#because what I was disproving was the idea that GENDER HAS BIOLOGICAL ROLES

[ruthlesslistener]

There's no biological basis to gender roles. How are you so fucking stupid? You're making all of us who support trans people look like idiots. Why would you bring up chromosomes when you know trans people are almost always perisex??? What the fuck? This is like when Margaret Atwood defended trans people by saying sex can change, look at slugs, when humans do not share our biology with slugs. Gender is constructed which means it means whatever we want it to and trans women are women. You're dumb.

....Maybe because what I was saying was that claiming gender roles had a biological basis was fucking stupid?? Maybe because I brought up chromosomes specifically because tying them to gender is a stupid goddamned concept?? Gender is entirely social, but your chromosomes isn't the only factor involved in presenting sexual characteristics, so claiming that sex IS gender is wrong. I mean, fuck, part of how I figured out I was trans was because a combo of being Iranian and a hormone problem meant when I hit puberty, I ended up growing a pseudo-mustache and got mocked for looking like a boy because of it- and I ENJOYED it. I've got XX chromosomes and a uterus but a combination of my ethnicity and a fucking medical problem meant that I did not fit the traditional western stereotypes for gender, and thus was ostracized by The Cis because of it (or, in the case of some fucking obnoxious girls and my dad, attempted to 'fix it' so I could 'look like a real girl'). 

That's just one example of how fragile the social perception of gender is- it's like classifying people into two groups based on whether they're brown haired or blonde haired. Is the biological difference there? Yes. Are the genes for brown or blonde hair the only thing at play? No. Are they at all linked to the social perception of those characteristics? Also no, and claiming that people must fall into behavioral categories based on the genes for their hair colour is a stupid fucking idea. Hence, the tie of gender = sex = chromosomes is, like I said before, a stupid fucking idea. Cis people are just fucking obseeeesssed with their little lines drawn in the sand and their basic-level biology classes, while in reality genes are a fucking mess of coding that may not always be effectively translated and also depend on other factors to create the very characteristics they claim make you a 'man' or a 'woman'

So no, anon, I did not bring up chromosomes to claim there is a biological basis to gender. I brought up chromosomes specifically to say that the development of the sexual characteristics tied to gender roles are multifaceted and dependant on social conditioning, thus negating the validity of the dumb fucking claim that gender has a biological basis. Put down your fucking pitchfork already

[a-method-in-it]

Gender is the word for sex roles. Sex roles are your cage. You're gilding your cage. Patriarchy defines womanhood by gender. You are a misogynist. You are a white supremacist. You are a dumb homphobic bigot.

Hello anon! I'm assuming this was also you?

If it wasn't I can't be fucked to answer this twice so we're consolidating.

I considered giving you the level of response this argument deserves which is some sort of pithy, dismissive instruction to take your feminist theory back to 1986 when it would already be outdated, but on the off chance that you are open to learning, here goes:

To say that "gender" is only a tool of oppression; is only about sex roles; and is only a cage is not just a shitty thing to argue it's also just...demonstrably not true.

Like actually, literally you can just look out at the world and see that this is objectively false.

I mean, if all that gender is or can ever be is oppression and sex roles, then how do you explain women who adopt masculine gender presentation but still very much consider themselves women? How do you square someone rejecting female gender presentation but not rejecting womanhood?

You can say that he/him lesbians don't exist, I guess, but also in the real world they do and have for generations--as have any number of other gender non-conforming people. So, you know.

Obviously something internal is going on here, something that goes beyond socially defined rules. That thing is called gender.

So no: Gender is not just the word for sex roles. Socially defined gendered expectations are part of gender, yes, and much of our society's (rather bad) understanding of gender revolves around biological sex. But when people talk about gender in this context, they mean something else.

The easiest way to explain it, to me, has always been this: If you switched bodies, science fiction-style, with someone who had a body of a different biological sex than you, would you still think of yourself as the gender you are now? Or would you immediately think of yourself as a man now/as a woman now? Would it be just that easy?

I cannot speak for you, but I personally would not think that. I am a woman. If I was Freaky-Friday-ed into a male body, I would not stop being a woman because being a woman is a part of who I am as a person. It is how I perceive and interact with the world. It is how I see myself. It is interwoven into my whole being.

And also, incidentally, I like being a woman. I don't like sexism or misogyny or patriarchy, but I like womanhood. If given the opportunity to be something else, I wouldn't take it.

Moreover, if sexism and misogyny and patriarchy ended tomorrow, I would still be a woman.

Like, I don't know fully what that world would look like, but I know who I am. I would still be a woman in the absence of oppression.

And to be honest, it's kind of shitty--and not a little misogynist--for you to say that all womanhood is is oppression and misery. Fuck off with that shit. Is that your idea of where womanhood starts and stops? That is so impossibly bleak and sad, I can't stand it. That is a level of woman-hating that boggles my brain.

If you really hate being a woman that much, I don't even know what to tell you other than go to therapy.

I will be over here, not hating women or myself, having a party and also a much more logically consistent feminist theory that isn't disproved by simply spending 12 seconds at the Queer Liberation March.

I'm not even going to get into the part where you called me a misogynist and homophobe and a white supremacist and a religious conservative and also dumb. Because very obviously none of that is true, and it deserves even less than a pity response.

I know who I am. I like who I am. That fact seems to upset you, but I am afraid I cannot be bothered by that.

I hope you actually do consider therapy.

[vampish-glamour]

I agree with most of your views (Including nb’s using labels like lesbian), expect for the views on nb existence. The reasons I see most is that it doesn’t make sense or that nb’s are using gendered terms so they must be gendered or that it’s just people uncomfortable with the gender roles so I‘m just offering another perspective. 🧷1/?

