#No one is entitled to biological offspring

[coochiequeens]

And what will happen to the baby if the purchasing parents are caught and arrested for human trafficking?

Michael Cook April 25, 2024

A British charity working with victims of modern slavery has reported that it had received three reports of “forced surrogacy” for the first time. 

Unseen said that calls to its anti-slavery hotline in 2023 had reached a record high – 11,700 contacts. . The number of potential victims in the care sector had risen by nearly one-third. 

Unseen has defined “forced surrogacy” as forcing or coercing a woman into carrying a pregnancy for another individual.

“Criminals are finding new and shockingly ruthless ways to exploit victims,” said the Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons. “Alarmingly, for the first time we have seen cases of forced surrogacy being reported.”

No details were released, for fear of identifying trafficking victims. 

In 2023 Unseen noted three emerging kinds of modern slavery – surrogacy, organ harvesting, and scamming. Although the numbers were small, they were described as “worrying”. Most slavery involves labour, sexual, or criminal exploitation. 

[textribe]

Difference between Descendant or Descendent

The terms Descendant and Descendent might appear similar at first glance, leading to confusion over their usage and meanings. However, the primary distinction lies in their usage in different contexts. Descendant, the more commonly used term, refers to a person who is descended from a particular ancestor. Descendent is an alternative spelling that is less frequently used but can serve the same purpose. This article focuses on elucidating the term Descendant as it is widely accepted and utilized in genealogical, biological, and cultural discussions. FeatureDescendantDefinitionA person, plant, or animal that is descended from a specific ancestor.Part of SpeechNounUsageRefers to offspring or individuals coming from a particular lineage or ancestor.ContextGenealogy, biology, cultural heritageExamplesShe is a descendant of a Revolutionary War hero. Difference Between Descendant and Descendent Definition of Descendant A Descendant is an individual, plant, or animal that comes from a specific lineage or ancestor. This term is widely used in discussions about genealogy, inheritance, and evolutionary biology, emphasizing the connection between generations or the lineage of living beings. Definition of Descendent While Descendent is occasionally seen, it is essentially an alternative spelling of Descendant and carries the same meaning. The usage of Descendent over Descendant is rare and often considered a variation in spelling rather than a distinct term with a separate definition. Origin of Descendant The term Descendant comes from the Latin word "descendere," meaning "to come down" or "to descend." This etymology reflects the concept of lineage and inheritance, indicating the transmission of traits, property, or rights through generations. Pronunciation - Descendant: /dɪˈsɛndənt/ Usage in Sentences with Explanations - "The museum exhibition on ancient Egypt prominently features artifacts believed to have been used by the descendants of Pharaohs." - This sentence illustrates the use of Descendant in a historical and cultural context, linking individuals today with their ancestral past. - "As a descendant of immigrants, she holds her family's history of perseverance and resilience in high esteem." - Here, Descendant is used to express a personal connection to one's ancestors, emphasizing cultural heritage and family legacy. - Researchers studying the evolution of certain species often focus on the traits passed from ancestors to their descendants. - Demonstrates the application of Descendant in biological or evolutionary studies, referring to the lineage of species over time. Conclusion Understanding the correct usage of Descendant is crucial for clear and accurate communication in genealogical, historical, and biological contexts. Descendant is the preferred term when referring to individuals or entities that come from a specific lineage or ancestor. The distinction between Descendant and the less commonly used Descendent is primarily one of spelling preference, with Descendant being the widely accepted and used term. Commonly Asked Questions - Is "descendent" incorrect in formal writing? - While not incorrect, Descendant is the preferred spelling in formal writing and scholarly works. Descendent is seen less frequently and may be considered an alternative or less common spelling. - Can "descendant" refer to non-human entities? - Yes, Descendant can refer to plants, animals, or even entities such as languages or cultural practices, indicating anything that has descended from a particular origin. - How is the term "descendant" used in legal contexts? - In legal contexts, Descendant can refer to individuals entitled to an inheritance or property through their lineage, highlighting the importance of familial relationships in the distribution of estates. - Are there specific terms for different generations of descendants? - Yes, specific terms like "grandchild," "great-grandchild," and so on, are used to denote different generations of descendants, providing more detail about the degree of separation from the ancestor. FAQ What is the difference between descendant and descendent? The traditional difference between descendant and descendent is often overlooked in modern usage. Descendant is used as a noun and refers to someone who is related to a person or group of people who lived in the past. Descendent, on the other hand, refers to something that is moving downward or a downward incline. Can you give examples of incorrect and correct uses of descendant and descendent? Incorrect uses include phrases like "He was a descendent of the wolves" or "The descendant vehicle on the ramp crushed everything in its path." Correct uses include phrases like "She is a descendant of the vampires" or "He proved that he was indeed a descendant of the Maharaja." How should descendent and descendant be used in different contexts? In genealogy and law, descendent is the preferred word when referring to someone who is directly related to an ancestor. Descendant is a more general term that can be used to describe any person who is related to a common ancestor, regardless of the number of generations in between. What are common mistakes to avoid when using descendent and descendant? Common mistakes to avoid include using descendent as a noun, using descendant as an adjective, and misspelling either word. It's important to remember that descendent is an adjective and descendant is a noun. Proofreading your work and using a dictionary when unsure can help you avoid these mistakes. Read the full article

[iomontecillo]

Post scenario: *The 3-member family consisted of mother, father and son, with the last being an employee of the establishment, though he wasn’t in uniform on the day. As a business it’s both in the businesses and the community’s interest not to be enabling harassment. “The customer is always right” doesn’t Apply in the sense that transaction opens options to impose interests beyond the purpose of the space - which applies in all contexts. A contract is exactly made invalid when the fundamental concept of individually sovereign parties is violated. - Following that encounter i receive a summon, from what sounds like a biological junior in his 20’s, to whom i delay an answer - and this one attempted to impress some air of aggression in his intonation, as if he believed that somehow tone functions as a form of domination. The aforementioned older female suffered a similar misconception that in spite of her blatant and repeated violation of acceptable conduct that she was somehow still entitled to “feel hurt/offended” when confronted with the rejection of that delusion. But she isn’t “owed” consideration for “her feelings” when blatantly acting against constitutionally protected standards such as the right to freedom from harassment, which her repeated gesturing represents - it’s the deliberate and repeated violation against someone’s rejection, which is the Nature of rape in the refusal to respect a boundary. Her ability to accurately perceive a situation becomes questionable, as not only is she with her offspring openly teaching him sociopathy, she’s also joined by her husband and both of them physically represent biological categories that Fall outside of obvious attraction or confrontationally capable - thereby making the interaction not only inappropriate but a waste of time. If anything it became a cultural statement that refers to the methods of nazis, as gangs are primarily known to utilize such methods - particularly juvenile groups. Among the juvenile groups harassment is often associated with teenagers attempted to create hierarchies - and all three members of this family Fall entirely outside of this category, which is a common motivation. https://www.instagram.com/p/Cf5mZqftfHR/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[isaiahbie]

Life Begins At Fertilization

The life of a new human being begins at fertilization. This is a basic scientific fact.

Major embryology textbooks affirm this. For example, in The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, a widely used embryology text, Drs. Keith L. Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark G. Torchia, write: “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”¹

Similarly, Drs. Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller’s Human Embryology and Teratology, states, “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”²

The authors of the Textbook of Obstetrics (Physiological & Pathological Obstetrics), used by medical schools in the Philippines echoes the same conclusion.³ Likewise, in an official statement entitled Paper on the Reproductive Health Bill, the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) emphatically said:

“PMA maintains its strong position that fertilization is sacred because it is at this stage that conception, and thus human life, begins. Human lives are sacred from the moment of conception, and that destroying those new lives is never licit, no matter what the purported good outcome would be. In terms of biology and human embryology, a human being begins immediately at fertilization and after that, there is no point along the continuous line of human embryogenesis where only a ‘potential’ human being can be posited. Any philosophical, legal, or political conclusion cannot escape this objective scientific fact.”⁴

That is the authority of science. Many other examples could be given,⁵ but I think the above citations are enough to establish the point. The authorities all agree because the underlying science is clear. When a sperm successfully fertilizes an oocyte (egg), both of them ceases to be, and an entirely new cell, called a zygote, is generated by their union. The zygote represents the first stage in the life of a human being. This individual, if all goes well, develops through the embryonic (first eight weeks) and fetal (eight weeks until birth) periods and then through infancy, childhood, and adolescence before reaching adulthood. In other words, from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings.

Distinct: The unborn has a DNA and body distinct from her mother and father. She develops her own arms, legs, brain, nervous system, heart, and so forth.

Living: The unborn meets the biological criteria for life. She grows by reproducing cells. She turns nutrients into energy through metabolism. And she can respond to stimuli.⁶

Whole: The unborn is a whole organism as opposed to a mere organ or tissue—an individual whose parts work together for the good of the whole. Guided by a complete genetic code (46 chromosomes), she needs only the proper environment and nutrition to develop herself through the different stages of life as a member of the human species.

Human Being: The unborn has a human genetic signature. After all, she is the offspring of human parents, and humans can only beget other humans. To deny this, one must explain how two human parents can produce offspring that is not human but later becomes so.

True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole human beings nonetheless. As is true of infants, toddlers, and teenagers, the unborn are human individuals at a particular stage of their development, and thus they do not differ in kind from the mature adults they will one day become. Put simply, you didn’t come from an embryo; you once were an embryo.

Objections and Replies

1. “There is no consensus on the humanity of the unborn.”

This reply is deeply problematic for many reasons. First, if it’s true we don’t know if the embryo is human, that’s an excellent reason not to kill the embryo since we may be taking a human life. As former US President Ronald Reagan once observed, if you are out hunting and you see bushes rustling in front of you and you’re not sure if that’s the deer you’ve been after or your best friend, are you going to open fire?

Second, how does it follow that because people disagree, nobody is right? People once disagreed on whether the earth was flat or round, but that didn’t mean there were no right answers. As Hadley Arkes points out, the absence of consensus does not mean an absence of truth.⁷ Moreover, if disagreement means that nobody is right, then the above objection is immediately falsified. After all, pro-lifers disagree with it. So do many embryologists—like those cited above.

Third, on this particular question—is the embryo a distinct, living, and whole human being?—we do indeed have a consensus: Embryology textbooks, like those I cited earlier, uniformly state that each of us began as an embryo. First, the embryo is alive, having all the characteristics of a living thing. Second, it’s distinct from both parents, having its own genetic fingerprint. Third, it functions as a whole living organism rather than a mere assemblage of cells. Since these facts are obvious to everyone paying attention, it explains why embryologists describe (not define) the beginning of life as happening at fertilization. Even Peter Singer, an ethicist at Princeton University, who defends the morality of abortion and infanticide, concedes this point. He writes:

“It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as the equivalent to ‘member of the species homo sapiens.’ Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense, there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.”⁸

Of course, it’s possible pro-life advocates are wrong. Maybe the science of embryology doesn’t say what they think it does regarding the humanity of the unborn. However, an appeal to relativism just won’t do. Critics must show why the pro-life advocate is mistaken.

