#but i will say them simply using words to describe themselves (identity) and changing it later DOES ABSOLUTELY NO HARM. LET THEM DO IT.

[autisticlee]

the whole "you shouldn't identify as X, don't form an identity when you can't/don't know yet, you're too young, what if/you might change your mind!" etc etc. it's so silly when you think about it. what's wrong with changing your mind anyway? why did we all decide that gender/sexuality identity has to be static and can never change? why did we decide that it's a bad thing to change? because the old generation tells us change is bad? because they (mostly conservatives) want to conserve "the good old days/the way things are supposed to be" in their minds???

WHO CARES if someone says they're gay then realizes 5 years later they're bi. WHO CARES if someone says they're a girl and realizes after trying it out they're not. let people explore who they are until they figure it out even if they go through every lable available to them! maybe none fit and they make up their own! who cares! who cares if they change it every year for the rest of their lives! humans change. that's the only constant about us! why is it a bad thing, even taboo, to accept change and exploration within sexuality and gender specifically?

there's always so much shame that comes with someone realizing they were wrong, changing as a person, or discovering something new about themselves. i've seen people afraid to explore themselves more or afraid to talk about a change in identity, for fear of the queer community pushing back on them the same way they're afraid to come out to the cishets in their life who are trans/homophobic. that's just not fair that their own community can become hostile towards them, too. being in a closet within a bigger closet essentially. everyone is always told to figure it all out first before claiming an identity, because then you're locked in it for life, apparently. you can't change your mind after that. why though? what's the point of that really? why can't we embrace fluidity a bit more? why can't we accept that humans do change all the time? why is making and trying to prove that these identities are static/unchanging/innate the only way to validate them? why can't they just, I don't know, BE VALID. without reason. why must we jump through hoops to be valid when we should just automatically be valid because we are human. stop letting the cishets gatekeep everything, leading to us gatekeeping each other!

I am sometimes very hesitant to talk about my own identity. I identified as a gay/biromantic trans guy for like idk 8-10 years? transitioned and everything. then like a year or two ago, I realized/decided that doesn't fit right anymore. now i'm a nonbinary, but also kinda fluid, aroace person. sometimes I don't like to talk about that because of the stigma behind changing your gender/sexuality identities. but you know what. i'll talk about it anyway and people have to learn to accept it.

what were the consequences and bad parts about changing my mind/identity like that? none. absolutely none. (outside of people being weird about it for no reason) but the benefits are feeling more comfortable with myself, and that's no one else's business.

[hillbillyoracle]

I've spoken before about the increasing tendency of online communities to coopt the language of specific material difficulties face by minority groups to give their personal complaints more "moral" weight.

The example I always use for this is "gatekeeping" - it was used for a long time in the trans and disabled communities to denote the situation we often face where a cis or able bodied medical professional got to determine whether we belonged to a group enough to access treatments we needed. This is a very serious medical issue that we face that leads people in the community to wind up using black markets and risking their lives with less than scrupulous people who seek to profit off of this medical alienation. Some people wind up in incredibly amounts of physical and mental pain or even committing suicide.

I spent a long time not understanding why in the last maybe 6 or so years so many people, mostly younger, seized on the words as if it was theirs to describe merely not being included in a group by others of the same identity were no route for filling a material need is impacted. Even more recently I've run across people who are using it to mean that information they want - for hobbies, interests - is difficult for them to find.

I hear all the time "language changes" - which is definitely true. But it's worth looking at why given language changes happen - and who benefits. This is a whole field in linguistics and it tell you a lot about the values of a given group. It hit me when I came across it most recently that whether people admit it or not, they borrow that language because they want their complaint to be taken as seriously as the material complaint they see it originate with.

And this is obviously not great right? Like you not being allowed in a discord you want or it not being easy to figure out how to knit a sweater are very obviously not on par with being denied a badly needed medical treatment to deal with your pain because you're not considered "disabled enough" by an able bodied doctor. I get this is largely happening subconsciously and we don't really have a language to talk about it making it even harder or people to catch in their own usage. I don't have an answer to that as I'm not a trained philosopher or linguist but I do have some food for thought.

For those who can be honest with themselves enough to see that they likely use words like this to lend the moral weight of marginalization to their mundane concerns, I want you to know some practical issues with this.

One, it pretty instantly flags you as being unsure of the veracity or relevance of your point, unlikely to be receptive to the other person, and more worried about appearances rather than the issue at hand. Which is a shame because you may have a really good point in there. You may absolutely be calling out an issue that needs addressed. But borrowing the language of these groups for their moral weight is simply not needed when you've made an effective argument.

Two, moralizing the mundane is a facet of carceral cultural creep. This really could be it's own post, but simply put, we've come up in a media ecosystem which tends to praise "justice" systems as being the means for processing difficult experiences - regardless of how true that is when interacting with the systems themselves. So even people who are out here saying ACAB will unironically police other people on having and performing the correct opinions in ever tightening loops (as punished people are needed to keep the rest o the group in line). You're not exempt from it and the desire to make mundane things like people not wanting you in their clubhouse and not finding the right video out to be a moral failure on someone else's part is rooted in those very non-progressive ideas.

Three, generalization means the language loses it's moral weight as it gets used meaning it is a constant process of habituation and more and more groups will wind up having their very important and specific terminology taken up for the sake of this particular selfish pyre. Once you've habituated to the language you can never go back and grasping at the language that these groups have to continually reinvent in light of this watering down is a type of violence given the material costs to groups who can no longer name the heinous act of the systems they face. If you indulge in this, it'll never stop and can never be enough.

The answer is pretty simple. Learn to state your feelings plainly. Learn to form solid arguments without resorting to mental shortcuts like coopting the marginalization to moralize your mundane experience. Learn how to set actual boundaries (which are about controlling your own behavior not others) and walk away from people and groups that don't align with your preferences and pursuits.

The answer is grow into yourself - stable, healthy, flexible.

[lulu2992]

From the Inquisitor to the Baptist: The Evolution of John Seed

In addition to concept art and behind-the-scenes content, early visuals and deleted dialog can still be found in the game itself, notably in its files, and reveal more information about how John and his personality have changed during the development of Far Cry 5.

All the sources and references indicated by the superscript numbers will be given in the last post.

Part 4: Personality and morals (Far Cry 5)

First, let’s have a look at this screenshot of the performance capture footage of the game’s first mission, “The Warrant”, that was officially posted in August 2018⁴¹.

While the Father, the Marshal, and the Sheriff are all played by their original actors, the Heralds are not. That said, they don’t say a word in this scene and are just standing in the background, so it wasn’t necessary for Mark Pellegrino (Jacob), Jenessa Grant (Faith), and Seamus Dever to be on set that day, and their characters could be played by other people. I don’t know how old the footage is, but the number “170803” in the title of the sequence could be a date: August 3, 2017. There are two other numbers in the video, “170616” and “170615”, which could mean other parts of the intro were shot on June 15 and 16 (but this is just a hypothesis).

Behind Greg Bryk, the actor on the left in the screenshot seems to be Jacob, as the eldest Seed brother stands in a similar position, with his arms crossed, in the finished scene. The woman on the floor is surely Faith, and her posture is quite different from what we see in the game (but, interestingly, reminiscent of the way she poses in the family portrait found in the Holmes Residence³¹). The attitude of the third actor, who must be John, isn’t identical to the Baptist’s in the finalized sequence, either.

Instead of standing with his arms behind his back, he has one foot on the platform and, judging by the way his left hand is positioned, it looks like it’s possibly either in the pocket of his coat (maybe just the thumb) or resting on a gun. While, in Far Cry 5, John is simply observing the scene, attentively but calmly, and the “tough” brother seems to be Jacob instead, in this early version of the intro, his attitude is defiant and draws more attention to him, like he wants to make it very clear that you shouldn’t try to attack him or his family.

This is consistent with what we’ve seen in the first promotional images, concept art, Inside Eden’s Gate, the TV spot, and what is described in Far Cry Absolution: John used to appear more threatening and confident. In the game, this was toned down a bit and he, on the contrary, seems to want to look more “polite” than overtly menacing. This might be due to the fact that, as evidence suggests, his methods, although still violent, aren’t as extreme as they used to be.

In the final version of Far Cry 5, John gives tattoos that represent people’s sins and then cuts them out to make them Atone. This is brutal, yes, but from his point of view, this isn’t gratuitously brutal. He genuinely believes he’s helping and saving people, and that suffering is indispensable. The day his parents “threw [him] on the ground” and made him experience unbearable amounts of pain, he says he reached a point where “all [he] could say was yes” because he felt “clear” and “free”. Whether they’re right or not (since it seems the Voice Joseph hears is real), the members of the Seed family have conditioned themselves into believing that their trauma was a divine “test”, that it gave them purpose, and that people needed to experience the same thing to serve the Project, survive the Collapse, and be worthy of passing the Gates of Eden. John, because of what he went through, now believes pain has purifying properties, and he hurts others so they too can experience the epiphany he had while he was being tortured as a child. He can also get zealous and doesn’t hesitate to threaten or harm people who resist him, mostly because he can’t do his job properly and impress the Father if they don’t comply (and ironically, it’s precisely when he gets angry and carried away that Joseph is disappointed), but he doesn’t torture people just because he enjoys it. On the surface, it may look like pure sadism, but it’s more complicated; there’s reason for his actions. What gives him satisfaction is more the result of the pain he inflicts (look how exhilarated he is when he’s finally made Nick Atone) than the simple act of inflicting pain. He sees “torture” as a means to an end: Salvation.

In the game’s files, though, deleted content reveals that, earlier in development, John was more violent, would mostly hurt for his own enjoyment, and was, in general, a more hypocritical and narcissistic person, and it appears a few needless acts of brutality were removed from the game.

For example, this is what the transcript of John’s radio call to the Deputy for their Atonement looks like in the “oasisstrings” file⁴², which contains all the in-game text:

Your actions have consequences, Deputy. I've gathered all your friends here in Fall's End to Atone for your sins. You're welcome to join us. After all, if it weren't for you they wouldn't be in this predicament... This is your last chance to say Yes, Deputy. Don't be late.[SFX of an electric saw and someone screaming]

As you probably know, the “SFX of an electric saw and someone screaming” isn’t part of the call at all in the game, and it’s not in the audio files either. The sound effect would have made it seem like John was busy gruesomely torturing someone when he decided to call the Deputy, and that he casually resumed hurting them as soon as he was done talking. I think it’s interesting that the developers considered including this but eventually decided against it. Without it, the call sounds “normal”. Threatening, but normal. The scream and the electric saw would have made John look like someone who gratuitously tortures without any empathy… but this simply isn’t who he is anymore, so the SFX had to be cut.

