#because yes i am not neurotypical and as a result that influences my work but it is ALSO true that there are many reasons

[inkskinned]

you wanted to be a good friend, because you loved your friends, but the truth was that everyone else somehow had a pamphlet on being normal that you never received. most of the time you learn by trial-and-error. you are terrified of the next big mistake you make, because it seems like the rules are completely arbitrary.

you've learned to keep the prickly parts of your personality in a stormcloud under your bed - as if they're a second version of you; one that will make your friends hate you. it feels feral, burning, ugly.

instead, you have assembled habits based on the statistical likelihood of pleasing others. you're a good listener, which is to say - if you do speak up, you might end up saying the wrong thing and scaring off someone, but people tend to like someone-who-listens. or you've got no true desires or goals, because people like it when you're passive, mutable. you're "not easy to fluster" which is to say - your emotions are fundamentally uninteresting to others around you; so you've learned to control them to a degree that you can no longer really feel them happening.

you have long suspected something is wrong with you, but most of the time, googling doesn't help. you are so-used to helping-yourself, alone and with no handbook. the reek of your real self feels more like a horrible joke - you wake up, and, despite all your preparations, suddenly the whole house is full of smoke. the real you is someone waiting to ruin your other-life, the one where you're normal and happy. the real-self is unpredictable, angry.

your real self snarls when people infantilize the whole situation. because if you were really suffering, everyone seems to think you'd be completely unable to cope. but you already learned the rules, so you do know how to cope, and you have fucking been coping. it's not black-and-white. it's not that you are healed during the other times - it's just that you're able to fucking try. and honestly, whenever you show symptoms, it's a really fucking bad sign.

because the symptoms you have are ugly and unmanageable for others. your symptoms aren't waifish white girl things. they're annoying and complicated. they will be the subject of so many pretentious instagram reels. if they cared about you, they'd just show up on time. you care, a lot, so deeply it burns you. you like to picture a world where the comments read if they loved you, they'd never need glasses to see. but since that's a rule you've seen repeated - "one must never be late or you are a bad friend" - you constantly worry about being late and leave agonizingly early. there are no words for how you feel when you're still late; no matter how hard you were trying.

so you have to make up for it. you have to make up for that little horrible real you that you keep locked in a cabinet. you are bad at answering emails so every project you make has to be perfect. you are weird and sensitive so you have to learn to be funny and interesting. you are an inconvenience to others, so you become as smooth as possible, buffing out all the rough parts.

all this. all this. so people can pass their hands over you and just tell you just the once -how good you are. you're a good friend. you're loveable.

[chappedlipjournal]

Im tired but i need to type this out. Yesterday a guy at work asked me out (not a direct coworker but we do work for the same employer) and he did it by asking to hang out over our work im-ing software. Not the smoothest move. I did not reply bcuz i had to leave work on time to make my pt appt and i replied this morning with the help of my lovely lovely friends and now we are getting coffee on friday during a break which is fine. I held my boundaries and i feel good about that. My friends and myself keep reminding me that i dont owe him anything. I dont get asked out/hit on often, lumping them together despite them being different imo, because i have the same reaction each time. My relationship with my sexuality and my romantic orientation is complicated. Ive identified as ace for almost a decade now (wow!) But romance has always been a struggle and here lately ive circled back to the term aromantic but i still want that depe intimate connection with someone. I have a hard time figuring out if im romantically attracted to someone. I had crushes as a kid. One on a boy at daycare. Another on a boy in high school. And passing fancies of oh thats the kind of boy you have a crush on. And then nothing since. I dont think the crushes i had were disingenuous or faked. I look back on them fondly. But the last crush on a boy i had was when i was a freshman in high school. Then in college i met someone and i had an insanely difficult time telling if i had a crush on them but i dont think them leaving me resulted in a platonic reaction. But thats something i will never get closure for.