It won’t be easy. Since we are, as a matter of objective fact, separate human beings from our parents, that distinction must take place at some point in time. At some time in the past, there was only sperm and only egg. Then some time after that there was something completely new—both genetically new and ontologically new. What events are candidates for that decisive moment? Only one—the one embryologists routinely cite: fertilization.

2. “Biological life is continuous, thus, we can’t say when the embryo’s life begins.”

This is demonstrably false. Just because life is continuous between generations does not mean we can’t tell when an individual human begins to exist. We certainly don’t seem to struggle distinguishing the mother from her aborted offspring. When was the last time you heard an abortionist say that due to the complexity of when life begins and the indistinguishable nature of the whole life process, he accidentally killed the mother instead of the fetus?

3. “Each of our cells, including the sperm and egg, are living and genetically human. But merely being alive and human doesn't make them human beings.”

This is bad biology. It commits the rather elementary mistake of confusing parts with wholes. The difference in kind between each of our cells and a human embryo is clear: An individual cell’s functions are subordinated to the survival of the larger organism of which it is merely a part. The human embryo, however, is already a whole human entity. It makes no sense to say that you were once a sperm or somatic cell. However, the facts of science make clear that you were once a human embryo.

Dr. Maureen Condic, assistant professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah, explains the important distinction between individual parts and whole human embryos:

“The critical difference between a collection of cells and a living organism is the ability of an organism to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole. It is precisely this ability that breaks down at the moment of death, however death might occur. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer function together in a coordinated manner.”⁹

From conception forward, human embryos clearly function as whole organisms. “Embryos are not merely collections of human cells,” writes Condic, “but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances.”¹⁰

In short, embryos are not clumps of cells. Nor are they fertilized eggs. Sperm and egg die in the act of fertilization. That is, each surrenders its constituents into the make up of a new living organism, the human embryo. Sperm and egg, like somatic cells, are parts of larger human beings while the embryo is a whole (albeit immature) member of the human family.

4. “Because an early embryo may split into twins (up until fourteen days after conception), there is no reason to suppose that it’s an individual human being prior to that time.”

This is a very odd claim. First, this objection does nothing to establish abortion as a fundamental right throughout pregnancy. At best, it justifies abortion only until day 14, which rules out nearly all abortions.

Second, how does it follow that because an entity may split that it wasn’t a whole living entity prior to the split? As Patrick Lee points out, if you cut a flatworm in half, you get two flatworms! Does it follow there was no flatworm prior to the split?¹¹

Third, if an early embryo does not have a right to life because a twin can be formed from it, and a twin can be formed from any of us through cloning, then none of us has a right to life.¹²

Fourth, if the early embryo prior to twinning is merely a hunk of cells and not a unitary organism, why doesn’t each cell develop individually into a new living entity? Instead, just the opposite is true. As Robert George writes, “These allegedly independent, non-communicating cells regularly function together to develop into a single, more mature member of the human species.” This fact shows that the cells are interacting from the very beginning, “restraining them from individually developing as whole organisms.”¹³

5. “Not all acts of fertilization result in a human organism. Hydatidiform moles can form from an early embryo. Therefore, you cannot say that conception results in a human life. You may get a molar pregnancy.”

This objection confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. I’m not claiming that everything that results from a sperm-egg union is human, only that every human conceived through natural reproduction begins that way. Regarding hydatidiform moles in particular, they do not result from normal, biologically complete conceptions; rather, they arise from flawed or deficient fertilizations. As Dr. Maureen Condic points out, “despite an initial (superficial) similarity to embryos, hydatidiform moles do not start out as embryos and later transform into tumors.” Rather, “they are intrinsically tumors from their initiation.” Thus, “they have no intrinsically directed capacity to develop into a human being.”¹⁴

6. “Suppose a research lab is on fire. Whom should you save—a vial full of frozen embryos or a two-year-old?”

This objection is banking that our moral intuitions will drive us to choose the toddler, thus proving we don’t really think the embryo is human after all. The analogy fails, however, for at least four reasons.

First, the abortion controversy is about who we may intentionally kill, not about who we should intentionally save as in the case of the burning lab.

Second, how does it follow that because you save one human over others, the ones left behind are not fully human and we may kill them? Suppose I’m in a burning lecture hall with those reading this essay. I can either save all of you, my gentle readers, or my 17-year-old sister Julianne. Who gets left behind? You’re toast! I’m saving her first! Does it follow that you are not human or that I may shoot you on the way out?

Third, suppose pro-lifers save the two-year-old instead of the embryos. How does the analogy refute the pro-life argument? It doesn’t. At best, it shows pro-lifers inconsistently apply their ethic, not that they are mistaken about the science of embryology or the immorality of intentionally killing an innocent human being. An abolitionist in the 1860s might save the family dog over a transient slave, thus exposing the abolitionist’s real beliefs about slaves. How would that in any way change the essential nature of the slave or, worse still, justify killing him?

Fourth, our intuitions are not infallible. Richard Topolski and his colleagues at George Regents University surveyed 500 people with a hypothetical scenario in which a bus is hurling out of control, bearing down on a dog and a human. “Which do you save?” The startling answer was, “that depends.” Respondents asked, “What kind of human and what kind of dog?” Nearly everyone would save a sibling, grandparent or close friend rather than a strange dog. But when people considered their own dog versus strangers, votes for the dog skyrocketed. An astonishing 40 percent of respondents, including 46 percent of women, voted to save their dog over a foreign tourist.¹⁵ Are we to conclude the stranger is less human than a pet dog?

7. “The embryo doesn’t look human.”

Perhaps so. But this is completely beside the point. Mannequins may look human but aren’t remotely so while the Elephant Man did not look human but was. The question is not what an entity looks like, but what it is. Admittedly, our intuitions may not immediately identify an early embryo as one of us. After all, it doesn’t look like a cute newborn, but it does look exactly as a developing human should look at that stage of development.

8. “We don’t know exactly when during the conception process that the zygote comes to be.”

True, some embryologists argue that it happens when the sperm penetrates the ovum while others point to syngamy, when the maternal and parental chromosomes crossover and form a diploid set. But as Francis Beckwith points out, this only raises an important epistemological question (when do we know that sperm and egg cease to be and a new organism arises?); it does not undermine the pro-lifers’ strongly supported ontological claim that the zygote is a distinct, living, and whole human being. “It may be that one cannot, with confidence, pick out the precise point at which a new being comes into existence between the time at which the sperm initially penetrates the ovum and a complete and living zygote is present. But how does it follow from this acknowledgment of agnosticism that one cannot say that zygote X is a human being?” This objection, writes Beckwith, “commits the fallacy of the beard: Just because I cannot say when stubble ends and a beard begins, does not mean I cannot distinguish between a clean-shaven face and a bearded one.”¹⁶

To review, the following objections do not refute the scientific case for life:

People disagree on when life begins—The absence of consensus does not mean an absence of truth.

Life is continuous—Just because life is continuous between generations does not mean we can’t tell when an individual human begins to exist.

Sperm and egg are alive—Yes, but this confuses parts with wholes. Sperm and egg are parts of larger human beings. Embryos are whole human beings who, like all living organisms, function in a coordinated manner.

Twinning—Just because an embryo splits doesn’t mean it wasn’t fully human (flatworm example).

Molar pregnancies—They don’t start as human embryos and morph into tumors. They never were human embryos.

Burning research lab—How does it follow that because I save one human over others, the ones left behind are not fully human?

The embryo doesn’t look human—But it does look exactly like a human should at that stage. The question is not what an entity looks like, but what it is.

We don’t know the precise moment at which the new zygotic human being comes into existence—This only raises an epistemological question; it does nothing to undermine the firmly established scientific and ontological claim that the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings.

Notes:

¹ Keith L. Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark G. Torchia, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 11th edition, Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier, 2020, p. 11. ² Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 8. ³ Walfrido W. Sumpaico, editor, Textbook of Obstetrics (Physiological & Pathological Obstetrics, 2nd edition, Quezon City: Association of Writers of the Philippine Texbook of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Inc., 2002, pp. 76-77, cited by Justice Jose Mendoza in Imbong vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014. ⁴ The Philippine Medical Association, Paper on the Reproductive Health Bill (Responsible Parenthood Bill), as cited in Imbong vs. Ochoa. ⁵ See Clinic Quotes. ⁶ There is some limited disagreement about how we should define “life,” as some things have only some of the characteristics of living things (for example, viruses). However, just because we don’t know if a specific thing is alive does not mean we can’t know if anything is alive. ⁷ Hadley Arkes, First Things: An Inquiry into the First Principles of Morals and Justice, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986, p. 360. ⁸ Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 85-86. ⁹ Maureen Condic, “Life: Defining the Beginning by the End,” First Things, May 2003. ¹⁰ Condic, Ibid. ¹¹ Patrick Lee, Abortion and Unborn Human Life, 2nd edition, Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010, pp. 96-97. ¹² Ramesh Ponnuru, The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life, Washington, DC: Regency, 2006, p. 156. ¹³ Robert George, “Embryo Ethics,” Daedalus, Winter 2008. ¹⁴ Maureen Condic, “A Biological Definition of the Human Embryo,” in Stephen Napier, editor, Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Choice Arguments, New York: Springer, 2011, p. 226. ¹⁵ Dennis Prager, “Dogs, Humans, and God,” National Review, August 20, 2013. ¹⁶ Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 148.

[gaymershigh]

hulloh! I've only been on tumblr for a few hours, and me and my friend already love your work! Is it ok if I request some TWST parent scenarios with Riddle,Lilia,Sebek,Vil and Floyd? If so, thanks! Also once again, me and my freind love ur works alot!

Of course! Since there's no s/o really mentioned in here but people might still want to be included, s/o will be mentioned just a tiny bit (the kids being biological or adopted is up to you since I want to make the s/o gender neutral.) Also, thanks a lot! I'm still and probably be forever an amateur writer so this means a lot to me 🥺💞💞

Triggers: None

Parents au: Riddle, Lilia, Sebek, Vil and Floyd edition!

From what we've seen, his parents are not the best role models like, at all. They were too strict, pressuring him and treating him like a trophy child. However, he will definitely not treat his child like that at all after Ace slapped him with reality.

He will be a bit strict, having some rules and will scold them if they did something wrong but not as scold them the way his mother does. He won't raise his voice at them, showing them the right path after he scolded them. He will give them freedom and try his best to not make his children suffer the same thing he did, especially when he's the source of the pain.

Though, he might accidentally adapt some things from his mother and project her ways to his children, being completely not self aware. If you're his s/o, please teach him the baby steps to avoid this from this occurring too often.

Unfortunately, having a good life and children won't make his short temper extend. This is the only reason why he doesn't spoil them too much, they might act entitled and may be too late to change them back to the innocent infant they were back then. He tries very hard to control his temper if his children unintentionally knock furniture over or damage something. He just needs a few minutes alone, everything will be back to normal later.

There was one time where his child's birthday was near and decided to bake a cake from scratch, without any assistance from Trey nor his s/o. Thinking he could do it and don't want anyone to underestimate him. He was planning to make a burnt strawberry cheesecake and did the mistake of leaving the oven on for an hour for 400 degrees fahrenheit. The cake went on fire but it tasted very good when he for some reason tasted it. Nobody knew about the incident and the cake was actually used for its purpose. Yay for him, I guess.