In the Prima Games guide, a screenshot reveals what the Confession room in John’s Gate used to look like:

The room isn’t grey just because the lighting is different; plastic tarps are covering the floor and walls. The Confession room used to look more like a torture/kill chamber in which a lot of blood was expected to be shed. The wrapped dead bodies were more visible… and also seemed more consistent with who John apparently was at the time: basically a (somewhat caricatural) serial killer. Although he knew how to look refined, it seems neither he nor his methods particularly were.

When you explore the Holland Valley, you can stumble upon an excerpt of Deputy Joey Hudson’s Confession. In the broadcast, clearly recorded and made public by John in an attempt to make the Junior Deputy worry about their partner’s safety and lure them into his bunker, here is what we hear:

John: It was the Father who said to me, “Take them, John. Take them even if they resist, for those who deny the Project are the ones most in need of its salvation. Though their sins are great, their souls are not beyond saving. All they must do… is Confess.” Are you ready, Deputy Hudson? Hudson: Go fuck yourself. John: Hmm… I know. Opening yourself, exposing your darkest secrets can be… challenging. It can be scary, but… this is a safe space, there is no judgment here. Do you wish for me to hear your Confession? Hudson: Go. Fuck. Yourself. John: That’s... not the magic word. John: Do you wish for me to hear your confession? John: *sighs* You just have to say "Yes." Hudson: Go. Fuck. Yours- *screams* John: Do you wish to Confess? Hudson: *still in pain* Oh, fuck you! Fuck you! John: Embrace it. John: Embrace the Power of Yes! Hudson: *crying* Please, stop. Please, stop! Please, stop... Please... John: Do you wish to Confess? Hudson: Yes... John: There. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

Hudson’s screams make the broadcast hard to listen to, but it turns out it used to be even worse.

There are 16 sound files in this “sermon”, but there were 9 more (so 25 in total) in the “complete”, previous version, which sounded like this:

John: It was the Father who said to me, “Take them, John. Take them even if they resist, for those who deny the Project are the ones most in need of its salvation. Though their sins are great, their souls are not beyond saving. All they must do… is Confess.” Are you ready, Deputy Hudson? Hudson: Go fuck yourself! John: Hmm… I know. Opening yourself, exposing your darkest secrets can be… challenging. It can be scary, but… this is a safe space, there is no judgment here. Do you wish for me to hear your Confession? Hudson: Go fuck yourself!! John: That’s... not the magic word. Hudson: Go fuck yourself. John: Do you wish for me to hear your confession? Hudson: Go. Fuck. Yourself. John: *sighs* You just have to say "Yes." Hudson: Go. Fuck. Yours- *screams* John: Do you wish to Confess? Hudson: *screams* John: Shhh… It’s okay. This happens all the time. Hudson: *still in pain* Oh, fuck you! Fuck you! John: You just have to open yourself. Hudson: *screams* John: Embrace it. Hudson: *screams* John: Embrace the Power of Yes! Hudson: *screams* Hudson: *crying* Please, stop. Please, stop! Please, stop... Please... Hudson: No... *screams* John: Do you wish to Confess? Hudson: Yes... John: There. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

While the in-game version is painful to listen to, it seems a bit less violent in comparison, like John is only hurting Joey (who used to be more confrontational too) when he believes it’s required, just enough to make her say “yes” so he can finally do his job. He’s also a bit less mocking in the final broadcast, and unlike in the long version, when she asks him to stop, he does. To me, shortening this audio to only keep what’s “necessary” (from John’s point of view, of course; it’s still harsh) makes him seem less pointlessly sadistic, and I see this as another proof that his violent tendencies were deliberately toned down.

In deleted radio calls⁴³, John was also more taunting and insulting towards the Deputy, calling them “a wayward, filthy sinner” he could easily find if he followed “the stench of sin”. He also used to tell them it was their fault if he hurt people, for example in this one, supposed to be triggered sometime after the mission “The Confession”:

Wrath... all that anger you carry inside of you is a disease. It spreads out... infects others. It's even infected me. It's making me do something I don't want to do. You see, after you fled your Confession this... rage started boiling up inside me. I'm afraid your friend, your... Deputy Hudson... will have to bear the brunt of this rage you've given me. She's going to be the one who pays for what you've done. And you only have yourself to blame.

In Far Cry 5, he still taunts the Deputy and threatens to harm their allies if they keep hurting the Project, but not as much, and it appears he doesn’t always plan on carrying out his threats; he mostly wants to scare them so they “behave” and let him do his job (but it doesn’t work very well). In the deleted call, I think he seemed to be a less sincere and more manipulative person, and this John would likely have kept torturing people even if the Deputy hadn’t done anything, simply because he enjoyed it, but he prefers to guilt trip them and tell them that they should feel bad for his actions.

In the game, when Hudson is finally out of John’s Gate, she says something I think is very interesting⁴⁴:

When you escaped the bunker... John didn't say it... but you could see it in his face. Failure. Things got worse from there... Like he was trying to make up for something. Prove to his brother he could... I never thought I'd make it out of there.

I like that the radio call in which John says the Deputy’s Wrath has “infected” him and is “making [him] do something [he doesn’t] want to do” was cut. Again, it didn’t sound genuine; he clearly wanted to make their friends suffer and was just blaming them for his behavior. In Far Cry 5, I love that John doesn’t talk about his feelings at all and doesn’t admit he was angry when the Deputy ran away from his bunker. On the contrary, while they’re fleeing the Gate, John encourages them to leave. To me, it sounds like he’s actually very upset about the situation, probably even more than “early John” would have been, but because he doesn’t want to lose face, he pretends he’s not and that them leaving was his plan all along anyway.

When Hudson reveals that John was visibly vexed after the Deputy’s escape but “didn’t say anything”, I think it’s more compelling than him then calling the Deputy to tauntingly and hypocritically put the blame on them. And when “things got worse from there”, Hudson (rightly, I think) concludes it was because John wanted to “prove to his brother he could” make up for that failure he painfully knew was his, not because he simply felt like hurting people and used the Deputy as an excuse.

What this deleted radio call reveals, to me, is that in earlier versions of the story, John was too conceited to take responsibility for anything, and he wasn’t ashamed because others were always the problem. The final version of John doesn’t have such a high opinion of himself anymore, as much as he wants to give the impression that he does and that nothing can affect him. After the Deputy’s escape, he silently withstands that blow to his ego and then works his hardest to fix his mistake. Unfortunately, it doesn’t change the fact that people then have to suffer, but my point is that the motivation behind his actions is different.

There are more proofs of “early John”’s hypocrisy and narcissism, such as this piece of concept art for his home, Seed Ranch⁴⁵:

In the picture, we see flower beds, colorful garden furniture, a fountain, and a golden (maybe even gold) statue of the “old” Eden’s Gate logo, the one with an eagle, which indicates the artwork was made rather early in development. And they aren’t visible in the artwork, but in the sound files, Nick and Sharky also mention tennis courts⁴⁶!

When people join Eden’s Gate, they are expected to give up their worldly possessions, not to give them to the cult (although it’s always an option since they need supplies for the Collapse), but because Joseph preaches about how Greed, consumerism, and selfishness have perverted humanity, so it’s better to live a simple life. It seems awfully hypocritical, then, for one of his Heralds to own such a luxurious property...

But in the game, although it’s still big, it looks like there are fewer rooms in the ranch, and its exterior isn’t as fancy anymore⁴⁷. No fountain, no gold statue, no colorful garden… and no tennis court.

More cut content suggests that Seed Ranch wasn’t just where John lived. In the deleted in-game encyclopedia (still available in “oasisstrings”), the description of the ranch said:

The power of yes gave John Seed this dream ranch overlooking the Holland Valley. it has commanding views, a private air strip, and secluded soundproofed rooms for his most invigorating religious pursuits.

In the files, it’s also possible to find this kind of NPC dialog:

The cultists were talking about taking me to John's ranch. People who go there... they don't come back. Or they come back wrong.

And a deleted mission objective said to “rescue Mary May from John Seed’s Ranch”, so she would be taken there at some point. In Far Cry 5, converts go to John’s Gate after their Cleansing so he can hear their Confession and tattoo them... as well as make them suffer because, as a cultist explains in the mission “The Cleansing” to people who’ve just been baptized:

Confession without pain isn't Confession. You'll scream out your sin, then you'll wear it on your flesh before John peels it off of you. It's a beautiful thing.

Clearly, “early John” would also torture people in his ranch. And did he really believe it was for “religious” reasons, like it seems he does in the game, or was that, once again, at least partially an excuse? Given what we’ve seen so far, my guess is it was the latter.

A mysterious “sex room” located in the ranch is also mentioned in the files, but it was cut from the game and not much is known about it⁴⁸. If it was a literal “sex room”, it would either be yet another proof that John used to be hypocritical and to not always practice what he preached, or confirm that the “no fornication” rule originally didn’t exist. “Sex room” could also simply be a joke name used by the developers to refer to a torture chamber. But if we want to trust what one of the survivors says in Far Cry New Dawn⁴⁹…

This place used to be a ranch owned by a cultist named John Seed. I always heard rumors that he had some kind of pervert basement and was real disappointed to find out that it wasn't true.

…there apparently is no such room in John’s house.

Given how luxurious the ranch looks, you would expect him to want to spend as much time as possible in it, but it turns out he doesn’t. In fact, one of the cultists guarding the property comments⁵⁰:

Haven't seen John here in a long time. He's super busy.

And in a letter found in his bunker⁵¹, John wrote:

Everyone's human, and that's why I don't want to put myself on a pedestal. I don't ever want to get back up there again. I'd rather be here with all of you and the new souls in this bunker.

At some point during the development of Far Cry 5, John would expect his followers to live a simple life, serve the Project, and rigorously follow its rules while he would do the opposite. In the final version of the game, his faith in his mission and his devotion to the Project seem sincere, and he would rather work tirelessly and live in his Gate among his “brothers and sisters” than lounge in his ranch. Said ranch is also not as much of a display of wealth as it used to be, and nobody gets tortured there anymore. A bag of “oregano” can still be found in the living room, but since no one says anything about it and it really doesn’t seem to me that John would break the cult’s rules and smoke drugs, I consider it to be a relic from the past, a vestige of the time he seemed to only care about himself.

John is involved in three more abandoned storylines in the files, and they all demonstrate he used to be more hypocritical and violent. The first one is revealed by a mission objective that said to “find John and Mary May’s secrets”⁵², and it seemed it was related to the mission in which we would go rescue her from the ranch. Unfortunately, it’s unknown what the secrets were about, but it’s very likely John didn’t want them to be exposed because everyone would have seen his true, ugly colors and how dishonest he was.