But whenever this happens i immediately jump to like twenty years in the future thinking would this person want to listen to taylor swift with me always and not get tired of eating pancakes every weekend and be alright with my schedule and routines etc etc and i cant ever picture the answer being yes? And like right now i dont know this guy. I know his name. I know he likes critical role. I know where he works. Thats it. Which is fine. But there are so many blanks and its overwhelming and slightly terrifying.

I almost always feel like ive been duped somehow. That i missed whatever they were putting down and picked it up by accident. I wasnt flirting with him. I wasnt trying to impress him. My coworker was asking if there was something that interested me in him when i saw him and i thought oh hes here to do his job. And she laughed and i knew i failed that test. But i dont know why.

This is all much further complicated by the fact that i really do think im autistic. I dont think i have neurotypical views of these things. And i wonder if he/someone would be okay with what that actually means. If they dont mind the stimming. If they dont mind my routines. If they dont mind my echolalia. And again i cant picture the answer being yes. And i wonder if how i view romance and relationships and everything else is more influenced by autism than anything else.

Ive been listening to taylor swift and ive realized ive never really felt the way she describes in any of her songs. Ever. And i know they are dramatized and romanticized and everything else. But so are all love songs.

I did go on a date with a guy when I was in England several years ago. We were touring the oxford, i think, castle which was not a castle anymore. And we started talking and he asked me to dinner and i said yes because i was flattered. But i was like 20 and he was like 28 and i was like oh we are in wildly different stages in life and i never spoke to him again. I dont remember his name.

And i am flattered when i am asked out. But i also feel guilty. And caught off guard. And wide eyed like a deer in the headlights. I become hyper aware that people are interpreting my actions and words andaybe picking up things i am not intending to put out.

When i was in jr high i got asked to the dances and i said yes to one and i think no to the other. A boy i rode the bus with every day for years asked me to the dance and i said yes because i felt bad saying no. And he asked me because i was nice to him. I think i said no to the other boy. But i dont remember. Im sure he does. But i know he asked me because i was nice to him.

I cant tell how much of these thoughts are queer thoughts, how much may be autism, how much is just me. Either way i have no idea what i am going to tell this man when we get coffee. And i know i dont have to tell him anything. I dont think i will feel better until its over with.

[himbohargreeves]

The link between diet and autism: a critical analysis of the recent Earth Locker episode and a chance for River to relive her lab report title writing days

Link to the original video

So as I already mentioned I’ve seen a few people talking about the recent episode of the Earth Locker (a podcast by Robert Sheehan, Tom Hopper, and Bryon Knight) where they talk with Tom and his wife Laura about their experiences raising their autistic son. I watched the whole episode and while there were a lot of good points made, there was also some misinformation, statements that were poorly explained and could be misinterpreted, and a couple of pretty harmful ideas put across which I’m gonna go into below. 

Disclaimer one: I’m gonna be saying a lot of stuff that I’m not going to be posting sources for. This is because everything I’m saying comes from my experiences as an autistic person, my experiences working as a support worker for adults with autism where I am currently a key worker for two autistic individuals, my work related training on autism, mental health, and diet & nutrition, and my knowledge from my psychology degree in which I also spent a lot of time studying biology and physiology. This is all just stuff that I know, and at some point I might try to add some sources but I’m writing this fresh off watching and making notes on this video so my energy is already running a little low and I’d rather focus on getting my points across instead of having to take time to source every piece of information. 

Disclaimer two: The purpose of this post isn’t to attack or defend any of the people involved in the podcast. This is also in no way a criticism of Tom and Laura’s parenting. This is purely a criticism of the discussion that took place on the podcast, not on any of the choices they’ve made for their son.

Disclaimer three: I’m going to be using the phrase “challenging behaviour” a lot while I’m explaining things as this is the term used in most modern research and is what we use at work. This basically describes any behaviour that causes harm to the individual or to other people around them, or behaviour that is detrimental to the individual’s wellbeing. 