He was already pretty outdated in trends when he was in his teens so do expect him to be like a middle aged soccer mom on Facebook every time his children send him memes or something like that. If he does even use any sort of social media and stumbled upon a 'funny' minion meme or something, he will definitely send it to the family group chat. He will make those 5th grade types of edits with one of the family pictures with a "I love my family". It's funny but still wholesome so don't laugh at him.

There is no alternate universe where Lilia isn't a good dad. Silver and his other wards are already an amazing example of how amazing of a parent he is! He has gained a bunch of experience so he got this in the bag.

Though, his way of taking care of children might be different from how it is now. Times have changed, there are probably some new and uncomplicated objects or toys to entertain the baby or child. He would love to go on a shopping trip to buy some fascinating kids toys he found in the toy store. Please stop him from buying everything in there because it looks "intriguing".

If you're his s/o, you're very lucky since if you have a baby who always cries at three in the morning or a kid who really have trouble sleeping, Lilia will sing a lullaby and they'll doze off in any second. He can wake up easily or he'll just always stay up playing his games so you don't even need to break a sweat in this situation.

His kids or any kid in general loves him lots. He will always tell his tales anywhere, anytime. If the kids ask him for a story to tell, he will always have a new one ready to tell. They also make amazing bedtime stories! It can be funny little innocent stories like his funny experiences taking care of his three wards to actual battles he went through. Any story is a good story.

He really got along with his child when they're young and innocent but when they get into their teenage years, oh boy. He will unintentionally embarrasses them but their friends won't mind. If anything, they will love him being around as he's always keeping up with the games and trends, not being a fat, shirtless creepy dad. One of the positive parts about his child growing up is that he can play video games with him just like he did with Silver! Reliving the nice memories.

He would always try to cook something in any opportunity he gets and of course, he gets stopped by either s/o or his own children. Yes, they have to go through the hard way to realize their father is garbage at cooking. He would always try to cook some food everytime something good has happen in order to celebrate but most of the times, he just wants to cook something for them to show how much he loves them. They really made him happy, he finally have a biological/adopted offspring to watch growing up (again).

Sebek unfortunately doesn't have that much time to spend time with his children due to being Malleus' trusted escort. Of course, when he does have free time and is not exhausted he will use the opportunity to spend it with his adorable younglings.

Knowing him, he still loves and worships Malleus but he's no longer his only priority in life when he finally has a life of his own other than just being Malleus' bodyguard. He will ramble and tell so many stories about his young master to his kids. They will be infatuated but will later complain about how everything is just "Malleus this, Malleus that". He will get a bit upset about that comment, so he will only talk about Malleus stories for 3 days a week.

He only has focused his life on guarding Malleus and advancing himself on magic and education. Now that he's now an actual father, this is a new chapter in his life and he's not prepared at all. He will seek Lilia for guidance and of course, Lilia being Lilia will rope him to doing something absolutely ridiculous and he would of course, woefully fall for it. Pretty surprising that no matter how much he has fallen for his teacher's trap, he still seeks him for advice.

His kids will definitely learn how to read fast. He loves reading and he really wants his kids to appreciate it too. He was about to immediately give them the books that have old and poetic language without even knowing what the alphabet was. Lilia put a stop to this and you couldn't even bear seeing how sad he looked because he needs to wait for a few years for him to have little reading buddies. Oh well, it doesn't matter now. He will teach them how to read and appreciate the art of reading no matter how long it takes.

He has exposed his children to a bunch of Malleus propaganda so there's no surprise if the children become just like him. Loud screaming, Malleus worshipping, smart but naive and other things Sebek has. If you're his s/o, please keep the children in check as they might cause problems to the neighbors. As this might be troublesome, it's at least entertaining experience I suppose.

Just like Sebek, he has even less time to spend with his kids as he always has modeling, acting and other businesses to attend. He's probably going to be exhausted when he comes back as well. Though, of course he's going to try to use all his energy to talk to his children till he can no longer open his eyes anymore. He prefers an s/o that is a stay-in mom/dad so the children won't feel lonely while he's gone.

They're definitely gonna grow up just like him. A model, actor, media influencer, or the combination of the three and it's not a bad thing. If they're going on the same route as him, he will teach them in a strict but still in a somewhat caring manner as he has learned a lot from his experience of the VDC boot camp and the overblot incident. He will only show his threatening side if they start to misbehave like those ADeuce rats.

Just because they are his children, doesn't mean they get a free pass if they intentionally neglect or not doing their best at all times, especially when it comes to appearance. He's known to be a neat-freak and a very hard worker to the point it's concerning. He will scold them if more than two pimples pop up on their face but he knows when to cross the line. He learned this easier if their child is rather sensitive and just emotionally fragile in general but they still need to take care of themselves.

He expects his children to follow his footsteps when it comes to where they're schooling. He wants them to enter a prestigious school like he did for his reputation and for the sake of his children's future. This is optional (not really) but he also hopes his children to enter Pomefiore as well and take the dorm head title at least the second week they enroll in this school. If they were sorted to a different dorm, they still want them to have a role in their dorm or in the school at all.

He begs to the Great Seven that paparazzi or desperate losers obsessing over him don't intrude into his personal life, especially if it's about his family. The last thing he wants to witness is his family in pain or being uncomfortable for their whole life. He usually avoids or straight up tells the interviewer that he's not comfortable answering questions when they're going too personal when it's about questions of his family.

You cannot feel anymore blessed when you see his smiling face when he received news about having a vacation. He can finally spend more time with his wonderful kids he's raising with all his heart. He will tell them about some funny incidents in the studio while he was involved in some modeling gig or he will bring them to a private island with gorgeous scenery for both of them to enjoy. Of course, his children's happy faces are more beautiful than the island.

Floyd is seen to be very warm and sweet despite having a very intimidating height. Naturally, he's not going to be ruthless and act the same when it's with his children because it's his children of course, family is precious to him. He has a lot of energy even after a long shift at Mostro Lounge, so he will always spend a lot of time with his kids.

He's physically affectionate so expect him to be always close and wrapping his arms around his children at almost all times. He'll usually let them sit on his lap when they watch TV or sleep with them if they can't go back to sleep because of a nightmare. Headpats are needed, especially if the kids did something good or got good news. Not saying he won't give any headpats if something bad happens, maybe headpats of sympathy perhaps.

He's very patient when it's with his children because he doesn't want his children to fear him when they grow up. If anything, the s/o have to do the scolding to avoid him snapping or anything like the sort. They rarely do anything bad though, since they're aware of how their dad acts from how he treats a dirty burglar who once tried to break in.

Since he's usually very active and hates just standing around, he expects his children to be just like him. It's never boring if your dad is Floyd as he always has something really entertaining to do at most times. If you're his s/o, you have the free entrance to see an eel man dancing around with his kids or playing some basketball either inside or preferably in the backyard. He tried showing the art of parkour but is stopped due to it being very risky. He sulked about this but oh well, once they're ten, they have no choice but to learn it!

Floyd is an amazing cook and he sometimes lets his children be involved like chopping some vegetables or stirring the macaroni. He sometimes teaches them the perfect way of doing it or let's them try doing their own meal with his assistance. There was one time they decided to make one of the weirdest food combinations and try to eat it, he won and ate it all as it was too gross for the kids to eat it. It's not gonna be a surprise if everyone in this household is an expert cook when Floyd is here.

If possible, he really wants to bring his kids at work no matter how troublesome they could get. If Azul has a "bring your kids to work" day (which I doubt of him doing), he's going to bring all his children no matter how many he has. If there's no day like that, who cares! He's bringing his kids anyway and nobody's stopping him. Sure, he will get scolded by Azul but if that's the only thing stopping him then he'll take his chances.

I don't if it's still Christmas or not since I don't celebrate it but if it's still is, Merry Christmas! 🎉 I'll just say this is a Christmas gift for you and your friend, Mouaietaru! Especially for that Jamil and Silver fanfic that you made. It's very good, keep up the fantastic work! ✨✨✨

-𝕸𝖎𝖗𝖎

[xclusivetism]

Debunking ‘gender identity’ by gender ≠ sex.

Having gender identity may seem noble divergence from our gender rigid society, the solution to stop such and embrace self-expression.

However after examining it through, ‘gender identity’ the way the ideology says doesn’t really exist and actually still perpetuates gender conformity.

And no, there’s no need for “there’s only two sexes” or any science  argument at all to disprove gender identity. Gender ideology so f l a w e d that it can do it perfectly itself out of any of above the fastest just by Gender ≠ sex.

You probably read many things that try to disprove gender and thought it was wrong or outdated that scientist have discover there’s people with XXXY.

But after reading this, If it doesn’t peak you or at least make you question gender, then i honestly really don’t know what will other than to call you deluded.

What is Gender

Gender ≠ sex is the essential foundation of gender.

To order to know the difference, we need to know what individually each are.

Gender is a social construct

Gender Identity

Gender expression

That means.

Sex is a physical construct

Sex

Sexual orientation

The first thing that instantly break Gender ≠ sex

“Sex is not binary, Sex is a spectrum or intersex exist”

That already outed you as a hypocrite especially when responding to “there’s only two sexes” saying that they’re conflating sex and gender.

Why should sex being binary or not be relevant to gender identity?

LGB and T are antithetical.

Since Gender ≠ Sex, LGB and T shouldn’t be consider one.

Sexuality is a Sexual orientation not a gender orientation, to suggest it means gender too is conflation.

For a trans-woman to say they’re lesbian or a trans-man to say they’re gay is incorrect & impossible because they’re straight. Gender identity doesn’t shift sexuality status because they’re separate things and to suggest so is homophobic. For a trans to say that invalidates their identity is another conflation of gender and sex.

LGB is a sex-based group while T is a gender-based group. One’s based on sexual attraction and the other is based on changing gender, they are absolutely nothing alike.

‘Cis’ is enough entitlement to be trans exclusive.

Terfs don’t like being called ‘Cis’

But let’s say they drop the belief that “transwomen aren’t real women” and say “transwomen aren’t ciswomen” and want spaces of their own

They put the ‘Cis’ prefix 

Cis woman schools

Cis woman attracted

Cis woman bathroom

Cis woman sports

Cis woman locker rooms

Cis woman administrator 

Cis woman health

Cis women history

etc.

Instead of saying “only women can breastfeed” they use “only AFAB can breastfeed”.

According to TRA logic, all that would be valid.

To for one to say that’s segregation, you would also have to believe separation of men and women or other types groups is segregation as well. A Cis person doesn’t have the trans experience and that goes the other way around.

‘Transwo/man’ is transphobic itself.

Gender ≠ Sex physical transitioning would be a conflation.

If it’s not a conflation, that would imply that physical features are social constructs which includes reproduction, sexuality etc.

Gender is a social construct, all you need to be a gender is identify.

Gender dysphoria is only a social dysphoria, if it’s about the physical then it’s really sex dysphoria. To say it isn’t is conflation.

But even identifying as a ‘wo/man’ itself also is transphobic because the meaning behind it is sex base.

the definition of wo/man.

Adult human fe/male being

What does fe/male mean?

(Female) of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

(Male) of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

One can go down in the definition to point that it also means this.

Relating to wo/men or the fe/male gender.