The second one is revealed by Hurk Jr. who has this line in the files⁵³:

Good thing for us John and Jacob haven't sorted out their brotherly nonsense. I mean if we're lucky, they'll just take each other down. If not, well, I'm going to keep some grenades around with John's name on 'em, eh? It's comin' to a head man.

In the game, they aren’t in conflict. On the contrary, Jacob seems rather protective of his family, and John strives to impress his brothers.

As for the third one, we know about it thanks to one of Kim’s deleted lines⁵⁴:

John Seed's a piece of shit. When news spread that I was expecting, that scumbag spread rumors that HE was the biological father of my baby. I don't know if he was trying to create a wedge between me and Nick or if he was just doing it to laugh at us. It was stressful and all for nothing. I can tell you, we don't need to go on a talk show and have a DNA test. Nick is the father.

Again, in the game we know, it seems absurd that John would want people to believe that he had an affair with Kim, with whom he isn’t married, considering what the Project’s rules are and that a letter found on the Ryes’ porch, titled “John Seed’s plea”, proves he’s already amiably tried to talk them into joining the Family:

Nick, The Collapse I talked to you about has started. I know you want to protect YOUR FAMILY. The only way to do this is by joining OUR FAMILY. Our bunkers have everything Kim & Baby Rye will need to survive. There are dozens of expecting mothers and children here already with us. This is my final plea to you. Say YES. John Seed

Spreading distasteful rumors about them seems counterproductive, but again, John the Inquisitor probably wouldn’t have cared as long as he could have fun at the expense of other people.

In Far Cry 5, John the Baptist simply isn’t this man anymore.

To be continued…

[androgyne-homosapiens]

Androgyne gender identity

Definition:

Androgyne, androgyn or androgynous gender, is an identity under the nonbinary and transgender umbrellas. Androgynes have a gender identity that can be a blend of both or neither of the binary genders. They may describe this as being between female and male, between man and woman, between masculine and feminine or simply 'in between.' They can also identify as neither feminine or masculine, or neither female and male.

from the nonbinary wiki

As stated in the definition, androgyne people are trans (they don't identify exclusively as the gender they were assigned at birth), and nonbinary (they are not one of the binary genders). Of course it is up to an individual to choose the words they use to identify themselves with.

The word androgyne has an interesting history, at times it was used as an umbrella term similar to nonbinary (I won't go in to much more detail here, but there is more info in the nonbinary wiki).

androgyne, androgyny, androgynous

As a rule, androgyne refers to a gender identity, while Androgyny refers to gender expression (androgynous would be the word used to describe an individual using androgyny as their gender expression). A person may identify as androgyne, and not be androgynous, and a person my be androgynous and not identify as androgyne.

But the split isn't quite so clear. In theory:

Androgyny is a wide category of gender expression that either mixes or omits markers of both feminine and masculine gender expression.

The nonbinary wiki

But,

Androgyny possession of both masculine and feminine characteristics. Androgyny may be expressed with regard to biological sex, gender identity, or gender expression.

Wikipedia

It is explained well in this post, but I think a good way to understand the difference is that androgyne is an androgynous gender identity. While androgyne will be used as a gender identity, and androgyny is more general reference to a blend of male and female characteristics.

What is overall the most important to understand that use of these words for individuals will vary. General use of these terms has changed over time. If an individual feels that these words help them to understand themselves (even if they don't fit the "exact definitions") then that is what is important. Words are here to benefit us.

Here is a useful graphic to understand the "androgyne spectrum":

androgyne spectrum

[ID: a scale, starting from the left with "Female" and "Feminine", then "Gynx", "Androgyne" and "Androgynous", "Androx", "Male" and "Masculine". End]

from this post, by @bentonthegay. And this post gives a good explanation about it, and about androgyne as a gender identity:

I think that the specific thing that makes Androgyne an identity all its own that I believe is within the center of the gender spectrum, right alongside other non-binary genders that blur the line between “male” and “female”. Androgyne is the “neither” and/or “both” of the spectrum. It’s a bit of a blend of selected traits from both sides. Given, that means very different things to different people, so I imagine that not every Androgyne person dresses or behaves just like I do. [...] The part of the identity that sets it apart is how Androgyne people feel about themselves.  As an Androgyne person, I believe that I am not a man or a woman. I reside comfortably between the extremes. So I guess it’s not just a mix, it’s more that I’m a blurred segment of the gradient between them. I do believe that Androgyne is an identity by itself and not just “a mix of female and male traits”. Given, that’s like saying a banana split is just ice cream with bananas and sweet toppings. You’re not wrong, but it’s not just that.

post by @androgynepositivity

Another important point to remember that while androgyne is a mix of the two binary genders, it is also connected to neutrality, being in the middle of the spectrum, it is "both" and "neither", and can be different for each person.

Similarly, androgyny can be both presenting femininely and masculinely at the same time, or more of a neutral look, neither feminine nor masculine.

multigender?

Depending on the person, androgynes may see themselves as falling under the multigender umbrella.

in the "Brochure for the Human Outreach and Achievement Institute" (1987) the following definition is found:

Androgyne: A person who can comfortably express either alternative gender role in a variety of socially acceptable environments. (Includes bigenderist)

Source

This is both an interesting historical look on the meaning of androgyne, but also the close connection androgyne has with the multigender (and in particular bigender) community.

The meaning of bigender has expanded in the past 30+ years. It refers to people who have two specific gender identities, these identities may be male and female but also may not be. Seemingly this can include androgynes.

The choice to include oneself under the multigender/bigender umbrella should be a personnel one. Do I feel like being androgyne is a mix of two things? Or perhaps it is one identity, one gender? Maybe the experiences of multigendered people resonate with me, and I would like to be connected to their community regardless? The history connects androgynes and multigended people. At any rate, we are all queer and therefore connected.

micro-labels

Femandrogyne: an androgyne person that feels more feminine than masculine.

Mascandrogyne: an androgyne that feels more masculine than feminine.

Neutrandrogyne: an androgyne with equal amounts of masculinity and femininity, and/or simply neutral.

Versandrogyne: an androgyne with amounts of femininity and masculinity that fluctuate, for example they could go between femandrogyne and mascandrogyne.

Demiandrogyne: an androgyne who relates partially, but not fully, to the androgyne experience (this term is also under the demigender umbrella).

Thank to @androgyne-culture-is in this post for the deffintions, they can also be found in the LGBTQIA+ Wiki.

flags and symbols

The official androgyne pride flag is:

[ID: flag with three vertical stripes, in the colors, from left to right: pink, purple, and light blue. End]

The pink represents femininity, the light blue masculinity, and the purple a mix of them both.

This is a great post explaining about other flags that are less known, based off the nonbinary wiki.

One important symbol is:

[ID: a circle with an arrow coming out of the top, and a horizontal line underneath the triangle of the arrow. End]

This symbol is a mix of female (Venus) and male (Mars) symbols. It is also an intersex symbol, and a symbol for other genders. In the image the symbol is pointing up, but it is sometimes depicted pointing to other directions.

Another important symbol is the Necker Cube:

[ID: illustration of a cube. End]

Necker Cube n. 1. An optical illusion in the shape of a cube. May take either of two forms:

Proposed by the author as a symbol of androgyny, because it is either concave or convex depending on how you look at it. I prefer this to the mars-plus-venus sign, which depends upon a juxtaposition of stereotpyes (sword and shield for male, looking-glass for female), and which, furthermore, combines the signs for the two most irritating gods in the Roman pantheon. If we must depend on Greek mythology, I would prefer to take a cue from Janus and use some variation of the two-faces motif on the cover of some editions of The Left Hand of Darkness. The Necker cube, however, is simpler, and suggests ambiguity in more than mere gender. Who wants to design the lapel pin?

 The Angel’s Dictionary, part of the Androgyny RAQ

And for more info: Practical Androgyny

There is much more history to the word and identity. Many more experiences it could include, but there is only so much I can cover. I do hope that nothing I've written makes it seem like this identity has rigid rules that need to be adhered to in order to identify with it. On the contrary. This seems to be a very broad and open way of identifying, and different aspects of it may resonate with many.

[thenightfolknetwork]

Due to a combination of bad genes and bad luck, I suffer from various physical and mental difficulties and pains. Technically I count as disabled, but the term has never felt right for me; it doesn't FEEL like the problem is in my body and brain, even though I know it is, it feels more like the world rearranges itself to be just a bit harder for me than for other people. This isn't something I've talked about much, it's always seemed like it would be horribly rude, plus I have more important issues to work on with my therapist than "how much a particular word does or does not match how I parse my subjective experience".

Then I came across an expression, and for the first time, something felt like it fit. "Cursed by a wizard". It's not that I lose energy quickly, it's that I've been cursed with fatigue; to give one example. I know it's not literally true. Even aside from my diagnoses and symptoms and treatments, a year or so back I got screened as part of a workplace health and safety initiative, and no curses. Still, it's not like the language we use is literally true all of the time; expressions exist for a reason.

You know how it is, whenever you find something cool and new, you want to share it with everyone. Nobody else cared as much as I did, of course, but general reactions were polite, "I'm glad you've found something that works for you". Except for one person, who immediately got a Look on her face -- the kind you get when a foreigner says a word they don't know is a slur over here, or when someone bad-mouths a person they don't realize is nearby -- and changed the subject.

I'm not going to change how I think about myself. "Cursed by a wizard" is a useful mental framework. However, my question is whether it should stay solely within my own mind. I'm worried now that it might be insensitive to people who've actually been cursed, or to wizards.

Thank you for getting in touch, reader. I have one small point to make regarding the start of your letter, particularly regarding the word “disabled”.

To be clear, you are absolutely entitled to your own personal relationship with the term, and I don't mean to suggest that you need to adopt it if you don't feel it reflects your experience. However, I don't agree that “the problem” is in your body and brain. It is, as you say, in the way the world is arranged to make life that much more difficult for you.

A framing I have seen from some disability activists is to speak of themselves as disabled by society, rather than by their condition. They don't consider disability to be a trait in and of itself, but a condition put upon them by an ableist society.

I don't know if this framing is a helpful one for you personally, and as I said, I don't wish to tell you how you “ought” to describe yourself. But I wanted to mention it as a possible alternative way of thinking, in case it proves useful to you.

But that, I know, was not the point of your letter. Unfortunately, reader, I don't have a clear cut answer for you. People who have been cursed are not a uniform group – neither their experiences, nor the way they speak about those experiences, are identical.

The fact is, yes, some people will be offended by your use of “the wizard's curse” to describe your experiences. Others will find it an expressive, even entertaining way of viewing your situation.

You also run the risk that some people will simply not understand the metaphorical nature of your statement, so please be prepared for those well-meaning folk who hear this and immediately start recommending salt baths and smoke cleanses.