So the main thing I want to go into with this is the misinformation and misinterpretation of information that was central to the discussion in this podcast, and that was around the connection between diet and autism. Most of the things Tom and Laura said about the effects of diet weren’t incorrect, but it wasn’t explained accurately and missed out on some key points so let’s go: 

In terms of whether diet can “cause” autism: no it can’t. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest it does. It also can’t “worsen” autism because autism isn’t something that can get “worse” or “better”. A person with autism can develop and learn new skills and they can also regress (and diet can influence this, which I’ll go into further on), but an autistic person at a lower stage of development does not have “worse” autism than a person at a higher stage of development. 

Poor diet can have an impact on autistic people in the same way as with neurotypical people. If we eat junk, we tend to feel like junk as a result, and when we feel like junk it can be harder to concentrate and carry out our usual day to day tasks. However, autistic people are also significantly more likely to suffer from digestive problems and food intolerances, and so for a lot of autistic people (or parents of autistic children) diet may be something that requires close attention. So saying that an autistic individual’s challenging behaviour could be a result of their diet isn’t necessarily untrue, but it does massively oversimplify the issue. The challenging behaviour is more likely a response to pain or discomfort, (as well as frustration if they are unable to communicate this), which is caused by a diet unsuitable for this specific individual, which is caused by an intolerance or digestive problem, which they were at greater risk of developing due to their autism. It’s worth mentioning that medical professionals still don’t know why this comorbidity exists. 

So, referring back to Tom and Laura’s experience with their son, they were explaining that their son’s challenging behaviour spiked while he was on a high-sugar diet. Laura also added that he had been suffering from increasingly frequent infections in his ears and throat while eating these foods, which makes sense because high blood sugar levels can weaken the immune system and make us more susceptible to infections. They then explained that these infections stopped following a tonsillectomy and a change to a sugar-free diet, which then also lead to a complete reduction in their son’s challenging behaviours. Again, implying that the reduction in behaviours is a result of cutting out the sugar is oversimplifying. It’s most likely that their son’s challenging behaviours were a response to the pain the infections were causing, which may or may not have been linked to his sugar intake. Either way, autistic people are all individuals and so while a reduction in sugar intake has benefited their son, by no means does that mean that all autistic people should be following a low-sugar diet or that this would be beneficial for them. 

This isn’t entirely on topic but there are two other things I want to address in terms of what Tom and Laura said while talking about their son, the first being when talking about their initial approach to their children's’ diet before they were aware that their son was autistic. Laura essentially said that she wanted their children to be able to try different foods and that the focus would be on education about health and diet rather than cutting “unhealthy” foods out of their diets completely, which I thought was a great way to approach things. However she then added that, had they known about their son’s autism at the time, they may have approached things differently, which I was confused about. I think (and hope) she was just trying to say that if they had known upfront that sugar particularly seemed to be detrimental to their son, they would have reduced that straight away rather than having to use a process of trial and error which makes sense, but just the way it was phrased set off alarm bells because it sounded like she was implying that they would have controlled his diet more strictly if they had known he was autistic. Hopefully this isn’t the case because autistic people don’t need to have their choices limited if there is no detriment to their health or wellbeing. 

Another thing I was confused about, and I’m not sure if this was supposed to be more of a weird analogy rather than factual information, was when Tom started talking about “sensory glands” when talking about their son’s hypersensitivity to sounds. I think his exact words were something along the line of saying that the high sugar levels were causing his “sensory glands” to “swell” which was heightening his sensitivity. And like... unless I missed something there is no such thing as a sensory gland and they certainly don’t swell up when we’re over stimulated or when we have a lot of sugar. Sugar triggers high dopamine responses in our brains which then leads to cravings and can cause spikes and crashes in mood, and it can also cause inflammation, all of which can cause discomfort and in turn could lead to an increase in sensitivity, but as far as I know sugar doesn’t have a direct effect on our senses. 

