they're carrying around old baggage. there are other dreams in the nightmare.

the most common way you'll see it today, in my experience, is in this form: people will say that it was a "slur" for trans women. they might bring up that it's the root of the word bad, and they might even think that you shouldn't use the word bad because of it, or that you shouldn't use the word baeddel because it's a slur. all of this is a silly game of internet telephone and not worth addressing. except to say that it's by no means clear that baeddel, or baedling, were slurs, or even insulting at all. while Theodore doesn't provide us with a description of how we can have sex with a baedling without sinning, and it may be the case that any sexual relations with a baedling was considered sinful, sexuality-based transgressions were not taken all that seriously in those days. there was a period where homosexuality within the Church was almost sanctioned, and it wasn't until much later that homosexuality became so harshly proscribed, to the extent that it was thought to represent a threat to society, etc. and as i mentioned, there are places in England named after baedlings. there is a little parish near Kent which is called Badlesmere, Baeddel's Lake, which was recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Domesday Book (as having a lord, a handful of villagers and a few slaves; perhaps only one or two households). it's not unheard of, but i just don't know very many places called Faggot Town or some such. it's possible that baedlings had some role in Anglo-Saxon society which we are not aware of; it could even have been a prestigious one, as it was in other societies. there is just no evidence other than a couple of passing references in the literature and we'll probably never have a complete picture.

[macncheesenketchup]

things you should avoid, know, or do if you support autistic and adhd people and why: a list for allistic, non adhd or neurotypical people

TW FOR AUTISTIC/ADHD PEOPLE READING THIS: DESCRIPTIONS OF ABLEISM, MENTION OF R-SLUR, MENTION OF AUTISM $PEAKS

People often don’t realize why what they say or do is offensive, and want to do better but don’t understand how. So, for those of you who want to be less ableist/stigmatizing, here’s a list of things you can do to help autistic and ADHD people live more easily. If someone has a question or an autistic/adhd person has something to add, please feel free to do so in the notes/reblogs and I’ll most likely answer you or add it to the post!

1. Never, ever support Autism Speaks. Autism Speaks is an organization that has never been on the side of autistic people. There’s plenty of research on the wrongs they’ve committed, but off the top of my head:

- Supported the Judge Rotenberg Center, who are known for using shock therapy on autistic people.

- Supported and made their own version of ABA therapy, a form of therapy designed to stifle/“cure” autism. This therapy form is traumatizing, often forces autistic people not to stim, to word things in an uncomfortable way or do things that are physically painful to them.

- Tried to look for a ‘cure’ to autism, for the longest time didn’t have a single autistic person on staff, and had influential members who had said and done horrible things (what comes to mind first is the member who was shown on camera with their autistic child in earshot saying that they hated having an autistic child so much, they had more than once considered getting in the car with their autistic child and driving the both of them off a cliff, leaving their non autistic child alive)

2. When an autistic/adhd person says they’re autistic/adhd, it’s okay to ask questions. An autistic/adhd person won’t usually be offended by innocent questions designed to better understand us. With that said, if an autistic person tells you a statement or question is offensive, just take their word for it. Examples of typically offensive things to say as a person without the disorders include “you don’t look/act autistic,” “oh, like Einstein/The Good Doctor/Rain Man/Sheldon,” using autistic/adhd like a slur or adjective, or using autistic/adhd as an adjective for yourself or for derogatory purposes.

3. If you respect neurodivergent people, you respect their behaviors, too. If someone with autism/adhd tells you that something they do is because of their disorder, please don’t argue. And don’t make fun of behaviors like having ‘weird’ interests, stimming, laughing inappropriately, not knowing social things, etc.

4. Never use the R-slur. The R-slur refers to the word “r*tard”, and both this word and variations of it are extremely harmful. Don’t say it, don’t write it, don’t Morse code it or sign it. Don’t. Not even as an example.

5. Don’t victimize yourself for knowing an autistic or ADHD person. Just don’t. It’s a horrible and disheartening thing to see as an autistic/ADHD person.

6. Don’t use functioning labels. Functioning labels are most common for autism, and consist of words like ‘low functioning’ or ‘high functioning’. Terms like these are harmful and don’t give a full sense of what autistic people are like because it makes autism seem like a scale where you either can’t do anything and are incapable or you can do everything a neurotypical can and don’t deserve accommodations. Instead, view and explain it with the ice cream bar analogy, which says that autism is more like an ice cream bar with various symptoms as flavors and toppings that can be mixed in any way.. You don’t have a high functioning autistic child, you have a child who, using the ice cream bar analogy, doesn’t have social issues in their sundae, but DOES have educational barriers in their sundae, and they don’t struggle with loud noise but they do struggle with COMPLICATED noise. It’s more effort, yes, but it’s more kind to autistic people.