I can reassure you that this is not a term that carries any particular historical reason to avoid its usage – it isn't comparable to such out-dated idioms as referring to public outcry as a “witch hunt” or the use of the phrase “Frankenstein's monster” when speaking of a messy, difficult situation, and implicitly associating reanimation with negativity and failure.

Instead, it is rather like the English language use of the word “slimy” to mean “dishonest” or “morally corrupt”. Certainly some people see the usage as offensive, but it isn't actually rooted in any specific anti-liminal sentiment and those voices are the minority.

In fact, some people argue that it is more offensive to assume “slimy” must somehow be associated with people of viscosity. But I think we are getting rather into the weeds of what is, to be honest, a largely online debate with very little real-world application.

In short, reader, it is up to you how you proceed. You need to decide for yourself whether you're comfortable with the ambiguity of your language and with the diverse ways you may be interpreted.

There are rarely any clear cut answers on the topic of language, and it may be that your feelings on the matter change over time. But the fact remains that only you can decide how best to describe yourself, and only you have the power to make this decision.

[xxlovelynovaxx]

Y'know, in the same vein as the earlier post about not policing reclamation of slurs/language used by marginalized groups...

I really hate not feeling safe in any spaces dedicated to activism for others causes as a disabled person.

I'm too scared to ever say how much it hurts when the words for our symptoms and pathologies are used derisively. When "delusion" is used to mean "a non-pathological disconnect from reality caused by radicalized hatred and bigotry". When "stupid", "idiot", "moron" and so on are used nearly exclusively to describe bigots, bad people, and exclusionists, reaffirming the idea that intelligence has any correlation to morality and harm. How words like "narcissistic", "sociopathic", and "psychotic" are used as synonyms for abusive and bigoted.

I see it in activist spaces for communities that I'm in. I'm scared to say anything out of fear I'll be denied both resources and community itself and be outcast and dogpiled for daring to ask for a change in language that would make disabled people within the community feel safer and more comfortable.

I see it in activist spaces that I enter as an ally. I'm afraid the axis on which I have privilege will become a weapon in trying to speak up on the axis in which the people using the language (often) have it. I know dynamics of privilege and oppressive power are complex and often fluid themselves, and try to simply uplift the disabled people within these communities... but they're encountering the problem in the last paragraph and are often just as scared to speak, so no ones does and the issue continues unchecked.

(I see it in activist spaces where I am questioning or joining the community, especially where I'm trying to educate myself while I occupy the weird space between "ally" and "member".)

Sometimes I see members of specific marginalized groups that I'm not in say that no one else could possibly understand entering queer or plural or even just leftist spaces and facing the deeply rooted bigotry against that marginalized group in what's supposed to be a safe space. I know I can't understand exactly with each specific form of bigotry, but I have experienced a form of that. I know what it's like for what's supposed to be a safe space to be deeply unsafe on the basis of identity.

I wonder when I see these words being used in this way: if they knew I had NPD, would they think I'm more likely to be an abuser? Would they reveal years into a friendship as close as any romantic relationship that they thought I was "one of the good ones"? Would they say "narcissism is different from Narcissism the Personality Disorder, anyone is capable of being a Bad Narcissist" and simply not care enough to listen to the person hurt by those words about how they hurt them? Would they care that I don't know whether they think people like me are less than human when they use that language, but I do know they're using my identity as a pejorative?

I wonder: If I ask them to reconsider conflating lack of intelligence with harm, if I pointed out that this is insidious language which upholds the oppression of those with mental, intellectual, cognitive, and developmental disabilities - particularly by subtly perpetuating the idea that we are dangerous - if I point out the way we flinch every time we see "stupid" as an insult because, well, it's a word that's been used against us, that belongs to us, that is us (in a way we refuse to have taken away)... will they care?

I wonder: If it's pointed out how misuse of terms related to psychosis and delusions are foundational to sanism, that the contexts in which they are misused often link them to "dangerous" and "harmful" behaviors which only serves to further the myth that "mad" mentally ill people are a danger and need to be locked away for their own good and the good of society, if I talk about how this language is inaccurate, taking the few words we have for what can be intensely traumatizing experiences internally and are almost always intensely traumatizing identities to hold in a sanist society where we are many times more vulnerable to abuse than most... what would be the response?

Will I be accused of "derailing"? "Stealing important language" from "the real victims"? Of "speaking over marginalized people" in cases where we each have full, nonconditional/noncontextual privilege on one of the axes involved? Will attempts at education over words being used derogatorily against nonconsenting parties (which is still harmful even by parties that can reclaim said language for self-usage) that are carefully neutral in tone and wording and even encouraging be ignored because it's not focused on "the real issue"?

I mean, this is an issue even within disabled spaces, particularly those for physical disability (which I am in as a physically disabled person), much like corpoableism is prevalent and harmful in mad and neurodivergent spaces. It's not a unique issue. Ableism is so pervasive and so insidious in our society that many people are legitimately ignorant. Ignorance is neither evil nor a crime.

When I was less traumatized in this regard, I had many lovely interactions with individuals who were grateful to be informed about these things, with whom I was able to have nuanced conversations about how language itself can be neutral but the context of its usage can cause it to further harmful ideologies.

Unfortunately, the bad interactions vastly outnumbered these in scope, scale, and magnitude. People who seemed otherwise progressive and anti-bigotry would go full mask-off fascist, claiming everything from "narcissists should all be lined up and shot" to that I was "clearly too [r-slur] to understand how these words were actually perfectly fine" to how I was "psychotic and should be locked up and asylum treatments should be brought back".

Honestly, those were the least traumatizing interactions. It was the little, subtle stuff - the way self-identified abled people would turn around the accusations of ableism and accuse me of being ableist (or otherwise bigoted, usually against my own other identities) in classic DARVO fashion. The way people would twist and manipulate my words to claim I was arguing something I never said in order to shut down discussions of ableism that might force them to examine their own accountability and complicity. The way people just wouldn't ever take conversations on ableism seriously and will ridicule any attempts at discussing any ableism that isn't shouting r slurs at people in the streets or telling disabled people you hope their disability kills them.

The way that I struggled to find examples extreme enough for that last sentence, because if you're subtle enough you can use equivalent words to the slur or simply IMPLY that disabled people are burdens on society who live miserable lives that are not in any way fixable and that we and everyone else would be happier and better off if disabled people were dead.

I want to make it clear: if you have any willingness to learn, if any of the language you use has been out of ignorance and you are willing to listen (even if you need to take time to be in the headspace to process it properly), if you can even sit with this post and not reactively do the aforementioned behaviors... this isn't about you. This is a vent post about the people who make it unsafe and terrifying to open a dialogue with the people that simply aren't educated on every possible form every kind of bigotry can take.

I'm constantly terrified. I relate to what other marginalized people - jewish people, people of color, even people with specific disabilities I don't share - are going through right now. This isn't to call out any specific space, because it's just... everywhere. How can you stand up to it when it's so completely ubiquitous? How do you maintain the courage to keep demanding a baseline standard of decency when everybody is using the language that the people who legitimately think you should be dead or worse use?

How do you explain that something is a dogwhistle for your own dehumanization and oppression to someone, when odds worse than a coin flip are that they agree with the premise of the dogwhistle even if not knowingly using it as such?

I dunno.

People are welcome to reblog this, though of course I will never pressure anyone to do so (and if this triggers any kind of OCD or other compulsions, this is me giving you a pass not to do so!)

I debated on asking people to keep the discussion centered on ableism or to limit commentary to only those affected by ableism, but quite honestly, I think the discussion would be enriched by discussing this phenomenon as it pertains to other forms of bigotry. All I ask is that for anyone who does participate in this conversation, that no one ridicules or derides anyone for expressing "this is a form of my oppression/bigotry that hurts me" and that we all do our best to center the voices most affected by a given issue, even while allowing for participation in that part of the discussion by others.

(Maybe this post will languish and die without opening a conversation and that last paragraph is just my ego getting the better of me lol. Who knows?)

This also is really just a vent post. Not a call out post, not meant to assign blame, not any kind of attempt at holding anyone accountable (what an ineffective tool a tumblr post would be for that, anyway!), not anything other than expressing frustration and rage and grief and pain and terror and trauma over the way the lines between well-intentioned ignorance and malicious but pretty-sounding hatred have been blurred by bad faith actors.

I will say though for those willing, one of the best ways to combat this problem is to educate yourselves and others. It's okay to focus your efforts on members of your communities that you trust to be receptive to you specifically. It's okay to only spread the basics and direct to disabled (or otherwise marginalized, for other issues) activists who are focused on education for further information.

Sometimes "privilege" in the context of marginalization can simply mean "I will not be hurt by someone being reactive towards an identity that I'm not, AND they're less likely to do so in the first place because they know I am a safe person for our shared identity".

That's maybe an imperfect explanation, but it's one pulled from my own experiences calling in members of communities I'm in. Calling in is better, whenever possible, for this reason! It's why my fears expressed about communities that I am entering as an ally and a disabled person are about causing harm, rather than just being harmed, but which tie into the fact that disabled people within those communities fear being harmed.

Entering the conversation as someone who is marginalized AND nonmarginalized on the same axes as the other person puts you very solidly on even footing. It makes a space recognizable as safe by ALL parties from the start. Discussing bigotry that does not affect you especially, even if you lack some depth of perspective on it, lowers the stakes and allows the delicate conversation to take root and grow.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

However, scholars who use the concept frequently fail to define it or integrate it within broader theorization of masculinity. I surveyed 60 scholarly articles published since 2016 mentioning toxic masculinity. More than half of those did not define it, relying on it to signal disapproval. The book Toxic Geek Masculinity (Salter and Blodgett 2017), for instance, uses the term frequently without definition.

Working With Men, an award-winning UK charity supporting positive male activity and engagement, today released the results of its Future Men 2018 Survey. The survey revealed that UK society has a negative view of the word ‘masculine’, with very few respondents associating masculinity with positive human traits such as care/ kindness (3%), respectfulness (1%), honesty (1%) and supportiveness (1%).

The research, conducted by YouGov, polled a nationally representative sample of 2,058 British adults, highlighting the public’s views on masculinity and what it means “to be a man” in the UK.

By 2017, there were thousands of mentions, mostly in the mainstream media. Harrington points out that the term is almost never defined, even by academics, and is instead used to simply “signal disapproval.” Lacking any coherent or consistent definition, the phrase now refers to any male behavior that the user disapproves of, from the tragic to the trivial. It has been blamed, among other things, for mass shootings, gang violence, rape, online trolling, climate change, the financial crisis, Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and an unwillingness to wear a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lumping together terrorists and delinquents, it ultimately poisons the very idea of masculinity itself. Interviewing dozens of adolescent boys and young men for her book Boys and Sex, Peggy Orenstein always asked them what they liked about being a boy. She says most drew a blank. “That’s interesting,” one college sophomore told her. “I never really thought about that. You hear a lot more about what is wrong with guys.”