I’m nb because the idea of being male/female gives me dysphoria. It’s not about the gender roles or anything, it’s the idea of having male/female genitals or being perceived as male/female. I try to portray myself as androgynous as possible. I have shorter hair in a pixie cut of sorts, I bind, I avoid wearing things that may make me seem more feminine or masculine, I wear gender-neutral clothing, I don’t use gendered terms like lesbian or gay man. 🧷 2/3

I admit that it may be some internalized transphobia or something but it’s just better for me and my mental health to just use the preferred name/pronouns and try to look as androgynous as I can. As for it not making sense, the human brain is complicated and not everything that it feels or experiences is going to make sense scientifically. It doesn’t make it not real, though. 🧷3/3

I appreciate you sharing your perspective!

I do want to say that “it not making sense” or “enbies use gendered terms therefore they aren’t genderless”, while being common points, is a bit of an oversimplification of things.

A lot of us don’t believe in nonbinary for scientifically based reasons—an example being that the way brains in relation to sex are understood currently makes the concept of a genderless/sexless brain unlikely to exist. (Here’s a really good post about it. And another, because both of these put it scientifically much better than I could ever put it.)

“It’s just being uncomfortable with gender roles” is true for what a lot of us think, though. Because this can go from small things like not being comfortable with traditional clothing, to not liking the societal view of certain body parts.

My opinion on nonbinary “dysphoria” is that there’s likely better explanations for it than being gender dysphoria in the way trans people experience it. Like body dysmorphia, internalized sexism, internalized transphobia, or even just distress around not wanting to be seen the way society views your sex. I think this especially because the vast majority of nonbinary people, in my experience, are female. And there are a lot of societal perceptions of female anatomy that don’t exist for male anatomy.

Here’s my line of thinking;

Gender dysphoria for a trans man would be distress over not being male. From what I understand, his brain would know his body is supposed to be male, and be able to pinpoint things that make it not male. Breasts, genitalia, higher voice, different bone structure, all that sort of thing. The brain would not recognize this as the male body it’s expecting to see in the mirror.

The key point is that the brain is expecting male features instead of female ones.

With nonbinary dysphoria, how would this work? If we say that a hypothetical genderless brain exists, what would it be looking for? How would it determine what a nonbinary body would look like, if nonbinary is not a human sex like male or female are? And how would one achieve a nonbinary body? Take away the breasts and be smooth like a ken doll? Are curves able to be considered nonbinary? How about muscles? And what about skin texture, body/facial hair, smell?

Breasts, genitals, curves, muscles, skin texture, body/facial hair, smell, etc. Are all things trans people take into consideration when transitioning. They’re things that can make somebody appear more or less male or female. Again, since there is no nonbinary sex, this is impossible to pinpoint for the idea of nonbinary bodies.

So, this is where my idea that nonbinary dysphoria is actually something else comes from. Because nonbinary dysphoria works so differently from trans gender dysphoria that I find it hard to consider it the same thing.

I think it’s really important to take into consideration other possibilities. I mentioned social implications/views of certain body parts, and I want to elaborate a little on that.

I’ll use female parts as an example, since I did say they tend to get more of a hard time than male parts.

Female bodies tend to be hyper-sexualized, and put into a very specific box of “submissive sexual object”. Breasts aren’t seen as ways to feed a baby anymore, they’re seen as sex objects. Female genitalia is mostly just reduced to a hole for sexual purposes. Women are expected to be hairless, smooth skinned, curvy in the right places yet still skinny, etc. I truly believe that this impacts how women see themselves and their bodies, including feeling detached from or uncomfortable with them.

So a female nonbinary person might feel greatly uncomfortable with their female body because of subconscious discomfort with how society has taught them to view their body... but also feels uncomfortable with having a male body because they’re not trans. This puts them into a place in the middle—not feeling comfortable being either male or female—that might feel like nonbinary dysphoria, despite not actually being gender dysphoria.

I really do recommend checking out the posts I linked above though, because this is all just my thoughts. Both of the posts talk about the more scientific side of things instead of just opinion or my personal like or thinking.

“As for it not making sense, the human brain is complicated and not everything that it feels or experiences is going to make sense scientifically. It doesn’t make it not real, though”

I agree, but as mentioned before, as science understands the human brain right now—nonbinary brains are very unlikely. It’s not that scientists are marvelling at a miraculous unexplainable phenomenon, they’re saying “here’s how we believe the brain works”, and people can easily make the conclusion that the current understanding makes nonbinary brains unlikely. So it’s absolutely fair to make the claim or theory that nonbinary is not a real biological thing, based on current scientific understanding.

I approach nonbinary in the same way I approach the existence of a god. Meaning, my reasoning for not believing in a god is pretty similar to not believing in nonbinary.

I, and many other atheists, don’t believe in a god partly because of lack of evidence. We don’t want to accept something as reality when there’s hardly anything to prove it to be real. In this case, there are many scientific theories that either better explain, or completely disprove things said in religious texts. This doesn’t mean that if there were rock hard evidence we’d plug our ears and ignore it. But until then, saying “I don’t believe in a god” is a fair statement because there’s no evidence to say otherwise.

The same goes for myself and others who don’t believe that nonbinary is a real biological concept. We don’t want to accept something as reality without evidence. Especially not when there are scientific theories that provide better explanations for nonbinary dysphoria, or disprove the idea of being biologically nonbinary. This doesn’t mean that if there were solid evidence for nonbinary dysphoria and being biologically nonbinary, we’d ignore it. But until we get that solid evidence, saying “I don’t believe in nonbinary” is a fair statement.