7. Don’t tell someone with autism or ADHD what their experiences are. Don’t tell them they’re using their disorder as a crutch. Don’t tell them they don’t experience a certain symptom when they say they do. Don’t tell them what they don’t need when they’ve told you what they do. Just listen, and accommodate as much as you can. You do not know them better than they do.

8. Autistic people often experience nonverbalism or selective muteness. This means sometimes they can’t talk, and it physically harms them to do so. Don’t force them to speak. Let them write down what they have to say, or put it into a text to speech, or do what they must.

9. People with ADHD often experience hyperactivity or an inability to focus. Don’t tell them to ‘just be still’, because often doing so can be painful. Don’t yell at them for not being able to focus, because the result will be them forcing themselves to focus and not actually hearing. Rather, if someone with ADHD can’t sit still, allow them to stand up and pace back and forth in the room, or step outside or go for a walk. If they can’t focus, ask them what you can do to help and DO YOUR BEST to do that.

10. People with autism and ADHD come in every shape, size, color, ethnicity, and personality. Don’t dwindle them down to a ‘type’. You’re harming them by doing that. There are POC, trans, female, male, non-binary, and lgbt autistic/adhd people, there are autistic/adhd people who can sit still, who can mask well, who don’t show specific symptoms, or who like things that aren’t autistic/adhd in nature and they’re all valid and deserve representation. Don’t act like they aren’t, don’t act like they don’t, and give them what they deserve whenever you can.

11. Not every symptom of autism and ADHD is well-known. ADHD people can experience impulse lying, horrible intrusive thoughts, and RSD (rejection sensitive dysphoria) that can take extreme forms. Autistic people can experience using extremely offensive language or dogwhistles without being aware that it’s offensive or bad, selective muteism that isn’t complete nonverbalism but still makes the autistic person incapable of speaking without harming themselves, and harmful stims like slamming their head against things or biting their skin. These are only a few examples of things people don’t seem to consider when meeting a person with autism or ADHD, but they’re easy to fix without being harsh, discriminatory, or ableist. If you ever don’t know how to address a symptom or behavior, ask an autistic/adhd person for help! You can find many of them in tags like #autism, #actuallyautistic, #actuallyadhd or #adhd.

12. Please don’t claim autistic/adhd culture, terminology, behaviors or otherwise things that are theirs for yourself. Don’t use #actuallyautistic or #actuallyadhd if YOU, YOURSELF are not autistic, even if you have an autistic family member. Don’t say you stim/have self-stimulatory behaviors. Don’t say you experience special interests or hyperfixations. Don’t say you’re ‘so autistic’ or ‘so adhd’ based on a stereotypical autistic/adhd thing you did. Don’t use fidget toys, stim toys, or chewing toys if you aren’t an autistic/adhd person who needs them, especially not in places like schools or workplaces where abusing necessary accommodations can lead to the people who need them being refused them. If you think something MIGHT be an autistic/adhd thing that you yourself shouldn’t use, do or say, ASK.

13. Self-diagnosis is valid. Autism and ADHD are severely undiagnosed because of the diagnostic requirement and bigotry in psychology. You can have autism and ADHD and not be diagnosed simply because you’re POC, or don’t ACT autistic/adhd enough, or looked for diagnosis late in life, or even just because you’re a girl. Don’t tell someone they aren’t actually autistic or ADHD if they are self-diagnosed because many people with these disorders CAN’T be diagnosed due to things outside of their control.

14. Don’t spread false or unchecked information about autism and ADHD. You can fact check things you read online or hear by mouth just by asking an autistic/ADHD person, and it’s best to do such before saying something that isn’t true.

15. Possibly most importantly, listen to autistic/adhd voices and support people with autism/adhd. Allow people with autism/adhd to have jobs. Reblog when autistic/adhd people speak out. Correct people who show ableist behaviors online and if they argue with you, tag or otherwise get ahold of autistic/adhd people who you know would be willing to help you. Block and report ableists who refuse to cooperate when their ableism is pointed out. Buy from autistic/adhd businesses. Don’t go blue for autism, use red instead. Follow tags like #actuallyautistic and #actuallyadhd in order to familiarize yourself with and validate their voices, but if they don’t want neurotypical or allistic people to reblog or comment, don’t. It’s not difficult to let our voices be heard, and you can do so without supporting corrupt organizations or using non-autistic people, non-adhd people or neurotypical ‘autism/adhd moms/dads’ to get information. Ask autistic/adhd people questions, check in with them, make sure they’re okay. Treat autistic and adhd voices like biblical word on the matter because they ARE.