To say wo/man in the definition also refer to gender, isn’t that a conflation and breaking Gender ≠ Sex? My oh my so many usage of the word conflation.

Gender identity.

Non-binary is not a gender, nothing of it say it’s a gender. It’s just non-binary of something which is usually assumed of not being man or woman. But not being a man or woman doesn’t say of what it is only of what it is not. If the binary part is something else that mean a person who identifies as a woman or man (including cis) can be considered non-binary. Non-binary is really just a slot. 

So far the solid identifies are

Man

Woman

Neutrois

Queer

Agender 

Androgyne is both man and woman. Genderqueer wo/man is both of queer and wo/man. Pangender is all.

Everything else is either a flux, degree, combination of the above or based on a different concept. Things like such as bigender are umbrella because it doesn’t specify if it’s man or woman or something else.

That being said, the only one that’s truly gender non-conformist is agender. Queer is still gender conforming just not to man or woman.

What are the distinctive qualities of each identity?

It’s said that gender expression is different than identity and that someone who identifies as a boy can be very feminine still.

So we’re not gonna use association of masculinity, femininity etc. to define it then.

So what identity mean is it’s usually answered as someone’s ‘personal sense.’

If it’s a personal sense that mean it would be mean it’s a personal construct.

Personal or social construct regardless, it doesn’t say the characteristics. If you can’t point out what to define the labels become hallow. 

There’s many things that aren’t concrete that can show one it’s existence.

An abstract thing like 1, can present it’s existence.

A thing we cannot fully see of like the 4D can present it’s existence.

Even pseudo scientific like zodiacs signs have specific qualities to describe, personality types and even religion has something to define.

In the means of gender, all the identities really sums down to meaningless labels. In the means of sex, the word woman or man are names for physical characteristics that is observed at birth. 

Problem with “assigned gender identity at birth”

No one was “assigned” at birth, “cis” people don’t match what their doctors assign. Assign word implies duty and a job. Assign is often a thing that doesn’t always taking what the subject is to account, for example you being assigned to a seat is sometimes random and not based your rowdiness or attentiveness. 

The doctor characterised people a ‘wo/man’ based on observing them. Woman and Man are distinguisher (just like fruits and veggies) of physical characteristics.

People are assigned a gender expression at life.

Gender identity doesn’t exist other than being a label, gender identity is based on sex hence that label. What’s assigned is actually gender expression.

What Society does

(Biology) Sex → gender identity ↓ ←gender expression (Society)

↓ Gender identity → gender roles

What TRAs think to solve it

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

Sex Ⓧ gender identity (society)

Sex → gender identity (different)

↓ gender identity (different) → sex → society → expression = gender roles

What Gender critical think to solve it

Sex → gender identity → gender expression→ society = gender roles

Putting it to perspective

Whenever GC say this:

Sex → gender identity

This is how TRAs view it:

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

↓ 

Sex → gender identity = gender roles

and thus GC = society pushing gender norm

and the TRA misses this:

→ gender expression→ society = gender roles

Gender ideology pushes gender conformity, just in backwards.

Society enforces femininity on women and masculinity on men to maintain a heteronormative hierarchy aka patriarchy. 

Gender ideology is a patriarchal chest play to keep people from actually breaking such status quo by putting the gender role but backwards.

Societal gender roles

Women must be feminine

Men must be masculine

Gender ideology

Feminine is woman

Masculine is man

Neither is non-binary

Anything else it’s a new gender

‘Cis’ means comfortable of the societal gender role

‘Trans’ means not comfortable of societal gender role

GRA say expression is different from identity to hide the fact that it in a way still pushes gender conformity. They confuse the names for physical characteristics ‘wo/man’ as entire gender construct and expression. 

Here’s the damage Gender ideology does.

So far GRA activist blur what sex and gender is, despite their gender ≠ sex.

Blurring gender and sex create problems for the LGB and women, by making anyone able to appropriates them by identification and transing so long as they feel it, remember these two groups are on the oppressed side. There isn’t even a qualification (not even dyphoria) to be considered trans. Growing kids & teen are getting into this as well ruining their bodies, ask yourselves how are they old enough to block puberty but not drink alcohol?

People’s motivation for why they want to of certain gender is not look thorough enough. 

People in general again who again don’t fit with gender norms

Women with internal misogyny/trauma

Gay/Lesbian with internal homophobia/trauma

Men who want more access to women for misogynistic reasons.

You cannot ever feel something you cannot comprehend.

And you cannot ever comprehend not feeling it.

One’s thought of feeling or not like a boy/girl comes were form by the brain cells of XX or XY chromosome or whatever.

Here’s a color analogy i have to show case the difference between one who feels like wo/man vs someone who actually is.

Identifying as one.

Actually being one.

The gender dysphoric pandemic

The correct word for what people mean by gender dysphoria would be sex dysphoria people who are dysphoric of their physical sex body.

Sometimes transsexual need mechanical intervention to relief their sex dysphoria.

Most people who are ‘trans’ aren’t transsexual as that is rare and projecting the gender dysphoria to their bodies instead should be towards society. There’s some types of transwomen who have autogynephilia (reverse heterosexuality, which is nothing wrong in of itself but alot of them are doing bad with it) are motivated by sexuality and is projecting that thing of wanting to become the opposite sex.

Gender dysphoria

A lot of people in the world have gender dysphoria some in more degree than others. 

Many movement where brought out because of gender dyshoria 

LGB because gender roles often link to heteronormative.

Feminism/Women’s rights including the ‘Terfs’ is a inherently gender dysphoric movement.

Gender criticals are inherently gender dysphoric.

What trans movement doing is conflating gender dysphoria with sex dysphoria but they are actually perpetuating gender norms.

The only gender construct that matters is identity which is woman or man because that exist to distinguish people of certain biological characteristics. “Masculinity” and “Femininity” isn’t real, they’re just many expressions boxed into one or the other enforce to people into gender roles which are by large hierarchy called patriarchy. If there is natural patterns that’s sex behavior.

Most people in the trans community aren’t bad, they’re being exploited by the people who are bad. The people who are bad are motivated to destroy children, LGB and women’s rights, depressedly under all this is essentially a men’s right movement but left wing. We need to take those men (and few women) with evil intent to account now.

Right leaning and traditional etc. people role in this whole thing. 

Conservative/traditionalist/religious people who claim to be gender critical, are most of times far from it and are in fact gender rights activist but trans critical that’s the only different between them and the bad trans people above. The trans movement is mostly a side-effect and these people are kinda the reason for it. Gender roles are toxic considering that people especially have to resort in changing their bodies for not fitting in and the gender ideology is a outlet. 

So it’s pure insanity conservative/traditionalist/religious people to keep insisting that be men masculine and women be feminine and that’s it’s all fine and fail to acknowledge, comprehend or disregard people who are gender dysphoric to those roles (feminism being the biggest example) making them seem pathological abnormalities when complaining about them. 

There’s truly a lot of people who are non-conformist but were too scared to be themselves because people like them and it has been rampant for thousand of years. They use not seeing alot of them as prove to enforce their patriarchal rhetoric.

Conclusion

What people need to talk about is their gender dysphoria (but not ideology kind) but of the roles in society. Let transsexuals be their own group without the gender nonsense in peace. We need start embracing gender non-conformity without needing to change our biological identity.

[lunelantern]

Respect HER for what SHE is

~I'm a woman, not a mother ~

🌺💐💃🏃‍♀️🧘‍♀️👯‍♀️🤽‍♀️🧠👗👘🥿👛👠👜💍💄💎👑👒

For eons, women have been ascribed to motherhood so much that it turned into a toxic hive mentality which promotes that the two concepts are interchangeable.

Women are burdened with the weight of motherhood from childhood. Society crafted a clever mishiveous way to wire the women's heads into thinking that motherhood is an obligation that no woman can evdade; a sine qua non value to her very existence, therefore negating and annulling her own principles and feelings.

Young girls are introduced to motherhood via baby toys, social media and society so that they'd grow up with the already inoculated idea that motherhood is the rightful, karmic life purpose of any woman, in order to accede to happiness.

The kernel of modethood is cleverly ingrained into the minds of the young girls and nourished until it becomes a poisonous plant they impairs judgement and hard-wires the brain into craving for motherhood with their lives and beyond - - like a powerful drug that's self-destructive and alters the personality.

Baby dolls - - the creepiest toy ever designed! - - advertised in an eye-grabbing glamorized manner to appeal to young girls, women who force them to interact with real human beings and ramming it into their brains that their life goal is to become mothers because that's exactly what society expects from them.

Most of the women grow up with the earmark of motherhood under the pretense that a woman's life purpose is to bear and rear offsprings.

From the first human vestiges in prehistoric times and the first female statue unearthed, women were synonymous to motherhood.

Human beings didn't make statues or women; they made statues of mothers. It's motherhood and fertility that's celebrated as rites and cultes, not women.

Instead of celebrating women, society celebrates her reproductive organs and the ability to host fetuses which is as sad as it is unfair because it negates the uniqueness of a sentient being in lieu of one of the most infinitesimal of a woman's attributes.

A woman is far more than a pair of reproductive organs and just because she was equipped with a pair of reproductive organs doesn't mean that they are her identification card too; it's not a pair of ovaries and an uterus that make her a woman!

Womanhood and femeinity are cushioned in the mind, in the heart, in the soul; womanhood is a state of mind, with a psychological and a spiritual component annexed to it. I am a woman because that's how I FEEL, and not because a pair of organs and a rush of chemical substances - hormones - anticipate fecundation every month.

Nature and evolution are impersonal entities and life on earth is the product of chain-events and extraneous factors. They ensured that any sentient species survived and reproduces to ensure the perpetuation of the species.

But it also created a paradox; human beings are equipped with superior intellect that are capable to rationalize, to think critically, to be self-conscious, to analyze and quest their very purpose and the origins of their existence. Also, we have the superb ability to introspectively reflect about our feelings.

We developed goals and ambitions, we listen to our own inner tones and write our own music. We listen more to our brains and hearts than our bodies.

We prioritize and we learnt to have self-control. Critical thinking helps us discern that we're more than biologically programmed mammals in a crave to replicate our DNA.

So, women learnt that they are more than mindless bipedal human incubators for babies. It's just disgusting that her feelings are often negated and her hopes and dreams crushed en route, just because society dubbed women as fertile grounds waiting to be ingrained. 🤬😡🤬😡🌩️

The concept of womanhood and femeinity is metaphysical in all the glory of her ineffable wort; a woman is a mesmerizing enigma that no universal law of biology can ever describe.

She's a woman because she feels like it from the bottom of hear heart. Womanhood doesn't reside in the pits of her belly. It oozes from her spirit.

That's where the core of transgender discrimination and oppression lies - - in the fact that the hearts and minds have been banished into nothingness by biology alone. She, isn't defined through a pair of reproductive organs because reproduction isn't what define a sentient human being.

What defines a woman, what makes her her is the unparalleled delicacy, her untouchable wisdom and cleverness, how creative her vivid mind is, how empathic to capture human emotions, how she can be as strong as a lioness without losing her grace and elegance, how she refers to beauty and her unborn sense for aesthetics, how she can be multidimensional and polivalent with such irresistible tenacity and eloquence.