Just because nonbinary is something that people hold dear to their hearts as an “identity”, does not mean it is free from skepticism. People are allowed to be sceptical of claims that don’t hold factual weight. Whether that be claims of the divine like god, claims of the occult like ghosts, claims of fantastical creatures like rainbow unicorns, or claims of humans being genderless.

The problem only arises when people start blatantly ignoring scientific evidence or claiming it’s false without providing reason for that claim.

As far as it being better for your mental health goes, I understand. But I do encourage you to look deeper into the issue, because ultimately it’s better to identify what could actually be going on instead of just going with the easiest answer.

And keep in mind that just because you do something for your mental health doesn’t mean others have to accept it as reality.

However, I appreciate that you don’t use gendered terms. Even though I don’t exactly believe in nonbinary as a real thing biologically speaking, I don’t have as much as an issue with people who actually are consistent with it and are respectful to gay people as I do with the people who aren’t. And I certainly hold more respect for nonbinary people who genuinely believe they are experiencing gender dysphoria and don’t disrespect gay people or enforce gender roles than I do for the “I’m nonbinary because I like dresses AND suits and I’m also super gay!!” Types.

My thoughts on this are a bit hard to explain, as I’ve said with a lot of things it’s very clear in my head but hard for me to put into writing. So I hope that at least some of this makes sense lol.

[nerdygaymormon]

Do you think that the church will one day allow gay marriage? I truly hope it will - I don’t think it would be as big a doctrinal change as many conservative members seem to believe

I’m no church leader. I’m not entitled to receive revelation or determine policies for the church and I’m certainly not privy to the thinking of the leaders about future changes. But to me, it seems inevitable that gay marriage will one day be allowed, and here are some reasons why I believe so: 

The many reasons the church has used to explain homosexuality have all been disproved. Not so long ago, our leaders finally acknowledged that homosexuality isn’t a choice, that’s a significant shift in their understanding. It was upon this earlier belief that the existing rules and doctrine were created. This change has already led to some softening of rhetoric and I hope it also leads to more substantial changes. 

As the church tries to explain the reasons it opposes gay marriage, usually by reducing marriage down to fertility and ability to have children, it ends up negating many straight marriages. This again is a sign that there’s a problem in how it understands & defines marriage.  

A majority of LDS members in the U.S. age 18-29 already are in favor of marriage equality. The percentage of the overall US church membership that supports gay marriage already is in the 40-something percentage range. It won’t be long before it crosses the 50% threshold.  

Currently LGBTQ people are absent from the Plan of Salvation. There’s no path to complete the covenant path that leads to exaltation for gay people unless they enter a mixed-orientation marriage. More and more people are wanting answers, which is reasonable to request from a church with a prophet and apostles and on-going revelation. 

There’s theological teachings, which are backed up by academic studies, that the greatest happiness in life is to be found in being connected with another person. Current policies forbid gay people from this deep level of satisfaction and all the positive benefits it has in a person’s quality of life. Why would loving and fair Heavenly Parents create someone only to deny them a shot at real happiness? 

————————————————————    

There have been significant doctrinal shifts that the Church has made in several areas and is the better for having done so. It can do so again. 

For one thing, the Church doesn’t use the Bible to explain or justify its teachings about homosexuality. I can’t remember the last time I heard any General Authority use Biblical verses in such a way. I assume it’s because they know the Bible isn’t so clear on the subject, it doesn’t say what a lot of Christians think it does.

Plus, there are things in the Bible that are clear which we don’t follow, such as Christ’s prohibition on divorce & remarriage except in cases where one partner cheated on the other. Getting past that seems like it would be difficult, but not so. Why would allowing same-gendered couples be any more difficult when Christ didn’t speak against them? 

————————————————————    

Taylor Petrey, in his presentation “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology,” imagines the possible future of LDS doctrine regarding homosexuality. (It can be downloaded here). Essentially he says by bringing back some of our theology and ritualistic practices of the past the Church can accommodate same-sex couples. 

He points out that we teach that God organized intelligences into spirits. That doesn’t sound like sex, does it? Currently the Church talks about needing a man & a woman to sexually create a spirit child and that’s why it’s a no-go on same-gender couples. 

Also, there doesn’t appear to be any women involved in any of the creation processes until Eve is made. It’s all men working with other men. Together they even created Adam. 

A former ritual he refers to is how people chose to be sealed to other people they weren’t related to, nor lived with. They talked about the “law of adoption” and sealed themselves to each other, men to men as father/son, as a way to link families. Wilford Woodruff ended that practice. 

Today we let LDS families be sealed to non-biologic children whom they’ve adopted or who came to them via surrogacy. 

Both these types of sealings can allow a gay couple to have have the same sealing blessings as non-gay couples.  

Petrey is critical of the Church’s teachings about gender. He points out how confusing it is. 1) It’s the one physical trait that our spirit has pre-mortal, mortal and post-mortal worlds. Why is gender the one thing that is fixed? 2) Gender in nature and in humans is not strictly binary, so how does this work with the idea that gender is eternal? 3) The Church is very concerned about gender confusion, meaning that gender roles have to be taught and same-sex couples confuse things. Including such things as who presides, who is the nurturer, the provider? 

How can gender be a fixed thing, but also be something that must be learned?

Plus Heavenly Father seems to inhabit the nurturing role that the Family Proclamation says belongs to females. And we don’t hear much about Heavenly Mother doing much “mothering.” So clearly heavenly gender roles don’t match earthly gender roles. 

Dr. Petrey uses the Church’s manual A Parent’s Guide to show that we don’t have to stick to the current binary thinking regarding gender and gender roles. 

“There is nearly as much variation within each gender as there is between the genders. Each human being is unique. There is no one model except the Redeemer of all mankind. Development of a person’s gifts or interests is one of life’s most enjoyable experiences. No one should be denied such growth.”