Toxic masculinity is a counterproductive term. Very few boys and men are likely to react well to the idea that there is something toxic inside them that needs to be exorcized. This is especially true given that most of them identify quite strongly with their masculinity. Nine in ten men and women describe themselves as either “completely” or “mostly” masculine or feminine. These gender identities are held quite strongly too. Almost half of men (43%) said their sex was “extremely important” to their identity. In another survey by Pew Research Center, a similar proportion of men (46%) said that it was either very or somewhat important for others to see them as “manly or masculine.” (In both surveys, the numbers were even higher for women.) In other words, most people identify pretty strongly as either masculine or feminine. It is a bad idea to send a cultural signal to half the population that there may be something intrinsically wrong with them.

Reactions to contemporary narratives about masculinity: A pilot study

Masculinity is frequently talked about in contemporary Western media as being in crisis, needing reform or even being ‘toxic’. However, no research to date has assessed the impact that this pervasive narrative might be having on people, particularly men themselves. This cross-sectional online pilot survey asked 203 men and 52 women (mean + SD age 46 + 13) their opinions about the terms toxic masculinity, traditional masculinity, and positive masculinity, and how they would feel if their gender was seen as the cause of their relationship or job problems. Most participants thought the term toxic masculinity insulting, probably harmful to boys, and unlikely to help men’s behaviour. Having feminist views, especially being anti-patriarchy, were correlated with more tolerance of the term toxic masculinity. Most participants said they would be unhappy if their masculinity or femininity were blamed for their work or relationship problems. Further analysis using multiple linear regression found that men’s self-esteem was significantly predicted by older age, more education, and a greater acceptance of traditional masculinity. Men’s mental positivity – which is known to be negatively correlated with suicidality – was significantly predicted by older age, a greater acceptance of traditional masculinity, and more education. Implications for the mental health of men and boys are discussed in relation to the narrative around masculinity in the media, social sciences, and in clinical psychology.

[freesia-writes]

Howzer + Aurelia Ch. 24 - Blowing Off Steam

Even as a cocky young shiny, there were a few people who saw the integrity and depth beneath Howzer's facade. Aurelia was one of them, but life tore them apart. However, when they found themselves reunited on Ryloth, with drastically different circumstances, they have to learn anew how to navigate a changing world and their undeniable feelings for one another.

Master List of Chapters

Content/Trigger Warnings for Entire Work (individual chapter posts not labeled): wartime peril, injury, and death (chapters 12-14); pregnancy, birthing trauma, and infant loss (chapters 31-38); sexual assault up to kissing (chapter 19); relationship passion up to making out and heavy petting; sexual relationship alluded to but not described (no smut, sorry) ;)

Word Count: 2.9k

24. Blowing Off Steam

Howzer's walk home that night was particularly chilly, but he didn't feel a thing, buoyed as he was by the absolute elation coursing through his veins. The door to his quarters slid open, revealing a stark, cold, empty little room with the basic necessities. He had come to love this simple little space of his own over the last few years, but now it felt lonely compared to the warmth and comfort of Aurelia's. It wasn't unusual for clones to find respite in the arms of another, but the concept of any kind of long-term domestic life was simply impossible. Yet watching the tender intimacy between Cham and Eleni as they pursued a shared vision together had left a distinct impression on him. 

He loved his post. His brothers worked together like a well-oiled machine, providing a sort of diplomatic interface between the Empire and the locals. He found himself considering future options, then chuckled to himself, realizing that the only freedom he would experience was in the time between shifts, or on the rare chance that he would be put on leave. Other than that, he was property of the Republic. Or the Empire. Or whoever was pulling the strings, deciding where and how his life would be spent. So, any free will could only be exercised in those precious hours off. 

The thoughts continued as he finished his nighttime routine and flopped onto his thin mat, feeling his resolve settle on a path forward. 

* * *

"Come on, Captain. It'll be fun!"

"Don't bother with him, Steady. He's a stuffy old loner these days."

"What'd you say?!" came an identical voice from across the barracks. 

"Not you, Loner!" 

"Listen... It's Evo's last shift before he's promoted to his fancy new post. It would mean a lot to him. He's been part of your squad from the start," the first clone said again, putting a hand on Howzer's shoulder. "Besides, where are you always off to? You're not in your bunk..."

"Alright, Steady, alright," Howzer cut him off, "I'll be there."

"Ha! Told you, Demo!" was the triumphant proclamation. 

"I'll believe it when I see it," Demo muttered, still waving off Loner's piercing glare.

* * *

"That sounds fun!" Aurelia said, surprising even herself with her enthusiasm.

"Really?" Howzer asked, smiling in delight, "I figured you'd had enough of those days."

"Well, anything is more fun with you involved, and I've always enjoyed hanging out with the clones."

"Anything, eh?" he grinned, "I'll remember that for later. But I'd love it if you came. I haven't told the boys anything about us, because we're not really supposed to do this sort of thing, but they've all broken those rules in one way or another... You still might get some flak."

"Just like old times," Aurelia chuckled, more to herself than to him.

"Not exactly like old times," Howzer corrected, rubbing the back of his neck. "But anyway... I'll see you there after work?" 

"Sounds good," she replied, yearning to give him a goodbye kiss but deterred by the flurry of people around them. It was lunchtime in the capitol square, and everyone seemed to be shifting from morning duties to afternoon. So with a simple nod to each other, they parted ways. 

* * *

The music thumped as species of all shapes and sizes gathered in the local cantina, where the atmosphere was infectiously jovial -- the celebration of the end of another week of work. Not that it mattered to the clones, for whom every day was the same, but the locals were always particularly enthusiastic before their rest days. The building was well-lit and spacious, with a variety of high-ceilinged rooms and areas for groups to gather, supported by a perfectly circular bar in the middle that fueled the good time. A small band played on a raised stage in the center of the bar, above everyone's heads, and warm golden lights were scattered throughout the rooms. It was reminiscent of 79s and yet totally foreign, though the general purpose was the same. 

Aurelia was late. She'd been assisting a surgery that took twice as long as expected due to the medical droid damaging a servo partway through. She didn't want to show up in her work clothes, however, so still made the trip home for a frenzied refresh. She found herself feeling nervous, wanting to put her best foot forward in front of Howzer's squad. Flashbacks of his embarrassment at being seen with her came to the surface, but they no longer gave her the turn of the stomach that they used to. But she still found it difficult to be fully confident in his affection; she just had never seen herself as much of a "catch", for whatever reason. 

But none of that mattered -- bringing herself back to the present, she opted for a dainty floral dress, a slightly uncharacteristic choice, but it made her feel more feminine, and accentuated what little figure she did have. Her short hair was growing out a little bit, giving her a curly sort of bob, which she pulled back from her face a little bit with a ribbon. 

The cantina was impossible to miss, as its crowd spilled out onto the street in front of it. Conversations and scuffles, laughter and hollers... Aurelia wove her way through to the door, searching the room for Howzer. She had never ventured in before, and she was immediately assaulted by an incredible variety of sights and sounds. 

A short Rodian immediately approached her, putting a hand on her elbow and saying something. His bulbous eyes were galaxies of their own, and his tiny mouth moved closer to her ear as he continued. It was impossible to discern what he was saying, with all the noise, and she smiled and shook her head, still craning her neck to try to spot one special clone. The Rodian was not to be dissuaded, however, and followed after her, tugging on her arm. She felt the anxiety beginning to rise when suddenly she spotted some familiar white helmets in one of the conversation areas and made a beeline for them. 

But as she charged straight into the living-room sort of space they were in, she realized that Howzer wasn't there, and she was instead met with a handful of similar faces all looking at her with expressions from delighted surprise to judgmental confusion. 

"Can we help you, ma'am?" one of the clones asked, watching the Rodian continue to pester her. 

"I'm not sure what he wants," she said pathetically, "He's not speaking Basic." 

"This one's for you, Evo," the clone said, beckoning to one of his brothers, who rose to his feet and began speaking just as quickly to the insistent green creature in his native language of Rodese. Two green hands went up in the air, waving back and forth, and he finally turned and went out the front door. 

"He was absolutely convinced that he was supposed to meet you here tonight," Evo said, returning to his couch. "Did I just get rid of your hot date?" he said with a smirk.

"No," Aurelia laughed, looking around at the squad nervously. "I'm just... uh... hanging out tonight." She realized she didn't know what Howzer had told them, if anything, and didn't want to offer more information than was necessary. 

"Well pull up a chair!" said one of the clones. He had the standard military haircut but a bold, thick mustache that moved when he spoke to give his words a bit more dramatic flair. "Evo here is enjoying one last hurrah before he's shipped off to fame and glory. Maybe you could dance for him... give him a good time, you know?" 

Aurelia's cheeks flushed bright red as another one spoke up, "She just walked in, Demo! Give her a break!"

"She'd be lucky to land a guy like Evo! I'm offering the chance of a lifetime here!" the mustached Demo replied, finishing his glass mug with a flourish. 

"Thank you, Demo. I don't need the assistance," said the clone who was apparently named Evo. His hair was perhaps ear-length, parted perfectly off to the side and meticulously combed. He looked like he spent a lot of time on it each day, and Aurelia also caught a strong whiff of cologne. "You're welcome to join us, if you'd like, but I can't promise you'll be spared from... well, the boys," he jerked his head toward the rest. 

"Uhh, thank you," she said, taking an uncertain seat while still looking around for Howzer. 

"You're not gonna find anything sexier out there," another playful voice came.

"Not you too now, Steady." 

"I leave for five minutes and you're already harassing the locals..." came that same-and-yet-not-same voice from behind her, and Aurelia whipped around to see Howzer approaching with a tray of drinks. Her heart skipped a beat at the sight of him, scar-faced and weathered, with the depth of a lifetime in his big brown eyes. He gave her a quick grin and a wink as he passed the glasses out to his squad mates, then plopped onto the couch next to her. 

His presence was a disproportionate joy, and Aurelia felt herself relaxing and enjoying the rest of the conversations as the troopers poked fun at each other, interacted with random others in the area, and recounted their harrowing and glorious adventures. It was almost surreal, seeing Howzer in the element where they'd first met but acting so different this time around. He had an undeniable warmth toward his brothers, and a steady, calm presence of strength and dignity. Maybe she was a little biased, but he was nothing short of magnificent to her, and, she thought, completely smitten with her as well... she hoped. 