Now on to the elephant in the room and the two big, glaring no-no's in this podcast, both of which were said by Tom (these are not direct quotes because I didn’t get a chance to jot them down in time so I’m paraphrasing slightly):

“we cannot ignore the correlation between rising autism rates and the increase in fast food consumption” (spoiler alert: yes we can)

“I really want to get to the cause of autism and see if there’s something that can be done to prevent it”

So, first of all, autism isn’t something that needs to be prevented. Autistic people are not a detriment to society. We don’t have an illness, we just experience the world differently and, in some cases, require additional support to live our lives as fully as possible. Obviously it can’t be ruled out that fast food, or anything else, has a part to play in rising rates, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it does and correlation absolutely does not equal causation. Gay representation in the media has also been steadily rising with rates of autism diagnosis. Does this mean that seeing gay people on TV makes people autistic? No. As Laura briefly mentioned, it is far more likely that the rising rates are actually due to an increase in understanding about autism and the accessibility of diagnosis, especially when you consider how many people are still slipping under the radar even with all the knowledge we have today.

I appreciate that most of this podcast is just a conversation between friends about various topics, but when the goal of this podcast is to “raise awareness”, and with the shared platform the people involved have, casual statements like these are incredibly dangerous. With the general implication that if everyone lived a healthy, clean, and organic lifestyle, we could reduce the number of autistic people in our society, this not only puts the “blame” on parents of autistic people, and on the individuals themselves, but is also dipping into eugenics territory. And while I don’t think the intentions behind either statement were malicious, they were incredibly ignorant, and the fact that they went completely unchallenged was concerning and made me pretty uncomfortable. 

There were still a lot of positives in the podcast. I’m really glad Laura was also involved because she definitely came across as being the most educated on the subject of the four of them and did make a point of bringing up issues with diagnosis (particularly among girls with autism), her and Tom’s privilege in terms of being able to work with doctor’s to find out as much as possible about their son’s dietary needs and to then provide him with a tailored diet, and also addressing the issues with “high functioning vs low functioning” when Rob asked about the “severity” of their son’s autism. However there was still an undeniable amount of inaccurate or poorly presented information, as well as some things that were just plain incorrect and offensive. I appreciate that a lot of this was coming from personal experience rather than being generalised information, but I think this could have been communicated a lot more clearly and effectively considering the intention was to spread awareness, and the episode would have massively benefitted from the input of an autistic adult. Rob specifically had a lot of questions about autism in general and I think they would have been much better answered by somebody with autism, rather than a parent giving an outside perspective of their child’s experiences. It’s always a little uncomfortable to watch four neurotypical people discuss autism, regardless of how positive their intentions are, and I don’t think it would have been a great challenge for them to find an autistic person who would have been willing to talk about the topic with them. 

[willowashmaple]

Go get lost.

When I was in high school (the 1990s, believe it or not!), I recall reading a passage in a book that read: “Americans are the people of entitlement.” These days, it’s probably better to say, Americans are the people of grievances.

I feel that much of the toxicity in the United States today comes from this culture of grievances and resulting tribalism and polarization. Some may call it “identity politics” or “oppression Olympics” or “social justice movement” but I see exactly the same thing happening among the conservatives and nationalists too. Grievance seems to be the driving force of public discourse these days. 

Because of this, I try to make conscious choices not to resort to grievances. I do not like to hide behind whatever the “labels” that might be politically and socially expedient to wear. Human lives are complex. Sure, I am autistic, POC, immigrant, and queer. But I also grew up in a life of privilege, and to the extent my parents could, they gave me opportunities at getting good education; I have never experienced poverty until I was adult. With every “oppression brownie point” I may have, I can also be an oppressor, too. And I live on a stolen Indigenous land that I thought of as a Land of Opportunity and American Dreams. Moreover, character and agency matter. Much of my life is a product of series of bad choices I made. as well as good ones. It would be unfair to blame others for the consequences of my moral and ethical choices. 

But sometimes, I wonder if I am suppressing too much of my sorrows and frustrations in hope of not creating a scene, or to not “rock the boat” or to make other people “comfortable,” The truth being, I’m kind of at a breaking point when it comes to this. 