LDS ritual and rhetoric could embrace this variation, which could include homosexual relationships.  

————————————————————     

I appreciated Shawn Tucker’s My 22 Point Opinion on Temple Sealings

1. People don’t choose to be gay, to be only sexually attracted to people of their same sex.2. No one, I believe, would make that choice, since it is so socially frowned upon and since it does not lend itself to the advantages (of which there are many!) of heterosexual marriage.3. Since they don’t choose it, and since it is really born in them, I believe the gay people I know when they say that they do not feel that their attraction is wrong or a sin.4. Mormons typically think that such attraction is inherently wrong and against God’s plan, while gay people, especially gay Mormons, do not believe that their attraction is wrong or sinful.5. Mormons see heterosexual attraction as normal, natural, and even God-given.6. I believe gay Mormons when they say that they believe that their homosexual attraction is normal, natural, and God-given for them.7. Homosexual marriage seems to interrupt God’s plan, since such couples cannot have children in the traditional manner.8. That is the common argument against gay marriage.9. This, I believe, is partly why the church is placing so much emphasis on the family—to put up the traditional, heterosexual couple as the norm and their families as the only way to fulfill God’s work and plan.10. But I think that this emphasis has some bad consequences.11. This emphasis tells single people that they are not actually fulfilling God’s plan.12. It tells couples that cannot have kids that they are not fulfilling God’s plan.13 It tells couples that feel like they should not have kids that they are not fulfilling God’s plan.14. I believe that God can have a plan for His children that does not include having children—this happens for singles, for the infertile, for those who believe they should not have children.15. This can happen for gay couples.16. People who do not have children can be of great, great benefit to their ward, stake, church, and world.17. Their work can be just as important as having children. (This is a very important point—you might want to repeat it in your mind.)18. I can imagine God being happy with that work, in fact just as happy with that work as any other.19. I can imagine God very happy with same-sex attracted people finding each other, loving each other, fully committing themselves to each, and expressing that love and commitment physically.20. I can imagine God fully sanctioning gay marriage as right for that couple.21. I believe that the love that they share and develop here in mortality will accompany them in the next life, and that the “same sociality which exists among [them] here will exist among [them] there.” (D&C 130:2).22. I can imagine God sanctioning temple sealings of gay couples.

[theinsanecrayonbox]

Current Packverse setting and players ramblings and art under a cut to avoid dash spam

now fair warning, this has Omegaverse connotations BUT only with those who have the feral genes. other humans, nope; other mutants, nope. only ferals. and ferals come in male presenting Alpha and Omegas; female ferals are actually a mutation within the feral mutation itself, brought about by intermixing with non-ferals. this is also why most female ferals are much more animal presenting too. Alphas are like the standard human male; Omegas are more hyena-like with a pseudo penis, but they don’t give birth via that, they have female genitalia, but a masculine urinary tract; that helps with territory marking after all. gender presents in pups when they’re about a week old, as swelling around the gentalia goes down enough to either reveal testicles or the lack there of. Omegas have a period cycle that’s 30-40 days long, but they go into heat every 3-4 months (so either every other, or every third period). heats can be suppressed (as in the pheromones dampened) with herbal/medicinal supplements, but aside from that is a regular cycle. Alphas do go into rut upon catching the heat pheromones, and anyone familiar with Omegaverse themes knows what that means.

so, still with me after that info dump? want the art and characters now?

Romulus and Remus

yup these guys are in here, some of the oldest ferals still around. Romulus is an Alpha, while Remus is an Omega; as gender transitioning became more a thing, she made herself far more female presenting, but that leads to in like ancient Rome how she was thought of as male, thus the myths about the “brothers”. but since Rom knows how ferals should work, when he discovers that Victor is an Omega, he’s quite interested since those are rare these days (again, that trait is recessive unless the other parent is also a feral), thus also explaining why he made so many clones, to try to increase his potential breeding stock.

Zebadiah and Victoria Creed

Victor’s parents. We’ll get more into the family life after the the next image, but to note is that Victoria here is actually a generation or two away from a native “white wolf” feral Omega. so as Victor was growing up, she’s the one that recognized what he was. whereas with Zeb, he was a bit of a drunk, and would go on religious fueled zealot rants (which makes you winder why he’d marry a woman with “savage roots” huh?)

Luther, Victor, Saul, and Clara Creed

this comes in 2 parts, despite me showing all 4 siblings together, because actually there’s about a 14 year difference between Victor and Saul 

Luther is the eldest child, and is male (and most likely an Alpha), while Victor is the second born and an Omega. as i said above, Victoria recognized what he was, and tried to make sure he could pass for male (as in warning him about period and heats, supplying him with the correct herbs to take to suppress the heats), but when that happened...yeah...Luther being an Alpha was kinda shown, since he was affected by the heat pheromones and that was actually the trigger to Victor killing his brother (pie metaphor...yeah...). 

when that was discovered, Zeb locked him in the basement and tortured him right; that included him calling him a demon, a monster, in the skin of a man but deceiving with forbidden fruit sorta deal...he also went “you took my son from me so you will replace it yourself” because in his mind, Victor was not his son at all, so there was nothing wrong with this and so...Saul was born. Saul is Victor’s son, raised by his mother as his brother, because his father made her.

Clara is at most a year younger than Saul; Victoria tried to distract Zeb from doing things to Victor with herself as bait, so yeah she fell pregnant too.

Victor broke out by the time he was 16 and he ran away, but a couple years later he went back home and killed his father. he then steppe din to take care of his family, but he couldn’t really deal with Saul’s presence due to what he meant to him; the only reasons he didn’t kill him was because his mother begged him not to. thus the years of abuse he inflicted upon him, yet not on Clara.