How she personifies eternal beauty, tenderness and innocence, while striving to accomplish her dreams with cleverness and inegabale mental and physical fortitude.

Grace, beauty, intelligence and fortitude fused together into the elixir of the universe. She is in everywhere, in every single particle, in every sun and star. She, isn't a an incubator or an eggs releaser, no. She is spirit and beauty and wisdom.

The glamorized exacerbated concept of motherhood crushes a woman's inner ambitions. Childfree or infertile women are shunned as outcasts and ostracized by the society, gaping as a deep, dark rift into her self-esteem. In ancient times, childless women were viewed as witches or damned creatures that are to be avoided or disposed of.

Women were the messangers of misfortune bad omen if they didn't host fetuses.

Modern society isn't far behind either. Society looks down own childfree women who reject the imposed motherhood in favor of pursuing their own dreams.

Motherhood is used as a romanticized instrument to control women and strip them off their reproductive rights.

Wives are EXPECTED to give men children, it becomes their obligation and thus a woman's body becomes a PUBLIC GOOD to be used upon convenience.

And not only they are shamed for not complying but also abandoned, raped, abused and the heavily patriarchal society encourages it.

When a childfree woman summons the courage to come clean with her CHOICE she steals gaping and horrified reactions from the society; her choice is welcomed with rejection and violence.

Women don't have ownership of their bodies as they are tricked into thinking that they don't have a FREE CHOICE in the matter.

Women don't even THINK that they CAN legitimately THINK about reproducing, because society teaches them from early years that reproduction is MANDATORY.

An intrinsec condition to being a woman - - like an inescapable curse. Beauty =/= fertility; womanhood isn't synonymous with fertility. A woman's body is to be loved and treasured for hosting the beauty of her soul, the light in her heart and the brille of her mind, and not because it could become a vessel for a child.

Her body deserves love because SHE deserves love and appreciation and not because it can become a host.

Being a woman shouldn't become a sentence to an unwanted life. Womanhood isn't a curse. Womanhood is a gift, a blessing, but not because it comes with a pair of reproductive organs.

Not all women have motherly instinct and that's perfectly normal. SHE, who is NOT a mother is perfectly normal. She isn't some bewitched monster to be avoided and annihilated at all costs, she isn't an alien from outer space.

She is a sentient being with her own set of values and goals and principles and she's beautiful and perfect just the way she is.

Women have a myriad of qualities and endless potential. They can be and they have the RIGHT to be whatever they want to be. They have a voice to express themselves and they must be heard and acknowledged and respected for it.

Just because someone is different it doesn't mean that she poses an attack to the very identity and existence of another. She just wants to be herself and that doesn't mean that she must fit into a predesigned pattern; she, isn't a pattern, a model. She is unique.

Maybe she wants to devote her body to arts, to love, to intimacy, and not to grow children, and that's perfectly ok.

Maybe she wants to use her delicate hands to create, to mold with clay, to forge in fire, to drive, to create, and not to change diapers. And that's perfectly normal.

Maybe she wants to life for herself, to spoil and pamper herself, to devote her undivided time to herself or her friends or her her lover, and not to rear another human being. And that's perfectly ok.

Women can contribute infinitely to society and they don't need to bear and rear children for it. She can already use her amazing skills to make the world a better place for the millions of suffering people or save endangered animals.

Women live in perfect communion with nature, intoning the same solfege as understanding the secret language and poetry of nature itself, through empathy and wisdom.

Her very existence is a blessing. She doesn't need to be a mother to prove her worth. She ALREADY is worthy in all her splendid beauty.

Women deserve love and respect for what they ARE and not for what they are EXPECTED to be, for no one is entitled to decide for her.

I'm a woman because that's how I FEEL. I'm a woman because that what I WANT. Womanhood and femeinity can be in everyone of us as an undeniable GIFT and no one has the right to strip a woman off this privilege.

Childfree women ARE women. Because a pair of reproductive organs can't postulate and define the soul and the heart of a sentient human being.

Womanhood and women aren't synonymous to motherhood and mothers and motherhood should never be used to invalidate and negate the self-identity of a sentient being.

And motherhood isn't innate and instinctual. There are many women who don't have motherly instincts. Respect them.

Respect women.

Respect her for what SHE is.

[perish-the-creator]

001 Kevin + Rodan

When I started shipping it if I did:

Just like everyone else. They fought and Mark just has to say “They can for food, fight, or f-...something more intimate” As far as why San/Kevin specifically is mostly because I wanted to divide the heads up with someone. It was also because Kevin was characterized as the more curious and likes to explore compared to the other two heads. It would make sense that he would be the one to stir a relationship with someone considered lesser than himself.

My thoughts:

I like the ship when it isn’t masked with this paint of being wholesome. It isn’t. It never was and never will be. There will always be an unstable power dynamic and that’s the fun of it. I have Kevin be a sociopath and Rodan being someone/kaiju who isn’t completely monogamous (none of them really are). It’s a ship that should be allowed to explore the more dark nature. But it is also fun because we do know that in certain ways Rodan has to teach this idiot about earthlings and how to not act like a crazy person/kaiju all the time. It’s interesting because they don’t balance each other out. 

What makes me happy about them:

I guess it’s the idea that they do fill some type of thrill within each other. They are both aware that deep down there is this desire to kill. And they are both kinda holding back and replacing that tension with sex. Their entire relationship is based on built of tension!

What makes me sad about them:

The saddest thing is also the thing that makes their relationship what it is. It’s a relationship based on tension and lust. San/Kevin can only hold back so much before he breaks. And Rodan can only handle so much before he leaves. There is love, don’t get me wrong, but the love is just a blanket over the pile of potential issues that will come up. 

Things done in fanfic that annoys me:

If you’ve followed me for a long time then you know my main pet peeve is how others write San/Kevin. I strongly dislike it when he is portrayed as this sweet boy or innocent cinnamon roll. No, he isn’t.  And while everyone is entitled to their own characterizations (I mean I have made Goji into a himbo that could be considered somewhat soft and naive) Kevin hits different. It’s like he isn’t allowed to be bad. And while the numbers of fics with him write like that are slowly going away considering smut usually makes everyone an asshole or the mere fact Rodorah is angsty by nature, it still drives me up the wall. And with Rodan, you can’t really mess him up. He’s one of those characters who’s characterization is very lax and I can handle different versions of. 

Things I look for in fanfic:

I would like to see a bit more tension. I want to see that Rodan is on the fence about being in love and whether or not he’s just a phase to them. And maybe...just maybe...have San feel the most entitled. Again, I dig having San as an unhinged jerk. 

Who’d I’d be comfortable them ending up with, if not each other: 

Rodan is a chaotic bisexual who meshes well with a lot of other people/kaiju. It really just depends on how the relationship is portrayed and how Rodan is written. San, however, is a tricky question. He’s very...manipulative and unhinged by all means. If he knew he’d get sex out of it he’d take it. Though really only two others I see him with; Goji or Ni. NOW BEFORE YOU TRY TO KILL ME HEAR ME OUT. I’m one of the few people in this fandom who do not see the heads as biological brothers. King Ghidorah wasn’t born King Ghidorah he was made. Each head is a different offspring that was fused together to make him. But yeah, San would gladly wreck Ni or Goji. 

My happily ever after for them:

What I consider a happily ever after for most of my ships is them having children and the children reaching adulthood. Very basic. 

Who is the big spoon/little spoon:

Rodan little spoon looking ass. 

What is their favorite non-sexual activity:

World watching. Oddly enough, they are both interested in humans and like to have conversations on what they think humans use certain things for. Though San will go on a tangent about how he craves human meat.  

[coochiequeens]

When a TIM is so shitty even his TIM call him out

When an actual lesbian has preferences for real women it's transphobic but when a TIM does it's because sex is a biological reality. So glad the women are calling him out.

[thisisallthehattersfault]

God I just. I want to lean more into the fact that Descendants is a world where the fair folk exist. Dwarves and mermaids pixies and both light and dark fey, sorcerers and magic talking animals and they all exist in a world that’s technologically identical to the modern day. There is so much potential for worldbuilding fuckery there.

The books say that Dwarves are “cousins” of Goblins, the creatures that worked for Maleficent. Even just that is fascinating. Are they subspecies, able to interbreed? What are the offspring called? Is Doug biologically related to any half-goblins? Or are Goblins to Dwarves what Lions are to Tigers -- technically, sure they could cross breed, but the kid would be sterile. Are they different phenotypes, or are they completely different genotypes? What about Mal and Jane? It’s assumed that Fairy Godmother is light, but is she? Do we know for sure? What the hell is a Fairy Godmother anyway? Is she actually Cinderella’s godmother, a friend of one of her parents that got put in charge of her? If she is, why didn’t she come for Cinderella sooner? And if she isn’t, what? Is she just going around looking for kids in trouble? Only... she isn’t, is she, because the only person she saved was Cinderella, the girl who so conveniently married the prince. Funny how that works. What about Flora, Fauna and Merryweather? Obviously they’re enemies to Maleficent, and obviously they’re a different type of fairy than she is, but who actually are they? Ambassadors from their fairy realm, invited to Aurora’s christening to strengthen political ties between Stephan’s kingdom and the light Fey? If that’s the case then Maleficent isn’t a villain. Stephan chose a side in the war between fairies after she gave him a choice and an opportunity to save face. That’s what happens when you piss of the Fair Folk. What’s their current political standing in Auradon? What about the rest of the Seelie? Is their court part of Auradon or are they just allies? And what the hell is the deal with Auradon anyway? No royal family just gives up their crown. I get electing a High King, but that still means everyone else is Kings and Queens. And High King is usually an elected title, so there’s no way Ben just ascended the throne because it was his dad’s, right? There had to have been a vote or something, so then Ben is King of France and High King of Auradon? Circling back to the nonhuman people, like. What’s Dwarven culture like in Auradon? Obviously everything looks kind of vaguely modern American/European, so then that means there are certain rigid beauty standards inflicted on people from a single colonialist culture, and therefore there’s some push back, right? Is Doug growing out his hair in the third movie because Evie gave him the courage to try embracing his own culture, and he can’t grow a beard yet so this is the next best thing? Is there a language Jane and her mother speak when they’re alone? Did Maleficent ever teach Mal anything about their history, their culture? What about Genies? Or the Pixie Hollow pixies like Tinkerbelle? Magic is “retired” but there’s no way everyone is just okay with that. Atlantis’s whole culture is based on the magic in the crystals they use. Frozen was all about Elsa’s struggle with the powers she’d always had. Do you have to fill out paperwork, registering as a magic user? When you go to the doctor’s office is there a checkbox for if you’ve ever been cursed, hexed, jinxed or otherwise enchanted? Are there physical therapists who specialize in transformations gone wrong? If you have a family heirloom that’s been around for generations and it’s technically magic, are you legally required to forfeit it, or is there loopholes in place? Are talking animals legally considered citizens, or are they still pets? And if they are legal citizens, do they have to get special insurance, since they’re not pets? If they can’t talk but are still clearly intelligent, what then? What about the uncanny ability so many Disney princesses have of being able to communicate with or command otherwise wild, unintelligent animals? Is that considered magic, or is that something that humans can Just Do? Is it possible that exposure to Dwarves and Fairies and Mermaids have resulted in crossbreeding so heavy that the humans in the Descendants series are actually a different species than the humans here on earth? Ones that have, idk, a mild, low-level telepathic ability to communicate with animals? What the hell does that look like on an MRI? And like... Seelie/Light fairies aren’t... good. They still prey on humans. They just do it in the summertime. So what kind of weird political games are being played right now between the Seelie Fey and the Auradon Royalty? I know Audrey said the Evil Queen has no royal standing, but that’s not necessarily true? Snow White married Prince Ferdinand, so she’s probably queen of his kingdom by now unless his folks are still around, but Evie could make a campaign that she’s the rightful heir to the throne Grimhilde sat on depending on who’s blood line it belonged to. Did Grimhilde marry the king, and hate Snow White because she saw her as a threat, or did Grimhilde marry some random nobleman because the court was pressuring her? And if she did marry the king, was she a noble or a princess of her own homeland, because Evie might be entitled to some of that. There’s just SO FUCKING MUCH that we don’t know because Descendants didn’t explain shit, which leaves the door wide open for people to make up all kinds of political and social headcanons and write fics all about the worldbuilding and I WANT MORE PEOPLE TO DO IT PLEEEAAASSEE COME PLAY WITH ME IN THIS SPACE

[padawanlost]

Has there has ever been another scenario like Anakin’s where a Jedi has found a force sensitive slave? On one hand, to buy or otherwise free a slave would be outside their mandate, but on the other they do have a history of taking infants with little consideration for the families. Do you think that their sense of entitlement towards force sensitives is stronger than their devotion to the status quo and traditions?