The word “autism” was coined 110 years ago (1910) by a Swiss psychiatrist, from the Greek word αὐτός (self). This was perhaps because to a neurotypical observer, an autistic person seem too “self-absorbed” or even “narcissistic” and unable to “connect” with others, as if there is nothing outside their life other than themselves. 

The truth is, it is more likely that autistic persons lack a strong sense of self. We tend to be influenced by others. Often we don’t have a very clear idea of who we are and are prone to become “chameleons.” And we try too hard to fit in. We care way way too much about what other people feel or think about us, and that’s even more anxiety-inducing and frustrating because we cannot easily guess (but we usually know if they’re lying or bullshitting to us). 

About 10 years ago I began getting involved in all types of community organizations, activist groups, and clubs in hope that I could find some sense of meaning and purpose in life. I wanted to be worthwhile. I had volunteered for a few non-profit organizations on an almost daily basis. To an extent I enjoyed this experience and I met so many people that I would never have had. I was also part of the local art scene. I’ve shown my artwork in galleries and even had two solo exhibits during this period. I was busy and always on the go. 

But I found myself not getting the same kind of respect the neurotypicals get. I was at best being tolerated and humored, sometimes even pitied, and sooner or later I found out that everyone was talking shit about me behind my back.  I know people look at me like a freak of nature or an imbecile. They don’t tell me that in my face but they sure cannot hide it and I certainly know it. And I saw numerous times that the organizations that I got myself involved with imploded and dissolved because of me. 

I’m tired of making victims of everyone around me by merely existing, as though I’m some sort of radioactive pollutant. Yes, I have done a lot of stupid things (in retrospect) while I was overzealous and overly devoted to the “cause of the day.” I took the missions and works of those organizations very seriously -- too seriously -- and worked very hard to get them to be in a better position than how I found them. Sure, I was not perfect. I could have done much better, and I have a tendency to become extremely territorial when I take my work seriously. I know I’ve alienated quite a few people because of this. But I was always the one who was blamed for whatever the shit that happened. While in my face they feign some appreciation it was clear that they were having meetings without me and my knowledge to air their grievances over me. 

There is no genuine acceptance. I do not feel safe around people. I don’t appreciate their dispensing of know-it-all “advice.” They’ve never walked a tenth of a mile in my shoes. And if I said anything they think “the crazy is freaking out again.” And I know they don’t really want to say what they want to say, either, since they think I’m a dangerous mental case and they have to walk on eggshells so I don’t become violent or something (yeah right!). 

This is why I’m being very very selective right now with my involvement with whatever the things the neurotypicals around me are doing near and far. I’m probably useless to them anyway, and I don’t have any spoons left for their constant need for emotional connection and uncompensated emotional labor. 

[anautisticdragon-blog]

"You want me to wear WHAT, mate?"