She took a break to grab a fizz at the bar, scanning the establishment while she waited. It was a colorful assortment of characters, dancing and talking, with lots of Twi'leks mingling among the clones. There were even a few Imperials here and there, though they mostly kept to themselves with a conceited sort of air about them. Taking a sip of the bubbly bottle, she headed back to the clones just in time to see an Imperial officer leaning over Howzer's shoulder. A female officer.

"You want to tell me how you got those scars, captain?" she crooned, swaying over the back of the couch, her long braid falling over her shoulder from underneath her officer cap. She almost leaned too far, catching herself at the last minute with a laugh. Aurelia paused, feeling a paralyzing mix of awkwardness and jealousy and insecurity. 

"It's not as exciting as you'd think," Howzer replied politely, shifting in his seat slightly away from her. 

"You're too modest," she said, tracing a finger along the tip of his ear, which startled him and made him flinch minutely. "Oh, jumpy too, eh?" she laughed. Aurelia was suddenly overwhelmed with a strong desire to drag the officer right out the door by her braid, but also wasn't the confrontational type. 

"Sorry -- ma'am -- I'm just here to celebrate my brother," he attempted, pointing to Evo who was triumphantly beating Steady at arm wrestling. 

"Well let's celebrate!" she declared, sliding over the back of the couch and landing halfway in Howzer's lap with an inebriated giggle. The insecurity melted into indignant anger as Aurelia watched, still standing in the flow of traffic, but she had no time to process it with the rapid-fire events that followed. 

Two Twi'lek females danced their way over into the center of their little lounge area, sparkly metals dangling and shimmering from their headdresses, halter tops, and waists. A couple of the clones gave a little cheer, while one in particular looked incredibly sour. One of the Twi'leks leaned over Howzer, right in between him and the Imperial, and spoke loudly.

"Move along, nice lady. The Captain is more than you can handle," she said, words unmistakable despite her thickly exotic accent. "Why don't you try one of the boys?"

"You can't talk to me like--" the officer protested, but the Twi'lek grabbed her by the arms and, in an incomprehensibly mesmerizing way, picked her up and danced her right out of the area. 

"Go on, sweetie. Trust me," she said, giving the woman one last little push, "You don't want to come between a hunter and her prey." Baring her teeth in some kind of sexy feral display of dominance, the Twi'lek whipped around, nearly smacking the Imperial in the face with her lekku, and headed back toward Howzer, who saw her approaching and quickly rose to his feet and made a beeline for the back of the bar counter. She moved to follow him, but was mercifully intercepted by Demo, who waggled his mustache at her suggestively and patted the seat next to him. Apparently she wasn't too terribly set on her prey, because she happily took him up on the offer.

Aurelia found Howzer on the stool at the far end of the bar, near the back of the room in a quieter area of the large spherical area. The band still played, but the acoustics seemed to point the music more toward the front, so it was a blessed relief from the overstimulation. She slipped onto the stool next to him with a smile, trying to determine how to play this. 

"If three-years-ago-you could have seen all that, he would have died a happy man," she poked, with a lighthearted pat on the hand. There was something nostalgic about connecting with him at the back of the bar, and she chuckled at the drastic difference of the circumstances.

"I blame you for that," he returned evenly, tilting his head at her. "It's like they know I'm in--"

He was cut off by an approaching figure: a woman in civilian clothes, dancing to the music and gesturing for him to join her. Aurelia's mind was a thousand steps ahead of her -- what was he about to say? She felt jealous and angry, insecure and anxious, and wondered what she could possibly do to set herself apart if this was what he experienced on a regular basis. She glanced back at him and almost laughed at his expression: flustered frustration, utter bafflement, and sudden ingenuity. 

He stood from his stool, moving right up against Aurelia, and tipped her chin up with one hand while wrapping the other arm around her. Before she knew what was happening, he was kissing her, and his hand moved back to cup the back of her head. After the initial shock, her hands slipped around his back, pulling herself close against the plastoid armor plates. He pulled away for a moment, casting a quick glance to the side where the disappointed woman was sauntering away, and Aurelia began to lean back as well. 

"Oh wait, more are coming," Howzer said with overly dramatic urgency, and his lips were on hers again. Her head was spinning, but his closeness and scent and increasingly passionate kisses made everything else fade away. Her hands roved up his chest and wrapped around his neck, across his shoulders. He lowered his arms to her waist, pulling back a fraction of an inch.

"Are they gone?" he asked in a conspiratorial whisper, and she laughed as she turned to glance around the room. Before she could reply, his lips were brushing against her ear, his warm breath tickling and sending shivers down her spine. "Better just be certain..." he murmured, placing a kiss on her neck that felt electrifying. 

"Oh I see how it is!" a male voice boomed, and Howzer retreated to look but left his arms firmly around Aurelia. "You pretend like you're not interested in all the ladies but here you are, hiding like a womp rat in the corner!" Steady stood before them, a teasing smirk plastered across his face. 

"I'm not hiding," Howzer began, but Steady was boisterously clapping Aurelia on the back. 

"Congratulations to you, my friend!" he proclaimed, giving Howzer a light punch on the shoulder as well. "This one's pretty mysterious and solitary though, so don't get your hopes up!"

Aurelia laughed, reeling from everything happening so fast, and nodded wordlessly. Howzer looked at her with an apologetic shrug and a glint in his eye as he spoke, "Sorry, I guess he's right."

"I'll take my chances," she quipped, smiling at Howzer before returning her gaze to Steady, who gave them both another slap on the back.

"Well don't say I didn't warn ya! Come on, Evo's gonna arm wrestle a Trandoshan!" 

Howzer took Aurelia's hand, entwining his fingers with hers, and followed Steady back to the group. Evo was sitting opposite the giant lizard, who was hissing menacingly as he cracked his muscles. Demo was elbows deep in Twi'lek woman on the couch nearby, and Steady took a seat next to Loner, who, contrary to his name, was sitting close enough to watch the action. 

"Look! Captain's got himself a little treat tonight!" Demo called out before a finger to his lips silenced him and he disappeared into a pile of baubles and lekku once again. 

Aurelia stiffened, feeling numerous eyes on them, and tried to look casual. It wasn't until Howzer released her hand to put an arm firmly around her shoulders and regarded each of his brothers with a calm, even gaze, that she felt the tension ease up.

"What are we betting?" he said, nodding toward Evo, and the hoots and hollers began. 

Feel free to tag a friend who loves Howzer or comment to be added to the tag list! <3

@mary-on-the-contrary @doublesunsets @523rdrebel

[eternalflashh]

thoughts slash word vomit about sparkle // hsr 2.2 spoilers

i do overthink, but i genuinely keep wondering there's more to sparkle's role in the penacony arc (cf. her character, although there being more to her role would have to correlate to there being more to her character/personal motivations).

in all fairness i am all for her simply being a menace and looking for chaos, as aha themself seems to operate, and having no other ulterior motive; though it would be unconventional, it would be very true to her character were she to simply be "meaningless" in her role in this arc, aka a red herring—there only to incite suspicion when there was no harm, only fun, to begin with. it would be in line with her beliefs; it would be like sampo in belobog, not worth much with respect to the story and motives not so clear to the end. and i could get by that reality, because it does reflect her identity as a masked fool.

maybe it's really just because i'm used to conventional narratives that i find it hard to believe she has no other role than to be a little silly. "no useless characters", and whatnot.

to be fair, it's not like i think she might have a secret motive because "she's secretly kind and just wants everyone to be happy". she's terrible and immoral and that is what makes her a good villain (to me, if to no one else); she doesn't show sympathy towards "death" (although, maybe she's always known the truth? wouldn't be out of the question), nor is she hesitant in mocking people for their grievances, even race.

that doesn't mean she doesn't have a philosophy, though, and it's that philosophy that begets actions. thus far, too, it's clear she does have reason and ambition—she is far from the "meaningless" masked fools are often described in. we know she's passionate about acting and amusement. she also talks about working "behind the scenes", even mentions that her reason for being there has to be aligned with aha's reasons for sending her. laughter and amusement is not nihilism. as for what she'd do to get that Laughter?

data bank and SU index say that the elation would do anything, often invoking chaos or massive change, to bring joy and laughter to the world. in which case, the actions she is doing must revolve around making a huge change. yet she has done so little—of what we can see, anyway; she pushes us into the real dreamscape, yes, and she's been suggesting things to aventurine. was this her simple role, to be the imperceptible catalyst to change and destruction? then why does she keep appearing, still, with these mutually assured destruction buttons, when we hardly see them used either? or are they used, but we just did not see them? is her role in this arc, too, going to be something purely behind-the-scenes, something we'd never come to witness?

and then, on the deeper note: is the amusement watching the dream collapse, or is it something more inherent than that, more "noble", per se—like, say, spreading true elation? this may sound quite ironic considering people seem to be happy in the dreamscape, yet sparkle's going about revealing unhappy truths hidden in the dreamscape. but perhaps, does she believe true joy can only be obtained beyond the confines of a dream—in life?

it's a reach, i admit. but something else has been mildly bothering me that has led me to entertain this idea: sparkle's powers emanate from the Harmony. first i only thought it mildly interesting because penacony is governed by the family, and it was a nice coincidence. but in the 2.2 mission we got a new path for our trailblazer, after confronting sunday's ideals and being glanced upon by none other than xipe themselves. the power of paths said to be based on recognition, so it would imply that xipe recognized sparkle's beliefs— that it resonated with harmony. which i initially thought ironic, because followers of the elation typically are characterized by chaos.

but whereas chaos is the antithesis of order, it is not so the antithesis of harmony per se; in fact, you could interpret harmony as peaceful coexistence of differences (whereas, like sunday's ideals, order seems to be concerned with everyone believing in one structure, following Laws, rather than freedom amongst difference.) i'd think sparkle, too, respects that people live varying different lives (a thousand faces, etc); that she wouldn't want humanity's free will to be taken away, because it is against true Elation as she defines it. again, all conjecture, little evidence, just food for thought.

tl;dr: it bothers me— what she's really been doing (if she's doing anything substantial for the plot), the why's, what she really believes in... why she knows so much, says less than she can, why she keeps appearing (especially in this patch) with seemingly little reason.

and also: in the cutscene with a bunch of them, sparkle was lying down on the ground. WHY

i also wonder what the answer is if you'd chosen the fact about sparkle when we're unveiling that the first "ending" was a dream. whether it would tell you that's the flaw. because i chose the misha one and it immediately said that's the flaw. so i can't tell if there's only one right option or all of them would be correct. i'll search it up eventually! i'm Too Curious!

can't believe now i have to wait six weeks for another update that mAY NOT ANSWER MY QUESTIONS i genuinely hate this game.