Victor/Sabretooth, Saul, Clara Creed

after Victor forced Saul to disfigure Clara, she convinced him to run away. Victoria kinda lost it, so Victor set her up somewhere safe, and he went off to try to track down his siblings. Meanwhile, they went to the circus and had the adventure with Logan, which ended with Logan killing Saul. so when Victor finally found his sister and learned what happened, he started his hunt of Logan, because even though he hated what Saul was, he was still his pup.

Clara learned the truth between Victor and Saul from Victoria on her death bed (maybe even unintentionally, she might’ve had dementia at this point), many years after the death of her brother. She’s still around, and though she understands a bit now, she still won’t forgive him for what he did.

Victor went about his life normally, maintaining a regiment to keep his heats in control for the most part, and using birth control and also typically not taking male sexual partners. When he joined Weapon X with Logan though, they discovered his Omega status, and thought that breeding tehir own feral fighters was a great idea (probably Rom’s idea honestly). so they attempted to force a breeding between the two, but Victor escaped and gave birth to a still born son. this is why they all thought that Laura and Kyle were related to him, because they were both created by Weapon X. this would also explain why, to create Weapon H, they went and took samples from OML and Victor, despite the two being so similar, because Victor’s feral mutation is actually slightly better due to him being an Omega.

Graydon, Clarice (Ferguson)/Blink, Kyle (Gibney)/Wild Child, Hudson Creed

Victor’s kids!

Graydon was actually carried by Victor; when he was starting to get serious with Leni Zauber/Mystique, before they actually had sex he told her the truth about him being an Omega. Mystique, realizing she hadn’t yet proven her own gender identity as Leni, decided to say she was a transwoman. so Mystique impregnated Victor, and the pregnancy went unrealized until the last leg of it so at the birth, when Mystique claimed the child was stillborn, Victor didn’t question it; in reality she stole Graydon away, but when he didn’t display any powers, abandoned him as usual. so the years later when Victor meets Graydon he’s honestly shocked to know he was alive, and actually didn’t believe his claims of being his kid, since you know, he can’t sire children, but Mystique confirmed it, so yeah.

not pictured, but to note; while Victor was working with Frank Payne/Constrictor the two of them slipped up a few times while drunk and did sleep together. Victor did fall pregnant, but he miscarries, and never told Frank.

Clarice is his adopted daughter, rescued from Sinister’s clutches when he was with Birdy; her family gave her to Sinister to “cure her mutations” when she was young, and he refused to give her back to her family. this also led to the three living at the X-Mansion for a coupe years while Victor raised his kids and Birdy’s death is what made him leave.

Kyle was part of the Weapon X shenanigans (more of that below with Laura). it turns out that while with Weapon X, they harvested eggs from Victor, and Kyle seems to be one of the children born from that. it was assumed that Logan was his father, but there’s been questions of that now. Kyle is an Alpha.

Kyle and Clarice end up working for X-Factor when their both adults as a couple.

Hudson is Victor’s youngest (and he’s still unborn/a baby, not the adult shown here whoops lol) and his biological father is Old Man Logan. Victor went into heat while with Weapon X-force (over usage of healing factor neutralized his suppressants and birth control) and OML, either not remembering that Victor was an Omega OR his Victor wasn’t one, went after him, and succumbed to the heat pheromones. OML wanted Victor not to have Hudson, so Victor left the team for a time and started training Belle instead, before eventually going back and bringing her with him. pretty sure Hudson’s an Alpha, but i’m not settled on that yet since as i said, he’s still either unborn or a baby right now.

Laura Kinney/Wolverine, Bellona (Kinney) Creed/Talon, Gabby Kinney/Honey Badger, Kylie Kinney/Sabretooth

as stated above, when Laura and Kyle first showed up, it was thought that they were both created using Victor and Logan’s DNA from their “breeding project”. it was kinda disproved though that Laura was...at least in a large enough sense. HOWEVER, Alchemax seemed to actually do that; with each new clone iteration they created of Laura, they changed the genes ever so slightly, hoping to encourage a healing factor (since this was post T-mist). so while Laura has maybe 5% Victor in her, Belle and gabby both have more from a combination of them using Victor’s eggs as a base, as well as modifying for the healing factor. this led to Belle’s eventual mutation being the Creed claws, rather than the Howlett ones.

After SHIELD takes custody of Belle, and her mutation triggers and she “sheds” her old skin, Victor is offered the opportunity to take custody of her to help acclimate her to her powers and what not, which he does. she then goes back to Weapon X-Force with him and is part of the team.

Kylie is from an alternate reality where Victor and Logan’s roles were reversed (good/evil at the least) so she’s in essence the Sabretooth version of X-23.

all 4 of them are female. in Laura’s case, the didn’t use the Omega genes from Victor so she doesn’t have any of those. Gabby and Belle might have some of those, but not enough for them to affect them. also, Belle might be sterile due to her albinism.

Logan Howlett/Wolverine, Old Man Logan, Daken, Jimmy Hudson

yeah, the Wolverines are included because they are important.

Logan did not raise Laura here, Victor did; he refused to because he thought she was part Victor, and since Victor was kind of living with the Xmen for the time, he just ran away from his responsibilities like usual. after a couple years he did get over himself and try to reconnect with Laura before his death, but he never reached out to Kyle in the same way.