The Chainmail Bikini Bias Experiment

I feel that the alt-right is basically staffed by the kind of short-sighted neurotypicals I've been talking about on this blog. I admit, part of it is the discussions I've had with an acquaintance whom I know is NT. There's something about the incredibly nonsensical way their brain works, claiming-rationality-whilst-not-using-rationality (SKEPTISIZM). Anyway, there's a fairly simple thought exercise you can use to find out whether the people you know are rational, sensible, egalitarian, and most likely on the autistic spectrum, or crazed loonies with self-contradictory views who could only be both NT and alt-right. I'll show you a little exchange I had so you can get a feel for how it goes, yes? We'll call this the Chainmail Bikini Bias Experiment (or CBBE). Autistic Dragon: So you don't believe that there's any relevance to Sarkeesian's claims of unequal treatment of the sexes in video games? I don't agree. Let's look at an example. What of chainmail bikinis? If you're the kind of person who proposes inclusivity and equality for all, I would surmise that you're against enforced chainmail bikini armour in video games? Neurotypical: Why would I be against that? AD: Would you support chainmail jockstraps for men? NT: No, that's covering a sexual organ. AD: The chainmail bikini isn't??? NT: No, that's a reproductive organ. It's different. AD: So it's necessary to cover a sexual organ but not a reproductive organ, then? NT: Yes. AD: So, what, vaginas aren't sexual organs? NT: Not exactly. AD: That's a bizarrely sexist viewpoint from you. They're both, well... both. NT: No, they're not. AD: Right, instead of going around in circles, let's just call them 'private parts.' What's wrong with offering that? NT: No one wants chainmail jockstraps. AD: You don't. I do. It'd be entertaining to see chainmail jo-- NT: Guys don't want to see chainmail jockstraps. AD: Am I not a guy??? NT: You're not saying it because you want to. AD: Okay, let's look at it from a completely different angle, then. Okay? NT: Okay. AD: Women want chainmail jockstraps. NT: No, they don't. AD: Okay. Then women don't want chainmail bikinis. NT: Yes, they do. AD: Okay, that's very contrary of you. Anyway, there's a lot of evidence on the Internet that says they don't. [I link to a web search about chainmail bikinis, every result overwhelmingly supports my position.] NT: Most women don't. AD: Do you have any evidence to support that? NT: Most women don't. AD: Instead of going around and around in these circles you love, do you have any evidence? NT: Most women don't. AD: This is getting nowhere. I'll say that every woman I've spoken with doesn't want it. NT: Most women don't, I've spoken with more women than you have about this. AD: I'm sorry? I beg your parden? NT: I've spoken with more women than you. AD: [I'm tempted to remind him that I'm involved with art communities which have more women than men in them, whereas he barely knows any women.] And that means that all of these other women on the Internet are wrong? All those search results are wrong, somehow? All those women, right there, are wrong? NT: Yes. AD: About themselves??? NT: Yes. AD: [I'm taken aback here for a moment as there's a long pause, I'm absolutely lost for words at this point.] Okay. Let's just say for the sake of equality... NT: No one wants it. AD: Please. Explain the Saints Row series. NT: That's fine for those games. It's not good for games with different demographics. AD: So you're saying that the largest demographic consists of women that want to be seen in skimpy clothes, and men that want to be seen as fully clothed and non-sexualised? NT: Yes. There's a difference between men and women. AD: Errr, yes, but it's mostly voice and body shape if anything. And that's not even taking into account how one might gender identify... NT: There's a difference. AD: I know, I said there was. I just think that we have different opinions on what that is. You seem to think that there's a biological factor causing gneder roles which leads to someone wanting to choose a chainmail bikini or full platemail. I don't agree. So, just for the sake of argument, let's say I'm a woman and I don't want a chainmail bikini... NT: You roll a man. AD: I'm sorry? NT: You roll a man. AD: I don't think I understand what you're saying, here. You're telling me that my only option to avoid chainmail bikinis is to roll a man? NT: Yes. AD: [There's another pause, here, as the sheer sexist arrogance on display here has my mind reeling. The sheer illogic and lack of ethics is startling, so it's becoming tricky to keep my cool.] What if I don't want to roll a man? NT: Then you have a chainmail bikini. AD: And if I don't want a chainmail bikini? NT: Then you roll a man. AD: You said yourself that there's differences between men and women. So if someone identifies as a woman, they should roll a man? I have to ask at this point: Is your view of gender dimorphism is that it's separated by chainmail bikinis versus full body platemail? What of other factors? NT: Such as? A woman in full platemail is no different than a man. So they roll a man. AD: [There's another very long pause here as I rest my face in my palms and take a very deep breath, followed by a soulful sigh.] The difference in voice and body shape that would allow them to represent what they identify as, perhaps? Hip size, torso length, breasts, et cetera. What I'm getting at here is gender dimorphism... NT: If they're in full platemail, does it matter? AD: Yes??? It's about their identity, they should be allowed to identify as they want, and wear what they want (or don't want). NT: Most women would just want the chainmail bikini. AD: Why did we jump back to this? This is just an opinion you have that there are biological factors enforcing gender roles, so that all women would choose a chainmail bikini. NT: I'm not wrong. AD: Reality wouldn't seem to agree. Still, for the sake of argument... this is set in stone, then? The woman would want the chainmail bikini? NT: Yes. AD: Let me tell you what you've said so far. Okay? NT: Okay. AD: A female character must have a chainmail bikini because they're biologically a woman, their biology informs