That’s areally good question. The only similar case (set in a similar time period) Ican think of right now is Ventress. She wasn’t a slave but she was separated byforce from her biological family and introduced to a crime, violence and povertyin Rattatak. When the Jedi Ky Narec found a teenage Asajj, he wanted to trainedher but the Council refused. Instead of walking away from the situation, he wasabandoned by the Order and eventually died trying to save Ventress and herplanet.

When we addthis to the fact that Qui-Gon Jinn was branded different for rescuing Anakin fromslavery, I’d say, as a norm, they wouldn’t take force-sensitive children fromcruel situations if the child was considered too old to be trained. Now, if thekid was young enough to be trained we know they would totally take the kid.

We knowthis because of thebaby Ludi case.  When the Jedi founda force-sensitive baby on a aftermath of earthquake, they immediately took thebaby and started the training process. Once it was discovered the baby’s motherwas alive, fully capable of raising her baby and against her being trained bythe Order, they refused to give the baby back.

“Locating Force-strong newborns is a straightforward process, at least within the Republic’s borders. Mandatory blood tests performed at birthrecord the concentration of midi-chlorians in an infant’s cells, and positive results are forwarded to the Jedi Temple for follow-up.

The job of a JediRecruiter can be thankless. While many families are proud to have theiroffspring chosen by the Force, the practical reality of taking a child awayfrom his or her parents is messy and  unpleasant. We Jedi firmlybelieve that Force-strong beings have a right to receive the best trainingavailable, and our way requires  shunning emotional commitment,especially toward one’s birth family. 

Yet something that seemsself-evident to us has been characterized as  monstrous in the HoloNet. Iadmit that while we recruiters are vital to the continuation of the Order, wedon’t do much to burnish the  Order’s reputation.

The following areperennial slurs leveled against the Order. As a Jedi  Knight you must doyour part to counter these lies, not by arguing but  by setting an exampleof selflessness and service.

[…]

The Jedi arekidnappers.An all too familiar accusation for Jedi Recruiters, this charge springs fromthe pain of emotional  attachment. It is also technically false. Withinthe Republic, the  Jedi Order has the legal authority to take custodyof Force-sensitives, and some Masters have argued that the Force’s presence in a child indicates the child’s consent to join the Order evenbefore he or she is able to speak.

Source: The Jedi Path: AManual for Students of the Force by Daniel Wallace]

Blood testsare mandatory within the Republic and they have legal authority to takeforce-sensitive children. Now, remember that the Outer Rim territories, though systemicallyexcluded from the best the galaxy that to offer, was consistently consideredpart of the Republic whenever it became convenient to the power figures inCorucanst.

With thatin mind I’d say, yeah, the entitlement they had over force-sensitive younglingswas more powerful than their political aspirations. I’d go as far as sayingthis entitlement was in fact a huge part of their tradition, so I wouldn’t seea conflict between them taking the babies and any other tradition they mighthave.

The child isold enough to be trained? Take the child! The child is too old to be trained?Leave the child.

[textribe]

Difference between Descendant or Descendent

The terms Descendant and Descendent might appear similar at first glance, leading to confusion over their usage and meanings. However, the primary distinction lies in their usage in different contexts. Descendant, the more commonly used term, refers to a person who is descended from a particular ancestor. Descendent is an alternative spelling that is less frequently used but can serve the same purpose. This article focuses on elucidating the term Descendant as it is widely accepted and utilized in genealogical, biological, and cultural discussions. FeatureDescendantDefinitionA person, plant, or animal that is descended from a specific ancestor.Part of SpeechNounUsageRefers to offspring or individuals coming from a particular lineage or ancestor.ContextGenealogy, biology, cultural heritageExamplesShe is a descendant of a Revolutionary War hero. Difference Between Descendant and Descendent Definition of Descendant A Descendant is an individual, plant, or animal that comes from a specific lineage or ancestor. This term is widely used in discussions about genealogy, inheritance, and evolutionary biology, emphasizing the connection between generations or the lineage of living beings. Definition of Descendent While Descendent is occasionally seen, it is essentially an alternative spelling of Descendant and carries the same meaning. The usage of Descendent over Descendant is rare and often considered a variation in spelling rather than a distinct term with a separate definition. Origin of Descendant The term Descendant comes from the Latin word "descendere," meaning "to come down" or "to descend." This etymology reflects the concept of lineage and inheritance, indicating the transmission of traits, property, or rights through generations. Pronunciation - Descendant: /dɪˈsɛndənt/ Usage in Sentences with Explanations - "The museum exhibition on ancient Egypt prominently features artifacts believed to have been used by the descendants of Pharaohs." - This sentence illustrates the use of Descendant in a historical and cultural context, linking individuals today with their ancestral past. - "As a descendant of immigrants, she holds her family's history of perseverance and resilience in high esteem." - Here, Descendant is used to express a personal connection to one's ancestors, emphasizing cultural heritage and family legacy. - Researchers studying the evolution of certain species often focus on the traits passed from ancestors to their descendants. - Demonstrates the application of Descendant in biological or evolutionary studies, referring to the lineage of species over time. Conclusion Understanding the correct usage of Descendant is crucial for clear and accurate communication in genealogical, historical, and biological contexts. Descendant is the preferred term when referring to individuals or entities that come from a specific lineage or ancestor. The distinction between Descendant and the less commonly used Descendent is primarily one of spelling preference, with Descendant being the widely accepted and used term. Commonly Asked Questions - Is "descendent" incorrect in formal writing? - While not incorrect, Descendant is the preferred spelling in formal writing and scholarly works. Descendent is seen less frequently and may be considered an alternative or less common spelling. - Can "descendant" refer to non-human entities? - Yes, Descendant can refer to plants, animals, or even entities such as languages or cultural practices, indicating anything that has descended from a particular origin. - How is the term "descendant" used in legal contexts? - In legal contexts, Descendant can refer to individuals entitled to an inheritance or property through their lineage, highlighting the importance of familial relationships in the distribution of estates. - Are there specific terms for different generations of descendants? - Yes, specific terms like "grandchild," "great-grandchild," and so on, are used to denote different generations of descendants, providing more detail about the degree of separation from the ancestor. FAQ What is the difference between descendant and descendent? The traditional difference between descendant and descendent is often overlooked in modern usage. Descendant is used as a noun and refers to someone who is related to a person or group of people who lived in the past. Descendent, on the other hand, refers to something that is moving downward or a downward incline. Can you give examples of incorrect and correct uses of descendant and descendent? Incorrect uses include phrases like "He was a descendent of the wolves" or "The descendant vehicle on the ramp crushed everything in its path." Correct uses include phrases like "She is a descendant of the vampires" or "He proved that he was indeed a descendant of the Maharaja." How should descendent and descendant be used in different contexts? In genealogy and law, descendent is the preferred word when referring to someone who is directly related to an ancestor. Descendant is a more general term that can be used to describe any person who is related to a common ancestor, regardless of the number of generations in between. What are common mistakes to avoid when using descendent and descendant? Common mistakes to avoid include using descendent as a noun, using descendant as an adjective, and misspelling either word. It's important to remember that descendent is an adjective and descendant is a noun. Proofreading your work and using a dictionary when unsure can help you avoid these mistakes. Read the full article

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

Do you think men are biologically sexist?

Short answer: yes and no.

Long, likely rambling answer: global history tells us men have always oppressed women. Observations of other species show us other males that are equally as terrible to the females of their species. That strongly indicates a biological component.

What, though? We know it’s not brain sex. There are more differences between individual brains than between women and men. Yet men commit the vast majority of violent crime all around the world throughout human history.

So perhaps something in our physical differences affects male brain development. Which ones, though? Well, men have penises and women don’t. That might be part of it, that possessing a penetrative sexual organ inherently conditions one to feel entitled to and behave aggressively towards females. Certainly the males of other species that have penises use them in the same terrible ways that human males do.

Another part of it may be the inability of males (barring seahorses) to become pregnant. There is a biological drive to reproduce. A female of a species that gestates young always knows her offspring is hers. A male doesn’t, so the males of many species tackle that “issue” in various ways. Duck penises have a broom at the end of it to sweep away other duck sperm. Male bears will kill all cubs on site because the chance they’re his aren’t high and then he can mate with the female. Male lions have an entire pride of lionesses and a new male moving in will kill any existing cubs. Men try to keep their girlfriends or wives from speaking to any other men. Control a woman and her reproductive choices and you control whether you reproduce or not.

But there’s a problem here. Not every species gestates their young. Most fish, for example, simply release eggs into the water that are fertilized with sperm. And yet, the male fish of many of these species are still very aggressive towards the females. These fish don’t have penises either. And neither does the male Rhinella proboscidea frog, who often kills the female during reproduction. Though that is the only example of reproductive necrophilia, there are plenty of other animals that engage in other forms.

So it’s not just penises and it’s not just womb envy. What, then? Superior strength? That’s pretty variable. In many species the female is much bigger and stronger than the male. So what is it? Well, the only thing the males of all species have in common is sperm production. But what about sperm production could cause or contribute to awful behaviour towards females? I honestly don’t know, and I doubt any scientists are looking into it. We may never know. But the fact is males are terrible to females and men are no exception.

Yet “sexism” implies male supremacy, as in men believing they are superior to women, and that belief itself does not appear to be inherent. Elephants and hyenas are matriarchal. Wolf packs are sometimes led by a female. There was a baboon tribe where all the aggressive males died that then became matriarchal and any new male baboons had to behave pleasantly or be forced out. In ant and bee colonies, the “workers” and “warriors” are all female. The lionesses of a pride most often do the hunting.

The notion that females are less important or capable than males, or shouldn’t be allowed to do certain things doesn’t seem to exist in most, if any, other species. Perhaps, as humans came to our full consciousness, sexism was what men needed both to justify to themselves their treatment of us, and to keep us from fighting back.