OML’s from the dystopian future, but whether it’s this settings’ future or another is now debated, since in his past he raised Laura, while here he didn’t; could it be age mixing up his memories or just reality shenanigans? in any case, as stated above, he’s Hudson’s biological father, but wants nothing to do with him. he’s...trying to push victor to be better sure, but having a kid...he is afraid that because Hudson is Victor’s child, that means he will go bad. he also was not fully in favor for Victor training belle, since you know, he kinda has a thing against Gabby.

oh and both Logans are Alphas duh

Daken’s pretty much unchanged. he’s an Alpha, and thanks to Rom’s upbringing, knows about Omegas and all that stuff. he’s accepted Laura and Gabby as his sisters, debated whether he’ll do the same for Belle (since she identifies as a Creed), and he does not claim Kyle as his brother but he doesn’t hate him or anything.

Jimmy’s from the Ultimateverse where they didn’t have the Alpha/Omega dynamics, so i’m still in debate if that just automatically makes him an Alpha, or if he’ll have a transition period as he fully adjusts to this reality and might present as an Omega. he doesn’t really interact with the others much...i just like Jimmy

Arkady Rossovitch/Omega Red, Lazar Engel

included despite not being a feral, because Arkady is Hudson’s adoptive father, and Belle’s adoptive father/best friend

Omega Red is pretty much the same save for this specific point; he’s always been gay. when they did the super solider treatment (which they were more willing to do to him, because his orientation meant he was more expendable) they made him a eunic because 1) gay people are bad in their minds and 2) it’d mean less distractions for their weapon (you know, no emotions = perfect weapon). also with the radiation in his body, it was just less body parts to worry about i guess. when he was resurrected, he was brought back intact (yay new body) but when SICKLE got him, his brother Vassily probably made sure to repeat the process...because he hates his brother...but then again, with better medical stuff now, maybe he was just given a vasectomy instead of a full genitalia removal.

Arkady and Victor start a relationship when he joins Weapon X-Force, and oddly kinda falls in love with the idea of being Hudson’s father, since he never thought of having kids (because evil weapon, and also was unable to). he also connects with Belle, and the two become bffs real quick too, which leads to him and Vic hooking up even more i think.

Lazar is one of Red’s clones...or a clone of one of his clones. Belle finds him when trying to hunt down Red after Victor’s death, so the two of them wind up teaming up and bonding over the whole “clone of a clone” thing. when the whole family finally gets back together, Arkady and Lazar are a bit apprehensive around one another, and the debate of “are you my son or brother” comes up, but Lazar follows Belle’s lead and just calls Arkady his father.

[freshpickeddeath]

CwPWHM: They/them reaction

So...I was going to post something like this on Dylan Marron’s youtube, so I could directly discuss it with other listeners, but I didn’t realize Dylan stopped posting his Conversations episodes on his channel, or something along those lines (I didn’t find the episode on youtube, so I don’t know if it’s not there or I just looked in the wrong place?)

Anyway, this episode is probably the only episode so far that actually made me feel angry while I was listening. It’s probably because the legitimacy of they/them pronouns is a sore point for me, since I am an agender individual who is currently living with my family, of which my father is outright transphobic. So, I admit that I have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to people calling non-binary genders and gender identity fake, because I’m used to that reaction usually being followed by insults. So, I will recognize that I have a bias against Lennox, and feel a but defensive.

(full reaction under cut)

That being said, I feel like Lennox used very circular logic. His whole defense felt like it was “This is the way things are because that is the way things are” and even when Lindsey and Dylan tried to tell him about how things are from the opposite point of view, he mostly shut them down without really even considering things? Like, I understand that going from believing in a strict binary system to accepting gender as a spectrum separate from biological sex is a big step, and I was happy that he did budge a little bit by the end, but I just feel that Dylan and Lindsey were actually taking what he said and directly responding to it, while Lennox just responded to Lindsey’s explanations with outright refusal, no matter how much she tried to explain it in a way that, even if he doesn’t accept it as truth, he could instead see as a different point of view instead of, as he said it, a “delusion.”

One thing that I do think could have been used a lot more was the fact he viewed trans identity as a mental illness, and from what I have seen from both within and without the community, this is something that can often be used as a point of conversational compromise, where people can come to some agreement, even if some of the finer points of identity is still complicated. Yes, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. It is a mental quality that can and often does disrupt the life of the people who experience it. However, what a lot of people who don’t agree with trans identity (I’m trying to avoid words like “transphobes” because it might be too weighted a word for this particular discussion, especially because he specifically mentioned feeling offended by being called a bigot or homophobe), is that:

1. treating gender dysphoria does not “cure” someone of transgenderism. A person has dysphoria because they are transgender and their mental make-up relating to gender does not match their sex-based characteristics. A cis person does not (to my knowledge, at least.) doesn’t suddenly develop gender dysphoria overnight, save for maybe cases where dysphoria is not noticeable or acknowledged until later in life (and in that case, I still consider the person trans, and they just did not realize it prior, rather than calling them “a cis person who became trans”).

and 2. in most cases, treating mental illness always means giving the person what they need to cope with symptoms and function in life. Even if you want to call being trans a mental illness, rather than an identity that predisposes a person to certain types of mental illness, it does not change the fact that the best treatment is to help them make their body match what their mind thinks it should to the extent that is healthy, whether that involves surgery, medication, or clothing items that help to reconcile the disconnect. If you meet a person who has depression or anxiety, you don’t tell them that they’re wrong about the world and punish them when they show symptoms (no matter what my dad thinks thinks this method works *cough* >_> ). You give them medication, talk about what makes them feel that way, and then, once you learn what is triggering these feelings, you remove the triggers that you are able to and give them the tools and treatments necessary to cope with the rest. So, why should it be any different for trans people? Even if you see being trans and being mentally ill, you should still use their pronouns and allow them to have the tools to minimize their dysphoria (binders, packers, access to the right bathrooms, etc.) instead of telling them that being trans is “wrong” and telling them that their symptoms are unimportant and that they shouldn’t have access to treatment. Because guess what: every psychologist I’ve encountered, either personally or online, has agreed that accepting a person’s gender identity is better for their mental health than trying to convince them otherwise.