a gender role that would have them always make that choice. A male character must have full platemail because they're biologically a man, their biology informs a gender role that would have them always make that choice. Anyone who doesn't like this is wrong as these gender roles are set in stone. Men shouldn't be allowed to waer a chainmail jockstrap because they don't have a reproductive organ and that is the most representative feature of a woman, biologically. Women shouldn't wear full platemail because they don't have a sexual organ and that is the most representative feature of a man, biologically. This doesn't sound like logical objectivity, this sounds like insanity! NT: You're misrepresenting me. AD: Am I? I'm just repeating what you've said. NT: You're misrepresenting me. AD: Then tell me what you're saying. NT: I'm just saying that no woman wants to be in full platemail, and no man wants a chainmail jockstrap. AD: And they feel that way because of reproductive versus sexual organs? NT: Yes. AD: Isn't that what I claimed you said??? NT: No. You must be misunderstanding me. You're misunderstanding my point. You just can't understand my point. AD: What is your point? NT: Like I said. There's no demographic that supports chainmail jockstraps for men, or a large enough one to support full platemail for women. Developers have to prioritise one over the other. AD: Wouldn't maximising the number of people playing be the most apt priority? NT: Yes. That's why they go with what people want. AD: And you're the absolute authority on what people want, not them? NT: I didn't say that. AD: Okay. So what if they run a survey. What if the survey says that people want both? NT: I've seen surveys. They support my view. AD: I'd love to see those! Can I see them? NT: I don't want to get them right now, it's late. AD: At this point, I'd be inclined to posit that you haven't spoken with any women about this, nor have you seen any surveys. You just want your preference pushed on everyone. NT: No. I don't. it's what everyone wants! AD: I don't think it is. You have no proof to support these illogical assertions, no matter how often or how irritably you repeat them. You have nothing to back it up with or you would've shown me by now. I invite you to prove me wrong. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that's in support of your arrogant assertions? NT: You're misrepresenting me again. AD: How??? NT: You're misrepresenting my position. AD: How? How am I doing that? NT: You're misrepresenting me. AD: You can say that, but you realise it's meaningless if you can't tell me how I'm misrepresenting you? I've given you every chan-- NT: You're misrepresenting me! AD: I've given you ample opportunity to show me proof. I've given you every chance to reiterate and explain. I want equality. As an empath and an ethical person, it's really all I want. What do you want, exactly? NT: I want what people want. AD: Weasel words. Who are these people? Where is your evidence? NT: You have no evidence. AD: Well, yes, i do. And let's look at that, shall we? Saints Row has moved toward providing these options. ESO recently changed to provide these options. Why would this have happened if my position is flawed? It appears that these developers have chosen to support-- NT: Anita Sarkeesian is manipulating them! AD: How? NT: She's manipulating them! AD: How? All she's doing is talking to them, and us. NT: She's manipulating them. AD: How? Do you have any evidence to support that accusation? NT: She's manipulative, she has influence, and she's changing things! AD: Can you give me an example of a developer who changed something due to something that Anita Sarkeesian said? NT: She has influence. She spoke in the UN! AD: So you think that Anita Sarkeesian is the only one with influence? NT: Yes! AD: Why do you think that is? NT: She's more manipulative. AD: You think that she's the only person who can be manipulative? NT: She's a psychopath. AD: That's not relevant. The only reason that people would listen to her overall is if there aren't any valid counterpoints to her arguments. NT: Here, look at this video of VidCon. You can see she shouted at a guy at this panel, this proves she's a psychopath! AD: Er... First of all? Shouting at someone doesn’t make you a psychopath. Secondly, I'd say did it because he was openly heckling her in the audience, or did you not notice that? So why did she shout? Oh, I don't kow, perhaps because she has feelings? Okay. Nevermind. Let's drop Anita, you're too obsessed with Anita Sarkeesian. So, let's just say, if only for the sake of argument, that the audience is 50/50... NT: Okay, but it's not. AD: I'm going to ignore that, we don't want to get back to being stuck in another loop. Let's continue with this exercise, okay? NT: It's still not. AD: Aaanyway. I'm arguing for equality. I want both options or none. I'm saying that both can have chainmail underwear, or none should. The option should be inclusively available for both of the parties, or neither. NT: That's not what people want. AD: [I sigh, then continue.] So I'm saying that it'd be nice if X could be 0 or 1, and Y could be 0 or 1, because options are great for everyone. NT: Developers need to prioritise. They prioritise based on what people want. AD: And what they want is both or neither, as is evidenced by recent game development, such as ESO changing its armour options as I mentioned. NT: That's Anita Sarkessian manipulating them. AD: Oh god, not again. Anita Sarkeesian isn't capable of mind control. NT: She's manipulating them. AD: What I'm arguing for is X can be 1 or 0, and Y can be 1 or 0. You're arguing for X should be 1 only, and Y should be 0 only. Why? NT: It's what people want, the developers prioritise according to the demographic. AD: I could say we've disproved that, but it'd just turn into another loop about how manipualtive Sarkeesian is again. NT: Sarkeesian is manipulative. AD: I know. I know. You've made your opinion painfully clear. She's a sociopath, a psychopath, a Machiavellian puppet-master. Can we move on? NT: You're misrepresenting me. AD: Okay, just a liar and a psychopath, then? NT: Yes. AD: And manipulative? NT: Yes. AD: Okay. NT: Okay.