So yes, sexism is biological in the sense that the tendency to harm females is not at all limited to human males. No, in the sense that male supremacy does seem to be an entirely human invention. I think that sexism on this large a scale (if it was just a few pockets or in a relatively short time period, that would be different) could not exist without the biological component, whatever it may be, that fuels males’ urge to harm females. But that biological component doesn’t need sexism in order to exist.

Socialization, however, will ensure they are in a never-ending loop with each other. Biological urge to hurt women inspires sexism, which justifies hurting and controlling women, whose defensive actions are then touted as examples of female inferiority, which of course is sexism, which justifies men’s violent behaviour, etc..

[alimitlessife]

Why life is a violation of human rights and other issues with breeding.

Several weeks, yes, weeks ago, I had never heard the term Antinatalism. Antinatalism is the philosophical position that asserts a negative value judgment towards birth. In other words, it's better never to be born than to suffer and inevitably die. (I probably stole that from somewhere.)

Reading about this interesting theory I have realised things about myself. Things of which I was unaware, one of these is that I am an Antinatalist. I have been since I first watched the Matrix at age thirteen. I was obsessed with that movie and have been consumed with dystopian movies ever since.  

I will take a moment to dispel some of the myths surrounding this theory from my own perspective. My opinion in this area is usually met with 'so you hate kids.' No, I love children, they are wonderful. 'So you're depressed?' Again, no, I love my life very much, I have been blessed with a great many things to be thankful for and I am thankful for them. People then descend into confusion. They wonder what possesses a well balanced, educated and happy person into such a depressive state of mind (their opinion, not mine). 'Then why don't you kill yourself if life is so bad?' My life is amazing and while we're here we should absolutely make the most of it.

I have found the confusion is due to a conflict within human nature itself. As David Benatar rightly observes, humans are positively biased towards their own existence. At our core, we are biologically programmed to be positive about our lives. This is regardless of how bad life actually is and we strive to survive even when we're suffering. Death is the unseen enemy and we are programmed to fight it at every available opportunity. The unknown is not our friend and we should treat it with fear and caution. The answer for many is to breed. We breed to feel secure in legacy. We breed to feel like we have achieved something in what is a relatively pointless life. We breed to feel wanted. People breed and on a scale that is terrible and terrifying.

So, I hear you ask, if I like children and am not depressed then what is this all about?

My answer is a simple one, logic. I won't reiterate more of Benatar's findings as they're out there to read. My personal logic is that the world is a mess. We are polluting it, destroying our Ozone and even in the western world, we are slaves, slaves to the daily grind, slaves to capitalism. I, for one, don't want to bring a person into this world because I feel like they will simply struggle. They will suffer because of these things and much more. An unborn cannot consent to the suffering they would endure and that is unethical to me. Who am I to decide that their suffering is worth it? Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, states a Prohibition of torture. It explicitly states that 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.' By that very definition bringing a child into the world goes against their human rights. Life itself is a form of torture, isn't it? Childhood is parents working, fighting to keep everything together. It's constant want of things and upset rather than this idealised image that is portrayed. Adulthood is a fight, a battle to make it in a world ruled by the one per cent. The egomaniacal upper classes who let us believe myths like veganism and recycling will save the world.

Living within a capitalist system is a form of torture. You work, you live, you fight to get things to carve out a socially accepted life and then you die. People search for the meaning of life and the only real meaning is the one you create for yourself. In the meantime, no one tells you how to live only how not to and every other objection is hypocritical contradictory shit. On the off chance, you may receive intelligent and caring parents, wonderful. To have parents who give you advice and guidance means you are lucky. You may even have had a relatively nice life but this is not the case for most. So, you stumble and mull around in the metaphorical dark until you find somewhere to fit. Most never will, most simply follow the checklist of life and never really get the hang of it. They find someone and are unhappy because, well, monogamy or they settle. Then they get married, typically breed and the cycle perpetuates until you die.

There is also a further issue that comes to mind. I would potentially adore this, my hypothetical child. Yes, I like kids and I would love my own, I know it. So, why would I bring it into a world where it would suffer? I will have to suffer alongside it. I hate being the master of my own misery; it feels much too much like narcissism for my liking. In addition, losing my time, space and sleep would also be cause for misery. Again, going into that with my eyes wide open feels much like narcissistic behaviour.

I am of the opinion that I'm not special. What dictates that my genes are unique enough to perpetuate? Why is my lineage one that should survive? Even if I could justify it I'll probably reduce my offspring into a damaged adult. One who has not only my flaws but some extra just for them, which seems like cruel and unusual punishment. (I probably stole that too)

Yes, this all seems very pessimistic. You're already looking past the logic to the justifications of the endless suffering. You're already saying 'but life can be good.' Sure, in places, fleetingly. I can hear you thinking 'but I want kids.' That is the most selfish sentence I've ever heard, especially taking into consideration the above. Adopt, do something kind, negate someone of the suffering of someone already alive. Hubris, that's what breeding is, plain and simple. You want, you need. You, not them. They don't exist and cannot suffer while they don't.

The final thought is 'Well if we don't breed we'll die out.' Good. There are a million reasons why humanity as a whole should cease to exist. Not overnight necessarily, a perpetual decline would be better to negate suffering (Thank you, Mr Benatar). But yes, humanity is a bad thing. We believe our own lies. We are entitled and superior because of our intellect and it is annoying.  Mr Smith from the Matrix summed it up aptly:

"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. "

When I consider all the above it leads to the only possible conclusion. Mr Smith is correct, humanity is a virus and Antinatalism is the cure.

[makingscipub]

Threads, worms and science communication

I thought I had written my last post about epigenetics. But then came along some ‘worms’ and I had to write another one.

I have written about worms once before on the Making Science Public blog, in the context of science communication. And this blog post too will reflect on worms in the context of science communication, but in a slightly different context.

In 2014, when I wrote my first worm post, twitter was eight years old but still evolving. Now we live in a twitterverse where science communicators can use ‘threads’, launched at the end of 2017, to knit together tweets into a science story. Some of the best science communication now happens in ‘threads’. And this is what happened on this occasion.

So what am I talking about? On 6 June a research group working in Tel Aviv around Oded Rechavi published an article in Cell entitled “Neuronal Small RNAs Control Behavior Transgenerationally”. The gist of the article was this, as summarised in the abstract: “In Caenorhabditis elegans nematodes, parental responses can transmit heritable small RNAs that regulate gene expression transgenerationally. In this study, we show that a neuronal process can impact the next generations.”

So the hero of the study is C. elegans, the worm of wonder I had talked about in my previous blog, but not in the context of epigenetics. What has this to do with epigenetics?

Worms and epigenetics

Epigenetics is a new field in genetics and genomics, which came to prominence around the year 2000 and about which I have written since 2013. It is still finding its feet and it is still struggling with definitions and concepts. One of the most contested notions is that of ‘transgenerational epigenetic inheritance’. This phenomenon has been observed in plants, worms and some rodents, but there is, as yet, no clear evidence that it exists in mammals/humans.

In an important article summarising some myths surrounding epigenetics, Edith Heard, a renowned epigenetics researcher, pointed out: “Since the human genome was sequenced, the term ‘epigenetics’ is increasingly being associated with the hope that we are more than just the sum of our genes. Might what we eat, the air we breathe, or even the emotions we feel influence not only our genes but those of descendants?” This is at the core of speculations surrounding epigenetics and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.

The worm study that caught my eye has to be seen in this context. It was announced under headlines such as “Worm parents pass on behaviours epigenetically to offspring”.

Even one of the most sceptical observers of research into transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, Kevin Mitchell, tweeted: “Some real transgenerational epigenetics… (in worms)”.

He also retweeted a ‘thread’ by the group leader, Oded Rechavi, which was a masterpiece of science communication, both verbal and visual – indeed, threading them both creatively together. We’ll come to that in a minute.

Epigenetic worms in the media

How was the study reported in the ‘mainstream media’? I had a quick look and found only four articles, all published in Israeli news outlets. I tracked down a few more on Google News. Here are some of the headlines in the print media: “Israeli study: Nervous system can transmit messages to future generations”; “Israel study says neurons, not just DNA, can affect progeny’s fate”; “Researchers say nervous system passes info to kids”; “Worms help Israeli scientists rewrite basics of genetics”.

Two things struck me: first the use of anthropomorphic terms like ‘kids’, a type of language that can create the wrong expectations, and the claim that this study overthrows basic genetics. This claim came also up in an online article on Breaking Israel News entitled “Small worms help Israeli researchers disprove basic dogma of modern biology”. This article was, I believe, the press release for the Cell study and contains a great artistic illustration of worms. It was picked up by eurekalert, where Rechavi is quoted as saying “It’s important to stress that we don’t know yet whether any of this translates to humans”.

In the past, some epigeneticists and philosophers of science have made claims about epigenetics overthrowing basic biology, claims that were greeted mainly with scepticism by other scientists.

Three other online articles reported on the study, one published in The Scientist and dryly entitled: “Worm parents pass on behaviors epigenetically to offspring”; one in Psychology Today seeing it as ‘disruptive’ to biology and neuroscience, and one in the Big Think linking it to ‘reincarnation’ (tongue in cheek)! There may be more. But let’s get to the thread.

Twitter threads

According to Twitter, “[a] thread on Twitter is a series of connected Tweets from one person. With a thread you can provide additional context, an update, or an extended point by connecting multiple Tweets together.”

Here is a random example of a ‘thread’ – there are longer and more extravagant ones out there. This one is about Mayan hieroglyphics, which I loved (it’s linked to a fantastic podcast). You can click on it and see how it goes…

Knitting a science story using words and images

So, what about this worm thread then, which got 423 retweets and 1,156 likes? Rechavi posted it in the afternoon of 6 June, just after his lab’s article came out in Cell. It starts with a bit of a firework of emojis, hashtags, and hyperlinks.

The hashtag uses a well-established epigenetic metaphor. The accompanying image (called ‘a summary model’ in the thread) provides an overview of the ‘flow’ of signals/memory, I suppose, between neurons, germline and behaviour.

The second tweet congratulates all the team members and especially the artist who created the illustration for the press release Beata Edyta Mierzwa and reproduces the sci-art image. See here. I think the image represents a tree of life/arteries of life populated by worms with little epigenetic ‘tags’ or post-it notes attached to them… but I might be wrong.

The third tweet writes about long-standing speculations about inheritance and is illustrated by a photo of a Greek statue representing a thinker. It ends by stressing: “But transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is still extremely controversial, especially in mammals”.

The fourth tweet goes into this controversy in a bit more detail, saying: “The reason it’s controversial is that there’s no good mechanism that can explain it. It was hypothesized a long time ago (19th century) that the germline is isolated from the soma, and that somatic responses (including neuronal responses) cannot become heritable”. The work presented in the thread puts forward a candidate mechanism.

This tweet is illustrated with a photo of the front cover of August Weismann’s seminal book The Germplasm – a theory of heredity (published in 1893). This tweet relates to what some news articles reported, such as one in the Big Think that stated: “Rechavi believes this research pushes back against biological dogma (the ‘Weissmann Barrier’) claiming that heritable information is segregated from somatic influences.” This seems to be much less cautious than the tweet, probably because it’s based on the ‘press release’.