[genderisntsex-y]

Based on current discourse, I sadly feel it is necessary to start by making clear that I do not hate trans people. I'm not transphobic. I think we have more in common than not. I respect trans people and their pronouns and obviously believe everyone is entitled to civil rights and protection. I want these things for trans people. This does not conflict with my views on gender. In fact, I think the feminist views and associated goals I hold regarding gender are in line with remedying many of the struggles the transgender community faces.

I believe that sex is a biological reality, but that gender is a social construct that serves as a prison for us all.

In my current understanding, gender is a term for how we perceive ourselves and how we want to be perceived by others based on the archaic dichotomy of masculine and femine. It's perpetuation reinforces harmful stereotypes about our individual intelligence, emotional capacity, life priorities, etc. It is directly harmful. See stereotypical examples below I'm sure we all are familiar with:

Suzy doesn't get the promotion because her boss thinks she's going to be too family oriented when she eventually has kids, which the boss only assumes. He thinks Paul who is unlikely to be a direct caretaker will actually be able to focus, so he gets the promotion instead.

Jim's dad would hit him when he cried because boys don't cry. Jim grew up and now has trouble opening up to people. He covers up his insecurities with derogatory views about women and the LGBTQ community.

I don't think anyone who spent some time and thought critically about gender would find that they perfectly fit into what society thinks a man or a woman should be. This spectrum of masculine to feminine is so varied and complex. If I'm being honest, it feels more like a spider web-like graph of interconnecting points than a spectrum like we think of color. Each of us has strands of various categories, branching off, dipping back, and mixing into what makes us unique.

And we're wearing down the borders. Fashion isn't justly a feminine interest. Sports not just masculine. You know what I mean. This is the ultimate goal in my mind, to erase gender and all its rules, roles, and assumptions. The experience of being a woman is so varied and unique to each individual. Does being female gender mean I want to be seen as submissive, that I want to be pursued? Does it mean that I like pink and glitter? You can do the same for men. How do you define what female gender is? If you can't define it as one thing or another, how do you "identify" with it?

I don't think you can define gender without the harmful stereotypes that put people in boxes. Even if it's a-gender, genderqueer, etc. Acknowledging that you are opting out of the options reinforces that they are valid and distinct classifications. What I desperately want is to see this borders erased.

Admittedly, the trans movement could lead to that goal as it will draw attention to the boxes. However it seems counter intuitive that we encourage painful and expensive transitions for people who don't fit molds or boxes to be the solution to ripping up the damn boxes. And as I'm sure this blog will get into, there are immediate collateral effects. It seems more progressive to let's our ideas of women expand to include the masculine, and of men to include the feminine. The more variation in the sexes (and there is already a lot) we have, you're bound to have less people who think they are outliers or in the wrong category.

So no, I'm not cisgender. Gender is violence, to borrow a term. I'm a female based on my sex. I find it objectively offensive that anyone would place a label on me implying I accept my gender prison to justify the existence of theirs.

At this point I will not delve into dysphoria (sex related dysphoria). I think that is a competed separate medical condition which scientists and doctors have spoken on. Anyway, it is my understanding the focus of the current trans movement is on gender dysphoria, which does not require dysphoria regarding one's body.

[adhd-hippie]

Why I think Asexuals & Aromantics belong in the LGBTQIA community

1. We don’t have a choice.  Those of us who identify as aspec in one way or another do not choose to feel this way.  

2. We do face discrimination.  I do acknowledge that asexual and aromantic people do not have the same history as gay and trans people nor do we suffer like the intersex community suffers (if you wanna talk fucked up let's talk about the idea that “corrective” surgery aka genital mutilation is still socially acceptable if a person is intersex). 

We are however discriminated against, we avoid some discrimination because, for the most part, we’re able to pass.  Yet passing is not the same as acceptance.  The aspec community is a small community and so we’re largely unseen.  We do however experience discrimination, for example, there are reports of corrective rape from asexuals and even though asexuality has been removed from the DSM-5 it requires self-identification to not be treated.  This means that people who are asexual may be treated for a mental health disorder if they don’t state they’re asexual.  That’s not good, especially considering that many people still don’t know what asexuality is. Not to mention that as a whole aspec people experience things like deterioration of relationships due to our identity, derogatory language, segregation, and bigotry.  