[ofmermaidstories]

really appreciate the effort that u put into making reader as gender neutral as you can- and how u don’t add descriptions to how reader looks. i cant tell you how many times i’ve had to stop reading an x reader fic that mentioned reader having blue or green eyes, blonde hair, etc. (or when they describe reader as being paper thin). like yeah some people do have those features but NOT everyone…and the ppl who don’t have green eyes and blonde hair (etc) features wanna be included in x reader fics too u know? anyway. yeah. thanks. <3 love your writing btw!!!! 😅

LOL, hi! i will continue to try my (very human) best with the neutrality. 🌷 it’s the charm of the x Reader niche! neutrality with personal descriptors—because you’re trying to cater for as much of the audience as you can, within whatever role you’re giving the Reader in your fic! whether that’s assigning them as a trope like a Pro Hero, or a Childhood Friend, or giving them a specific background that’s important (and informing) to their identity and thus their experience of the world at large—like a POC, or being plus-sized, or living with a disability. Going through a illness, or a life-changing event—idk, i think these are all types of specificities that add more nuance and fun to a piece without dictating a Reader’s shoe-size.

because!! this is the thing!!! specificities are fun—but they’re fun when they’re insertable. humans are at once emphatic and selfish, LOL; we can imagine losing our entire town in a war, or our mother in a tragic building collapse, or being marginalised in a way that we might not otherwise be—but mention we go through all that and that we have piercing amethyst (non-Quirked) eyes at the same time? eh… LOL.

i consider x Reader fics to be their own genre, with their own genre-rules. second-person pov, scant personal descriptions, etc etc. and because i find it fun, i give myself extra rules (it’s fun to me!!!!! reeee!!!!!!!)—like, for instance, there are certain words i either won’t use to describe our Reader or our Reader’s actions, or will use sparingly, depending on the context: like pretty. giggle. delicate. curvy. jeans!!! (i personally think they can be indicative of a size range, depending on how Reader is wearing them, but maybe that’s me projecting bc i hate jeans and i wish they had never been invented <3) just stuff like that! stuff that makes me pause and go, hmm, okay, what kind of person/image is this suggesting to me? using second-person POV to write in gives you so much like, room to play with, when it comes to describing how someone might view themselves/be viewed by others. especially with a romance, where all we want is to be seen! it’s a great opportunity to be like, okay, maybe i don’t want to be seen for how prettily i can giggle—maybe i want to be seen for how easily i laugh with other people.

however,,,, (and this is a big however) i (me, merms) do think that i (again, me, merms) can say this stuff simply because writing with those aforementioned rules makes writing these x Reader fics in general more fun for me (merms). and it’s fun for me because i’ve had my amethyst-eyed, white-haired character days. when i’m not working on fics, i’m busy chipping away at my original fiction, third person, where we have green-eyed skinny blonds and curvy girls with long wavy dark hair like—any and all need for description i have, i get it out in other ways LOL. which means i can afford to approach x Reader fics as a different type of challenge. i would never begrudge (the often younger) writers who are here because it’s fun, and want to write about a Y/N who has amethyst eyes and white hair. Y/N has always, always been their own character—the specificities we give them (or don’t) has always just been in service of making it easier to project onto them. an adventure is an adventure, and at the end of the day it doesn’t matter the cloak we’re wearing for it—as long as we get to the end of it safely. 🌷💕📖

[readyfreddy]

pride asks; 1, 4, 10, 13, 20, 29, 34

i know it's a lot, you dont have to answer them all! <3 happy pride!

Happy pride to you too!

1 Which labels do you use?

Orientation-wise: gay

Gender-wise: I've been questioning my gender for roughly a year and a half, but it's something along the lines of genderfluid or nonbinary but just "some guy" for the most part. I suppose "cisn't" is the best way of describing it.

4. Are you "out" to your family and friends?

I'm not really out to my family, at this point they likely know without me telling them/saying anything. They've changed their language when asking if I'm dating anyone ("do you have a girlfriend?" to "are you seeing anyone?") and conversation topics.

I never really came out to my friends at university, as I simply gave off "really good vibes" and I have a lot of queer pins on my backpack. Most people around me know I'm gay, and I thankfully haven't had a ton of issues.

I'm not out to anyone in terms of gender. Although during orientation we were sharing our names and pronouns and I hesitated while saying he/him and a few people definitely noticed lol. They for sure know that something is up, and they're all right.

10. Something that gives you gender euphoria (whether you're cis or trans):

I enjoy painting my nails, I don't do it very often as I do a lot of farm work and I hate waiting for it to dry. Getting they/them'd, it doesn't happen very often, but it does on occasion, wish it would happen more.

13. Do you choose to reclaim slurs, why or why not?

I use the word "queer" to describe myself. When I was a little bit younger (15-20) I was a lot more uncomfortable with using the term to describe myself, as it was used in a derogatory fashion rather than a neutral or uplifting manner. I respect those who are uncomfortable with the term and don't want others to use it to describe themselves.

20. Do you feel like you "fit in" with the queer/Pride community overall?

I think so? Quite a few of my friends are queer, and I genuinely care about LGBTQ+ rights and news within the community. Prior to going to university, I didn't have as many queer friends.

29. Are you currently partnered, or if not are you interested in having partner(s)?

I'm currently not seeing anyone at the moment, which I'm okay with for the most part. I would like to start seeing one at some point, however, due to how my life is going, it doesn't make sense/isn't fair for anyone at the moment.

34. What are you needing most right now (what would make your life easier or more fulfilling in regards to existing as queer)?

I think that it would be easier to live in a society where no one would truly have to hide their identities from others.

pride asks

🩷❤️🧡💛💚🩵💙💜

[clusterduck28]

hi! i promise i don’t mean to come across as rude, i’m just genuinely curious as to what you meant on that last mental health post where you said “Mental disorders are, in fact, social constructs. Just like gender and a bunch of other stuff, who knew...!”

are you saying that mental disorders are a made up thing by society? and if so, what do you make of ADHD, Bipolar Mania, and schizophrenia? i personally have the first two and my symptoms aren’t made up because i accepted societies ideas of Mania, there is an actual chemical imbalance in my brain.

if you’re talking about about actually putting names to illnesses, then i can definitely see where you’re coming from. medicine is evolving every day and obviously there will be advancements and changes to certain diagnoses, but it kind of rubs me the wrong way when you compare mental disorders to gender - which is definitely made up by society - because it implies that you mean that mental disorders are just something made up by a group of people and not something that is real and affects around 970 Million people (a rough estimate from the world health organization from 2022)

again, i really don’t mean to be rude so i hope it doesn’t come across that way!

I don't think this came off as rude anon, don't worry about it :3 I'll expand on this real quick

So, basically, yes the symptoms are real, the chemical imbalances in the brain are also real and measurable, as well as like physiological brain abnormalities, ect. The names, definitions and categories we use to describe them are, however, socially constructed.

An interesting example I just came up with to illustrate this would be to think about prehistoric cave people who had nearly identical brain structures to our own but have yet to organize themselves into complex social systems like we have in modern times. Imagine yourself being born in pre-historic times with the exact same brain structure and chemistry you have right now, you would experience the exact same set of symptoms but you wouldn't know to think of them as 'ADHD' or 'Bipolar mania', etc. because these concepts simply don't exist yet. To summerized, the types of experiences that society now considers to be mental disorders have been present in human populations as long as our species existed but their names and categorization are a relatively recent invention.

Now bringing this back to gender, which is a social construction that affects over 7.75 billion people around the world (rough estimate I just googled lol) Again, thinking about prehistoric cave people, they actually didn't have the concept of gender for a good long while. They, of course still exhibited the same broad range of primary and secondary sex characteristics all mammies do but the social roles of 'man' and 'woman' had to be socially constructed at some point during the evolution of human social order. My understanding is that those roles were necessary for early division of labor, as some configurations of the human body are better suited for certain kinds of labor than others and constructing those categories along the lines of sex characteristics was the most efficient way of doing it. In other words, gender used to be kind like a job - a thing that you are because of the things that you do (A plumber is a plumber because he does plumbing, a man is a man because he does man tasks)

So the same way the genders were socially constructed to meet society's need to organize labor more efficiently, the various categories of mental disorders were constructed to meet society's need to take the individuals who experience various kinds of mental distress and better integrate them into the social order.

I feel like many people treat the term 'social construct' as some sort of value judgement, as it it's synonymous with 'fake' but it's really a value-neutral term that is used to describe stuff that doesn't exist outside the context of human society. Every single social construction was invented at a certain stage of social evolution for a reason, it solved some kind of problem and served some kind of purpose for the particular subset of people at a particular time who invented and shaped it. But the main purpose of identifying various social phenomena as socially constructed is to help think of society as something evolving and malleable, as something that is made up of various elements that can be either kept the same, reformed or retired entirely in some cases. In other words, every social construct serves a purpose but it doesn't mean it serves it prefectly and without creating more problems in the process.

TL;DR genders and mental disorders - malleable socially constructed categories. Human sexual dimorphism and individual experiences of mentally ill people - measurable and real.

[riverdamien]

On the Journey!

"Life is a Pilgrimage"!

Struggling towards Galilee!

"From his fullness, we have all received grace upon grace. ."John 1:16.

-------------------------------

W.H. Auden once said, "For the garden is the only place there is, but you will not find it. Until you have looked for it everywhere and found it nowhere that is not a desert."

Each year I spend a week or two in the Mojave Desert on retreat, where I had the dramatic epiphany of my life after my years on the streets of Los Angeles. I truly understood the words of John when he spoke the words: of Jesus: "From his fullness, we have received grace upon grace,"

The desert is the homeland of my heart, I don't find it barren, it is a perfect embodiment of infinite spaciousness. My spirit and my heart are cultivating a heart as spacious as the desert: wide open in every direction of the compass, Wide open to every creature that walks, flies, or crawls through it, wide open to every change in the weather: darkness and light, sun and rain, aridity and dew, heat, cold, and wind.

In the words of one of my favorite friends, Teresa of Avila the human soul is an "Interior Castle", and I learned this infinite and noble spaciousness from the desert, both the desert of Mojave and the desert of San Francisco. The prophet Isaiah  says it so well in describing the universal heart experience in finding God: "The desert and the dry land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom."

My friend Pam, commented yesterday, "You have had a difficult life with the church and the treatment of many people." Difficult? No, through being a minister labeled as "intrinsically evil," to a prostitute, and from there ordination in a queer denomination and then ordination (because I am difficult)ha!  as a bishop, for "difficult priests", in otherwords for decentralizing priests, like me struggling to find a new identity.

In the desert of Mojave, and the desert of San Francisco, I have found the grace of Jesus, in all of its fullness, and through compassionate counseling, simply listening to others, without judgment, and telling them how to live their lives; approaching all like an interfaith chaplain recognizing everyone's beliefs or non-beliefs as valid. There are many paths to God!