Furthermore, there is lots of evidence that gender and sex are not the same thing. Sex is only what role you play in reproduction (assuming you choose to participate in it) and the associated parts you develop to fulfill that role. A person who does not want to reproduce, or who chooses to engage in non-reproductive intercourse, does not experience any pain for doing so, just as changing the parts you use for intercourse does not affect anyone except you and your chosen partner(s). Gender, on the other hand, is the way your brain processes your body, your role in life, and the world in general, regardless of what it looks like in your pants. Science has already found evidence that the brain activity of the binary genders are different, and that the brain waves of trans people more closely resemble those of their identifying gender than those of their biological sex’s corresponding gender. Also, when looking at world cultures, both binary and non-binary gender non-conformance to  birth sex has a long history, rather than being the new-age “snowflake” identity that so many people accuse non-binary identity of being. For this reason, among a few others that I’m aware of but not knowledgeable enough in to fully discuss, many scientists are fully open to the idea that gender as a spectrum may be able to be proven through scientific observation someday, once detailed study into the brains of non-binary individuals is able to be done. So, the idea that here being only 2 sexes proves that their are only 2 genders is already in doubt, if not fully disproved.

But even if you ignore both the psychological and scientific implications of the debate, refusing to use a persons pronouns just because you doubt the legitimacy of their identity still just sounds like stubbornness, at least from where I’m standing. Dylan pointed out multiple times it doesn’t cost a person anything to call someone “they”. Even if Lennox doesn’t 100% agree with the reasons behind it, it doesn’t affect his life to say “Okay, Lindsey (or any other nonbinary person). I respect that being referred to as ‘they’ makes you happy and more comfortable. So, I will do it.” in fact, there are points in the episode it sounds like he is willing to do so for some people, if they ask politely. However, the fact he still complains endlessly about being “forced” to do so, even in cases where the person is just calmly asking for him to acknowledge their view of their own identity, does not sit right with me, and kind of makes me doubt any hope for him that I had begun to feel. It comes off more like he’s just trying to earn brownie points at the beginning of the conversation, to give the illusion he’s more open-minded than he is, before immediately proving without a second thought how close-minded he actually is on he issue.

I don’t know. I open to people who aren’t quite so close to the issue saying that he was more open-minded than I saw him as, just as I try to be open to people who say “I don’t agree, but I’ll still accept that you think that way”. He wasn’t the worse person in the world - he didn’t insult Lindsey for being non-binary or say anything outright harmful - but I still feel like he could have been better, at the same time, even without outright accepting Lindsey’s point of view.

[anonbinarynarrative]

Fran's Question: Is Non-Binary A Gender?

Response:

I think that while technically non-binary would not be considered a gender by contemporary society, I would consider it its own gender. As language denotes what society considers what is and isn’t a gender, and non-binary as a concept has managed to forge its way into the conversation that today’s queer communities are having about gender, I would say it connotates itself as a gender. What makes a gender a gender is definitely a controversial and subversive topic, as gender is rooted in its binary. The non-binary identifier is a rejection of gender altogether, therefore making it fundamentally what could be considered an anti-gender or the penultimate anti-gender. However, as gender is a social construct, and being non-binary comes along with the notion of awareness of this fact, accepting “non-binary” as a gender could be a way to invite a greater conversation about why gender is significant in our society.

To say definitively whether non-binary is a gender would demand a redefining of gender in society, which goes against the nature of being non-binary to begin with. However the non-binary identifier has all the elements of what a gender has. It designates how a person prefers to display a form of gender expression. To me, this is what gender means, but without the deeply engrained historical context of the dual-gender binary (male and female) it’s hard to say whether the non-binary label can really fit into that same category.

Going off this idea really begs the question of what defines a gender beyond a simple surface-level understanding of male and female identities. Gender in today’s world is weaponized to a certain extent enough so that people feel they need to ascribe to certain modes of behavior in order to feel as though they’re “getting gender right”. As I’ve contemplated before, being non-binary purposefully goes against these ideals and non-binary people in my experience usually set out as much as they can to avoid performing gender roles because they see them as problematic.

On the other hand, one could argue that the existence of the non-binary denomination is a totally revolutionary phenomenon that should not be taken for granted as far as its potential for opening up new possibilities for completely redefining how gender is understood in society. To some, non-binary people represent a possibility for a complete reconstruction of how gender can be enacted in people’s daily lives. As gender is now commonly acknowledged, at least by young people and especially by queer people, as a social construct, it has the potential to perhaps rewire society completely on the basis of the non-binary model.

With this in mind, one might be compelled to wonder just how far an idea like this can go after the male/female gender binary has been so deeply rooted in global society since essentially the beginning of human consciousness. Whether or not general members of society would be willing to redefine the entire concept of gender in order to erase the problematic impact that gender roles have had on the development of social culture is something I could not answer in this essay, although I’m sure someone out there has hypothesized about what could happen. We know that human nature is persistent in certain elements of itself, and that many people have very strongly held beliefs about the biological difference between cisgender men and women which, according to these people, disprove any possible progress towards a gender-neutral or genderfluid society. What also seems to be true is that the people who are aware of the people who hold these beliefs dismiss them as arbitrary and transphobic. In my opinion, the dialectic of people both understanding and misunderstanding the gender binary through the lens of “science” is what prevents most people, even young people from deviating from gender roles. This is because, likely, they are so historically engrained in everyday life.