3. We are an attribute to the LGBTQIA community. Our existence is a testament to the complexity of human sexuality and shouldn’t be ignored.  Including aspec people can help foster conversations about attraction and how it is not something that people choose.  Not to mention that more people participating and advocating for equal rights is always a good thing.  Aspec people don’t want to take away from the LGBTQIA community we want to contribute to it.

4. We have always been around, we’re not new. Asexuality has been described historically in lots of ways and by lots of people from Kinsey and his group X, to activists in the 1970′s advocating for it as an accepted label.  Aromanticism is somewhat newer but with the growing asexual visibility the understanding that romantic and sexual attraction can be experienced separately is just being explored.  This doesn’t mean aromantics haven’t been around forever too.  Think of the “confirmed bachelor” or “the spinster”. 

5. Aspec people even if they’re heterosexual or heteroromantic are not straight.  Straight people never have to come out, their sexual/romantic identity is never called into question, their feelings regarding sex and romance are commonly accepted and their identity needs no explanation.  Aspec people don’t experience these privileges that’s why aspec people are not the same as straight people and the two shouldn’t be conflated.  

6. Separate but equal is never equal. There are many people who believe that asexuals and aromantics should just create their own community apart from the LGBT community as they do not share their exact same experiences.  We do have our own resources and are building our own community but we only make up 1% (asexuals) or less (aromantics) of the population and without help, we can’t do the things we need to do. 

Again I fully acknowledge that the aspec community doesn’t experience the same degree of hate as the gay and trans communities but it doesn’t necessarily follow that we don’t need help.  As mentioned before asexuality is still viewed by many as a mental health disorder and without clear self-identification can be treated as such. Basically, If you’re not completely happy with your asexuality you can be treated with therapy and drugs for something that isn’t actually a disorder.  

Aromantics aren’t included in the DSM, but many anecdotal stories from aromantics show that the mental health community misunderstands aromanticism and views it as a disorder.  How are we going to get the DSM to make a proper distinction between asexuality and sexual disorders and prevent aromantics from being treated for mental health issues related to their romantic feelings if there isn’t visibility, advocacy and funding for studies on these identities?  How are 1% of people supposed to do these things on their own? 

_______________________________________________________________

Personally, I don’t want to ever make it out like I’ve had it just as bad as my gay and trans friends.  I haven’t, I know that. I have a trans friend who came out to their mom and is being deadnamed and misgendered DAILY, I have a lesbian friend who isn’t able to kiss their girlfriend at said girlfriend’s home because their girlfriend has to remain closeted for their safety.  I have a friend who’s gay mom was ousted by their original church (luckily they found a new one and went with their church to pride this year) and I know a trans woman who was beaten up just last year for being “a man in a dress.” 

I don’t share these experiences, I never could, but that doesn’t mean I’m not struggling.  I’m in therapy because I don’t have a sense of belonging. I struggle to feel like I belong anywhere and part of that is because I’m aromantic and can’t relate to HUGE portions of modern human culture (love songs, movies with love stories, art, poetry, etc.). I’m not out to my parents because I don’t want to deal with their discrimination. Yes, I’m lucky I can pass but if you think passing isn’t limiting you’d be wrong.  

I’m aromantic, not asexual, and because of my parent's judgment and the fact that I live with them for free going out and having the type of relationships I might be interested in isn’t possible. Furthermore, my identity isn’t understood even when I do come out.  People pity me, think I’m some kind of sad-sack who’s incapable of human emotion, and most worrying of all I’m somewhat concerned that my therapist thinks I need to be treated for my aromanticism. 

We’re all suffering and we’re all struggling to be understood by a largely ignorant majority who just doesn’t get it.  I’m not here to take away from the LGBTQIA community I’m here to help!  I have been fighting for years as an ally to bring to light the suffering of my queer friends.  Now I’m here as a part of that community fighting even harder and even more passionately because the LGBTQIA community aren’t just friends, now they’re family. 

_____________________________________________________________

*I didn’t include agender because I wasn’t sure if I should.  If you’re agender could you please enlighten me, do you see yourself as part of the trans community/identity or not?

Links: 

On asexuality in the DSM 

http://www.asexualityarchive.com/asexuality-in-the-dsm-5/    

On asexuality historically

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25771710?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 

https://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/kinsey-scale.php

Johnson, Myra T. (1977). Asexual and Autoerotic Women: Two Invisible Groups. The Sexually Oppressed. Gochros, Harvey L., Gochros, Jean S. New York: Association Press. ISBN 978-0809619153. OCLC 2543043.

On aspec discrimination

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/without-prejudice/201209/prejudice-against-group-x-asexuals

https://acelauren.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/arospecawarenessweek-day-6-amanormativity/