As there are 17 tweets in this thread, I won’t summarise each one of them. Let’s just say each tweet is a combination of text and image. It uses images of many types and genres, such a diagrams, various plots and scatter grams, cartoons, microscopy images, photos, and so on..

However, I want to point out one more tweet, not for its image but for its text, as it engages in anthropomorphic language (also used in some headlines) which might confuse people and make them think that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance has also been demonstrated in humans:

“MORE interestingly, if rde-4 great-grandchildren are derived from heterozygous great-grandparents that expressed rde-4 only in neurons, their chemotaxis behavior is much improved. The ancestors’ neurons control the behavior of the great-grandchildren”

Reception

The response to the thread was overwhelmingly positive with lots of tweets expressing congratulations. One tweet posted a compiled thread on something called ‘threader’, which you can read here. And there is an ‘unroll’ here on a thread reader.

You can also read the compiled text of the tweets on Reddit. There are only a few comments related to that text, but three of them are interesting. One continues the anthropomorphising of the worms and creates a great metaphor: “Grandpa worm sent a zip file of worm behavior instructions to grandbaby worm”.

Two others jump into a controversy surrounding transgenerational epigenetic inheritance that been reverberating through popular science for a while: “Lamarckism wasn’t as wrong as we thought.” While somebody else says (in a longer comment): “I definitely don’t want to dismiss this but I dont know if I’d call this ‘heritable’ in the same way DNA is heritable.” Discuss!

A new type of science communication

The worm study has provided me with a great opportunity to learn about threads and to alert readers of the Making Science Public blog to the fact that there are now new ways of making science public, using the old art of intertwining words and images (see also GIFs), texts and illustrations, art and science.

There is no yet a lot of research out there examining the use of twitter threads for science communication. I found one SciCommthreads hashtag on threads, but that’s about it. There must be more!

On a different but related note: I am looking forward to a new little project with Aleksandra Stelmach and Alan-Miguel Valdez examining the power of images in the construction of popular notions of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.

Image: Wikimedia Commons: C. elegans, stained

The post Threads, worms and science communication appeared first on Making Science Public.

via Making Science Public http://bit.ly/2KOJ5Q7

[ablanariwho]

Yashoda And Kaikeyi – Fantasy vs Reality Of A Step Mother

Are stepmoms really evil or are they simply victims of circumstances in a patriarchal society?

Disclaimer: This post talks about those women who do not have a say in marrying a widower or divorcee with children. However, those who chose to be a second wife or a step mother, may or may not relate to some parts of this post It is not intended to malign any individual, but highlight the plight of women in a patriarchal society where stepmotherhood is imposed on them and then they are judged for not being able to love their step children like a real mother.

She was standing in front of her new home. There was no one at the door to receive her. No floral decoration, no banana tree branches flanking both sides of the door with decorative earthen holy pots at its feet; no gathering of married women, led by a mother-in-law, waiting happily with anxious anticipation to receive her with all the customary preparations. There was no shehnai playing in the background, no uludhwani to welcome her.

She slowly and hesitantly pushed the half open door with her palm. There was no sacred brass pot kept at the threshold of the main entrance of the house, filled with a heap of rice over its brim that a new bride is supposed to gently tumble down by her toes before stepping in. There was no platter of water mixed with ‘Álta’ (a red dye Indian women, especially Bengali married women use to paint the sides of their feet) in which a new bride is supposed to dip her feet and then walk inside, stepping onto a new cloth rolled out on the floor, leaving her footprint on it, symbolizing the arrival of ‘Lakshmi’ – the goddess of wealth .

She knocked at the door. A young adolescent boy came out. He was, at first, a little startled to see her there. But he did not ask her who she was. He guessed who she could be. The fresh sindoor along the woman’s hair parting was enough introduction. The woman did not miss to notice the awkwardness, the slight shadow of resentment mixed with a tinge of sadness in his eyes. She tried to smile and slowly and shyly asked, “You are the eldest one, right?” The teenager nodded and then turning his gaze towards the floor, said in a low voice, “Please come in.”

She stepped into her new home.

Illustration by Vidya Bhamre

Arrangement of convenience

She was the second wife of a middle-aged man – a widower with half a dozen children. All those matrimonial rituals to receive a new bride into her marital home were not meant or required for her. Her marriage took place over the tragic incidence of the untimely death of the man’s previous wife. Hence, there was no celebration. In some cases, a second wife may arrive after a sad separation with the first one. In that case, some ceremonies may still happen. But in this case, there was none. Her marriage was truly an ‘’arrangement of convenience’’ without all these frills. The man in his early forties needed a woman firstly to manage his household and family of half a dozen children aged between 6 months and 16 years and secondly as his spouse and companion.

The average looking, slightly dark-complexioned woman, much younger than the man she had just got married to, came from a poor family. They could not get her married to an eligible bachelor. When they received this proposal, they were more than happy to give away their daughter’s hand to him. There was no demand for dowry, jewelry or anything. The only pre-condition and expectation was that the woman would readily accept the role of a ‘mother’ and deliver the responsibility of nurturing a big family of children left by the previous wife of the man, besides playing other roles of a new life-partner to him. The woman had no choice or say in this arrangement. She accepted it as she knew it was always better to be someone’s wife than spending all her life as a single, unmarried woman in her maiden home, depending on her poor father or brothers. She knew, that wouldn’t be a much honorable life.

The woman, who arrived alone without any ceremonious reception, died after spending around five decades of her life in that home. She did not have her own children. She took care of the six children of her husband’s previous marriage. I could see her depart as a sad, defeated, unfulfilled soul. The boy, who received her on her arrival for the first time, did the funeral rites. He was in his fifties by then. As per Hindu norms, a son is supposed to shave off his head as a mark of respect and a part of the last rites of his parents. In this case, the priest conducting the ceremony said a stepmother is not entitled to that right by the scriptures. Today, there is no photograph of the woman in his house. The photograph of his own late mother sits rightfully next to his late father’s photo. The stepmother, the second wife, the childless woman is remembered and still criticized only for all her frailties and misdeeds and nothing else.  After all she was a stepmother.

Can 'motherhood' be imposed?

This has happened with scores of women. They were picked up from underprivileged circumstances and right away assigned to the responsibility of a ‘Mother’ – the most important and difficult job of parenting. Her age gap with the step children, mental maturity or emotional strength, nothing was considered to check if she was fit for this role or not. In case of stepmothers, the complexities of parenting are further compounded. Hence, it should be thought about more.

Has society ever spared any thought on this? I don’t think so.

Painting by Raja Ravi Verma of Yashoda adorning baby Krishna

Source: Wikipedia

Is motherhood misunderstood?

Despite having heard scores of stories of stepmothers being bad to their stepchildren, men, while bringing a stepmother in their children’s lives, prefer to believe that in their personal cases, she would definitely and unfailingly turn out to be a divine “Yashoda” and not a cunning and jealous  “Kaikeyi”! They have no choice but the need to justify and base their decision to marry again on this belief and hope. Many a times, this belief makes them turn a blind eye to the reality of a woman’s psychological and emotional complexities in raising a stepchild. They end up never realizing the fact that their second wives could never really replicate a “Yashoda” and love the children of their husband’s first wives same as their own biological offspring.

This proves, patriarchal society has not understood motherhood in its true sense or from the perspective of a woman. It has either over-hyped it or downplayed it. In one hand it has deified motherhood. On the other hand, it has taken motherhood, so much for granted. It doesn’t understand that a woman, just for being a woman, does not have an obligation or instant inclination to feel motherly towards anyone she is expected to or asked to, especially towards stepchildren.

In most of the cases, quite naturally, a stepmother fails this humongous  expectation of the society and thus, earns the bad reputation of a stereo-typical ‘stepmother’. Despite serving this difficult role, most of the time not as their own choice, step mothers carry this tag of evil human beings, through-out ages in folktales, mythological stories or epics, worldwide, barring exceptions such as one “Yashoda” in the Mahabharata. (She was not a stepmother though; she was a foster mother who raised and took care of Krishna for a while without knowing that he was not born out of her womb).

In one hand, the society labels a stepmother negatively. It does not understand her predicament. On the other hand, it casually imposes the unrealistic high expectation of being Yashoda on them which requires almost divine power to overcome all ordinary limitations of human emotions. This is unfair and an example of mindless double standard applied by the patriarchal society on women.  

I think this happens due to the following reasons:

1)     Ignorance, lack of insight and awareness of the society (read men) about female psychology, her sexuality, her motherhood, her emotional complexities.

Being male, men do not have the direct experience of bearing and giving birth to children. That makes them incapable of experiencing firsthand what motherhood is in terms of physical and emotional attachment with the child from the day of conception. They do not, hence, realize how difficult it is for a woman to love and care for a child, who is not her own, with whom she does not have that intimate physical and emotional connection to develop the sense of belonging and bonding. If it would have been so easy to mother children, not one’s own, there would not have been so many orphan children in the world, waiting to be adopted.

2)     Women widowed or divorced, especially with children, cannot marry second or third time as easily as men. Hence, men hardly get the chance to experience what is it to be a stepfather. It restricts their ability to put themselves in the shoes of a stepmother and imagine what or how she feels like towards her stepchildren.

All over the world, it has always been much easier for widowed, divorced or separated men with children, to marry second or third time, same age or much younger women. Society, legal and religious systems, predominantly patriarchal, have always been favorable to men in this matter, in the pretext of his legitimate need for a companion and a wife to manage his household and children.

This is not the case for women, who are widowed or divorced and have children with them from previous wedlock, left behind or deserted by their fathers. Marriage is not a socially acceptable solution for them for the same reason – need for a companion and support to raise her kids and run the household.  Women in such situation, rarely marry for the second or third time. Hence, men hardly get the chance to experience how it feels to take the role of a father of his wife’s children from her previous marriage. There is no popular male role model, idol, example, inspiration or reference point either for them to emulate, such as there is ‘Yashoda’ for women.

3)     Men do not understand how stepchildren can remind a woman of her husband’s intimate relationship with his first wife and can make her feel extremely jealous and angry.

It is natural to feel jealous for a woman about their spouse ’s or partner’s ex. This sense of jealousy often manifests into angry, apathetic and unjust behavior with the child who was born out of another relationship of one’s partner.  

To sum up, society never thought how emotionally challenging and draining it could be for women to be stepmothers. It just takes advantage of women’s underprivileged and weaker position in the society (especially in Indian context) and makes them play this difficult role. Most of the times they fail in it and also end up being judged and bad mouthed.

To me these women are misunderstood and sad victims of circumstances. People need to understand that and stop judging stepmothers. Mothering is considered to be exclusively subject to a woman’s own offspring. A stepmother can, at the most, be as humane as possible, if not motherly, towards the stepchildren.

At the same time the entire world, including the stepmothers, also need to realize that the stepchildren, who lost their own mothers at an early age or never received and experienced their own mother’s love and care, are the most unfortunate victims of circumstances. Rarely someone else can substitute the role of one's own mother or compensate for her absence.

Hence, patriarchy should stop fantasizing the story of Yashoda and Krishna happening in real life and expect the same from women.