My young, friend, fifteen-year-old, Saint Carlo Aciutis, tells us: Sadness is looking toward oneself, happiness is looking toward God!

And so my prayer for all of us today are the words of Cacchi Ricci:

"It takes a very strong individual

to sit with themselves,

calm their storms, and

heal all of their issues without trying

to bring someone else into that chaos.

Your journey into self-love is just that--

and you are doing it."

I am still in the process of "decentralization", but looking towards God, and finding happiness in the people I "hang out" and minister to on the streets and not bringing the chaos of my opinion of what they need to do in their lives! Deo Gratias! Thanks be to God!

--------------------------------------

Fr. River Damien Sims, sfw, D.Min., D.S.T.

Post Office Box 642656

San Francisco, CA 94164

www.temenos.org

paypal.com

415-305-2124

Fr. River Sims, D.Min., D.S.T.

Director

Prayer of St. Brendan!

"Help me to journey beyond the familiar

and into the unknown.

Give me the faith to leave old ways and break fresh ground with You. Christ of the mysteries I trust in You to be stronger than each storm within me.

I will trust in the darkness and know that my times, even now, are in Your hands.

Tune my spirit to the music of heaven,

and somehow, make my obedience count for You"

------------------------------------------------

[kawaii-spider]

My Stance on Different Issues

If you want an idea of where I stand on different issues, give this post a read. I'm pinning it and will try to remember to edit it as I feel it's needed.

If you have any questions though, feel free to ask!

LGBT Issues

I'm transsexual and bisexual. Naturally I support gay rights and trans healthcare, but that doesn't mean I agree with every idea that comes out of LGBT spaces.

Transsexual vs Transgender

I prefer the term transsexual, because transgender has become a massive umbrella that really doesn't mean much. It can refer to someone like me who transitions from male to female or vice versa, but it can also refer to someone who doesn't do anything except change their pronouns. Worse still, I find "transgender" is often associated with certain ideological beliefs I disagree with... so I simply feel misrepresented when someone uses the word to describe me.

I also find the word transsexual a bit empowering, because my dysphoria is caused by my sex, I'm transitioning my sex, and the word itself seems to acknowledge this. I get that the word has a history, but I'm interested in reclaiming it.

Bisexual vs Pansexual

If someone only identifies as pansexual because they're attracted to trans people, I'd say that's transphobic. That doesn't mean you're a bad person, but bisexuality does include trans people and I'd say you've been led astray if you believe otherwise.

Apart from that, I try not to judge too much. Overall I don't see how it's different enough from being bisexual to deserve its own word, but you do you.

Misgendering & Neopronouns

Misgendering is bad because it teaches other people that someone is the wrong gender. It's especially frustrating for transsexual people to deal with, because we already struggle to be seen as the correct gender, which aggravates our dysphoria, and trying to teach people who we are can feel like an uphill battle when some dunderhead insists on misgendering us.

With that said, it should come as no surprise that I don't consider it misgendering to not use someone's neopronouns. If someone is going for androgyny, there's nothing objectively wrong with using they/them over their preferred xi/xir. Pronouns are meant to serve a practical purpose, while nicknames are meant to be fun.

Nonbinary Identities

If someone only considers themselves nonbinary because they don't relate to masculine or feminine gender norms, then I view the idea as regressive. Gender norms have nothing to do with being a man or a woman, so I don't believe people can just opt out by calling themselves nonbinary.

When it comes to nonbinary people who do transition, I try to keep an open mind. I do think opting out may be possible if you can pull off androgyny well enough.

Detransitioners

I support detransitioners so long as they aren't being transphobic. I think there's too much stigma around detransition and we should support people going through that process, because regardless of their reasoning, that process is more similar to transition than anything a cis person will ever go through.

Feminism

I'm a proud feminist and would say I'm personally affected by women's issues for the most part. While there are things I'm not affected by, it's probably safe to assume I support the common sense stuff like abortion rights.

Radical Feminism and TERFs

My relationship with radical feminism is a bit complicated since it's largely been taken over by TERFs. I do often agree with radfems when they shut up about trans people, but I'm just not interested in engaging with those communities while they're overrun by terminally online fauxminists who seem to hate trans women more than they care about cis women.

So while I could potentially be considered a radical feminist, I'm going to choose not to engage with radical feminism on tumblr.

Gender Abolition

I'm not interested in abolishing the categories of "man" and "woman," because I find them necessary in describing the unique challenges faced by people due to their sex. However, I do find gender roles oppressive and would like society to reach a point where people can do anything they want without having their behaviors judged as "masculine" or "feminine."

Sex Work

I think the ideal would be to reach a point where women don't feel the need to commodify their bodies. So while I'd say I'm supportive of sex workers, I'm against legalizing sex work.

Mental Health

I'm diagnosed with autism, ADHD, and an anxiety disorder. I also struggled a lot with dysphoria-induced depression as a teen and have seen mental health issues hurt people I care about, so I'd say this is something I take fairly seriously and care about.

Self-Diagnosis

I'm against self-diagnosis, because plenty of conditions can mimic the symptoms of another and even mental health professionals can't diagnose themselves due to bias. When it comes to treating a problem, it's important to find the right treatment... so I feel like people who diagnose themselves are doing themselves a disservice.

I think it's fine for someone to suspect having something and to make use of coping strategies they find helpful, but I don't think it's healthy to tell themselves they have a disorder without a diagnosis.

[silvaskye]

Been really fucking stressed over the last few days for various reasons, to the point of genuinely just feeling like there’s no point in anything, and I realised that I have social media and I can just say shit.

If you claim to care about the “safety of children”, but then turn around and say queer people should be killed, you do not care about the safety of children. You are actively contributing to the deaths of possibly hundreds of people, including children. If you advocate for the deaths of real people simply because you don’t like them, you don’t care about the safety of children, because you want them dead too.

I was queer before I knew what the internet was. I came out when I was 3. I didn’t have the language to describe it, and that’s all the internet gave me. Instead of saying “I’m going to have surgery because I think puberty is wrong for me and feminine terms make me uncomfortable when they’re used on me”, I could just say “I’m trans”. Instead of saying “I’m not interested in sex and I never want to have it”, I could just say “I’m asexual”. These are actual things that I said (rephrased obviously) when I was 3 to describe my identity. All the internet did was give me actual words to describe those things.

The internet didn’t “make me queer”, it made me understand that not everyone was as good as the people I was around. It made me realise that some people would see my parents raising me genderless (in 2006 btw) as “grooming” or “abuse”, despite the fact that it’s the only reason I have any happy memories of my childhood. It made me realise that transphobes would go as far as calling children rapists, or invalidating the abuse of people (friends of theirs included) just to make people hate trans people. But it wasn’t even the internet that spawned these beliefs, it’s people unwilling to look outside and acknowledge that people outside are real and not just characters.

Children are not safe. With the worlds current state, most of them don’t think they’ll ever be safe. I’ve seen full grown adults tell queer children to kill themselves. I’ve seen queer children say the laws in their country make them want to kill themselves. I’ve acknowledged that I don’t even feel safe in this world, and that the amount of stress I’m constantly experiencing is the reason I can’t and likely never will recover from my trauma, and why I don’t even want to try.

I went through so much shit as a kid. All kinds of abuse, undiagnosed disabilities, several near-death experiences, several suicide attempts, etc. There is no one that makes me feel like I’d be better off dead more than transphobes. There’s no one who makes me want to hurt myself or get unwanted surgeries and medical procedures more than transphobes. I know I’d never fit their definition of a woman, even if I had the surgeries to change me being intersex. I’d still be unable to have children, I’d still be masculine-looking, and I’d still feel this empty and hopeless. Some of us will just never be good enough in their eyes.

Transphobia kills trans kids. Transphobia also kills cis kids. If you care about the safety of children, don’t be transphobic.

[leoesparte]

A friend of mine describes themselves as a cynic. That they expect people to act in their own best interest. They added at the end "though even that's expecting too much these days..."

I think that's just it. You can't expect anyone to act any way, because none of us know what we're doing. I don't believe in absurdism, but I do think trying to find a true purpose is absurd. I think there is one, that there is an absolute truth, but it's beyond us. The universe is always going to be absurd through our kaleidoscope eyes.

Earlier today, I was working on voice feminization training. As I've processed trauma over the past few years, I've finally been able to listen to the signals my mind sends me. And I'm having to face that I'm genderfluid, and no amount of logic or judgement will change that.

Later today I'm going over to my pastor's house for thanksgiving. Given that I don't want to go back to my abusive mother, they offered to have me over. They don't know I'm genderfluid. They probably think such things are absurd and stupid. I wonder if they would be as kind if they knew.

The worst part about being me is I can see other's perspectives too well. These people have been brought up in an environment where the lines between male and female were never questioned. A constant they could always rely on. And when their news channels show these young crazies believing their genders are actually all sorts of different things, of course they'd laugh and scoff and judge and fear. It's not right, but I'd probably do the same. I think I have done the same, in the past. I still do, with other groups, other situations. We all judge in our absurdity.

Part of me wonders if I am insane, if my gender being able to flip to female is just another break in my psyche. Maybe it's just a misfiring of neurons, this soup of fat and neurotransmitters and electricity going haywire, as could be expected of such an absurd machine. And yet.

When I thought I was cis, I remember trying to flip my gender to female for a moment, just out of curiosity. I took a part of me that felt feminine and made it my gender, and it Hurt. It felt wrong, and gave me a headache. Like the mental equivalent of bending a finger back too far. That was unnatural, and I could feel that it was wrong.

This though... This feels natural. This feels intended and right. It feels Different, to be sure, but not in a bad way. The way I can focus for a moment and flip my identity inside out, it's like I was meant to do that. Like clothes made by hand just for me, each soft, comfortable stitch a whisper from my god, "I love you, I love you, I love you."

The other Christians I know don't know what they're doing any more than I do. I feel horrible saying that, many of them are far older, smarter, and wiser than me. But I cannot deny what I have seen. And all of us are far too lost to truly understand God's word to us. Our kaleidoscope eyes rarely see the Truth.

I'm prepared to be wrong about what I am. I know I have no idea what I'm doing. But I'd rather be honest and simply wrong, than dishonest out of fear of other's judgement. One day, one day Soon, I'll have to be honest about how I think my god has made me.

I hope they understand, that I'm just doing my best in a world None of us understand. One day, I'll try to embrace this gift of self with pride, with biblical gratitude and joy. I pray I am accepted and can accept others with understanding and humility, the way our god accepts all of his lost sheep. After all, none of us know what we're doing anyway.