If society can simply acknowledge how much it’s grown and changed already in ways that don’t have to do with gender but have to do with other longstanding belief systems, such as homosexuality and cisgender feminism, I’m sure people will get over it, should that be the direction the world takes within the next millennium or so.

[epic-games-official]

Thanks for answering my ask about biological sex. I saw an intersex person's post earlier she said intersex ppl don't have different chromosomes than X or Y or different gametes than ovum or sperm so like that makes sense too I guess I don't understand why bio sex is now fake instead of just complicated??? sex=/=gender why does this matter to being trans we're trans we're not intersex

Yea, I’m happy to give a detailed explanation of this.

There is an estimate that about 1.7% of the population is intersex. However, a very large portion of that number (1.5/1.7 = 88%) is from a condition called “late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia,” which involves a mutation on one of the chromosomes (not X or Y, can’t remember which but I think it was 12 or 5?) that causes issues with translation of the enzyme 21-hydroxylase. (look at this pic) Because of the lower concentration of the enzyme in the adrenal glands, the reactant 17 alpha hydroxyprogesterone builds up, which inevitably goes along a different pathway to become testosterone. In the end, the person has an excess of androgens. In the early-onset cases, this happened extensively during prenatal development, and the baby often has ambiguous genitalia, as well as severe health problems related to salt wasting. In the late-onset case, the child will just go through puberty a little earlier (beginning to grow hair around 7 or 8 years old) and be hairier and shorter. In boys they might also have a bigger dick. In girls, about 10% will be infertile. 

So essentially, the idea that “most intersex people don’t have different X or Y chromosomes” come from the inclusion of LOCAH in that statistic, where they make up 88% of the statistic. Yet, hardly anyone would ever consider LOCAH to be a form of intersexuality, except perhaps in the 5% of cases where it caused infertility. Otherwise it just seems like genetic variation in the population.

There are other forms of intersexuality that are caused by things other than different combinations of X or Y chromosomes, so I’m glad this is brought up. It’s actually sometimes argued that scientists shot themselves in the foot a bit by naming those chromosomes differently and calling them the “sex chromosomes.” In reality, those two chromosomes mostly code for biological sex, but they are not solely responsible. I’ve explained above how another chromosome codes for an enzyme responsible for conversion between hormones in the body. There are more of those, and there is a handful of forms of intersexuality with similar causes. 

On the topic of “what is biological sex?” I’ll repeat what I said in that answer - there isn’t really a clear, single, satisfying definition, just the same as there is still no clear definition of “life.” The current definition of “life” has many flaws to it, and is still highly disputed. Same goes for sex.

Most sexually dimorphic traits exist along a bimodal distribution, like so:

Where on the left, you have most men falling within some range, on the right, you have most women falling within some range. But of course, you do have some women on the left and some men on the right. This is true for height, voice, etc.

This is even true for genitalia! That’s precisely what is meant when people say “ambiguous genitalia.”

Here is something called the Prader Scale, which shows you the degree of virilization that an XX female can have on her genitalia. At some point, she will basically have a non-functioning penis.

Here we have a case of a woman with predominantly XY genes in her body being able to give birth. What this should demonstrate is how it is not always going to be straightforward that XX will allow for typical female fertility and XY for typical male.

Also, I really disagree with the line of reasoning some people use, that because these are rare cases they don’t count. Sure, you can have a model that works 99% of the time. But if it doesn’t work 100% of the time, it isn’t a completely accurate description of reality; it’s just an approximate model. This is fine for the Layman discussing these things, but it isn’t for the scientist who is trying to be precise. For scientists, these exceptions disprove the rule.

So what I think makes sense is the following:

* You can define a binary in terms of gamete production and fertility for the sake of reproductive models. These models certainly have their uses in some fields of science.

* However, when describing the biophysical reality of sexual development, it benefits you to take a systems biology approach. This means considering sex to be the combination of multiple factors - genes, what hormones are present & at what ages, what hormonal receptors are present (does the person have an insensitivity?), has the person had anything done to artificially change aspects of their sex, such as SRS or HRT?, etc.

What the latter description means for trans people is that it’s impossible with current medical science to change your sex completely from one end of the spectrum to the other, but it is possible to medically induce androgyny. The silver lining is that one can do this in such a way that socially they appear to be completely on the other end of things, so they “pass” and everyone can just think of them as being that gender for simplicity’s sake.

So tl;dr I agree with you that sex is just more complicated, but not non-existent. Although I think “sex does not exist” or “sex is a social construct” is a linguistically messy way of attempting to say the same thing (that it’s more complicated). So I think the issue is more that they are trying to say something but they aren’t phrasing it correctly, which demonstrates a lack of clear understanding of the topic. You aren’t wrong for criticizing this.

Lastly, on that point “sex =/= gender,” I want to just say that the word “gender” is really ill-defined. Before the 1950′s, it was used exclusively for nouns in foreign languages. In the 50′s, sexologist John Money began using it to mean.. well, a weird mixture of ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender roles’ (he didn’t separate them well, because, y’know, 50′s values). Over time the word took on multiple adaptations within academia. 

Feminists use it to mean ‘gender roles/expression,’ hence Judith Butler’s idea that “gender is socially constructed.” If you read on that idea, the discussion pretty much always surrounds nature vs nurture of gender roles. 

Psychologists and trans activists use the word ‘gender’ to mean ‘gender identity.’ 

Biologists and, to be honest, most of society use the word to be synonymous with ‘sex.’ This is pretty much why trans people so often get obnoxious responses to saying like, them: “I’m female to male transgender, my gender is male” response: “But you have a vagina!!!1″ The person responding obviously defines the word to mean ‘sex’ (because that is how it was used in the middle & high school biology classrooms!).

tl;dr All around there’s a lot of confusion and everything is a mess. 8)