AD: So I'm arguing for X can be 1 or 0, and Y can be 1 or 0, and you're arguing for X is 1 only, and Y is 0 only. I think it's because you have a sexist prejudice you're not aware of, one that you're desperate to back up with cognitive dissonance and fallacies. Your cognitive bias is showing, here. NT: You're misrepresenting me. AD: [I breathe in and out, deeply. I give myself pause before I continue.] Now... I finally, fully understand the meaning of filibuster. I can't show you your sexism. I can't argue with a sexist prejudice. It's not logical. NT: Especially when it's a phantom prejudice that doesn't exist. AD: Alright. NT: So can you see that it's not what people want? AD: I've had enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. After this, the NT in question takes it as though they've 'won' something by using a filibuster (or sheer, oblivious, wilful ignorance), and walks off all proud as I don't want to waste my entire life on this. I've yet to see a solid, logical, calm, patient, well researched argument from any of these NTs who seem to love to align with the alt-right. It's all a big, steaming pile of crap if I'm honest. It's about domination, hierarchy, supremacy, and tribally hoarding the best things for one's own and ensuring that no others can enjoy equal time in the sun. NT-ran hate movements like the alt-right aren't at all interested in equality, they're interested in suppression, oppression, and power. That's all their movements are about, they feel their power slipping away. Oh, the poor NT mans who'll have less chainmail bikinis to look at. Oh, the humanity. Why, clearly this is a case of gender inequality at all, it's meant to victimise men! It's a plot! A conspiracy! This is precisely why Anita Sarkeesian is so well liked. This is why alt-right NTs are seen as nothing more than an arrogant circlejerk of incredibly irrational simplists. And just for the record? I did actually do some research and ask in some gamer communities where women hang out whether they enjoyed chainmail bikinis. Every person there vehemently said that they did not, including the men, funnily enough. But oh! This is a conspiracy! Clearly these men are emasculated, they're being manipulated by the vile, devious Mastermind Anita Sarkeesian from her Central Control Chamber on Jupiter, brainwashed by her Womyn Mind Beams! The sky is falling, Chicken Little. Still... Go figure, eh? A lot of reasonable men dislike an element that's only there to misguidedly appeal to a minority of sexists, breaking immersion and ruining the game of anyone who isn't a sexist. Big surprise! Have i mentioned that I don't like NTs?