#changing perception of homosexuality

[mondoreb]

End Times Prophecy Headlines: January 20-22, 2023

End Times Prophecy Report HEADLINES FRIDAY-SATURDAY-SUNDAY January 20-22, 2023 And OPINION “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.” —Matthew 24:4 “The best way to keep a prisoner from escaping is to make sure he never knows he’s in prison.” —Fyodor Dostoevsky ===INTERNATIONAL UKRAINE: ‘Mercenary’ Air Force For Ukraine: Ex-US Air Force Official Suggests ‘Leasing…

[radsplain]

do you ever think about how gay people put in decades of work to change the public perception and understanding of homosexuality to the fact that gay people are just gay and all that means is we love people of the same sex and that gay does NOT equal “predatory perv” but then the predatory pervs came in and co-opted the entire movement and set the LGB community back years of hard-earned progress and acceptance? yeah me too

[makethosenarratorsfight]

UNRELIABLE NARRATORS; THE FINAL FINAL

Shen Qingqiu Propaganda:

The entire series is told from his POV and the story seems like a comedy. The side stories from other characters POVs make the story sound like a tragedy. He thought that Luo Binghe hated him and wanted him dead while everyone else knew that Binghe was in love with him.

the whole book he’s using his OWN interpretation of the world to explain literally everything, not knowing that his introduction into the world changed it so fundamentally that his prior knowledge of it is less than useless. he’s like “binghe is being sweet to me because binghe is sweet to people that wronged him before repaying their slight a thousandfold, and he only adds their acceptance of his sweetness to his tally of their sins!! i have to run away forever or he’ll tear my arms and legs off!!!!!!” and binghe in reality is like “wow the love of my life my beloved shizun is scared of me still :( i should act sweet and nonthreatening so he’s not scared of me :(“ and he literally doesn’t have this corrected until the end of the book. but even when that one thing is corrected he still is like “haha okay but these other six things-“ bro……. cucumber bro………….. you homosexualized the world just accept it

He examines the entire reality he's isekai-ed into as if it's still fictional and his inner monologue ignores any "character trait" of the people around him that doesn't fit into his perception of "canon" despite everything he's done to change reality from the canon of the novel he first read. He routinely mislabels his own emotions as well as making heteronormative assumptions about himself and the people around him before he finally realises he's in reciprocated gay love with a man. It's a book that benefits being read twice, so the second time around you can focus on the implications Shen Qingqiu blatantly misses.

Transmigrates into a novel he “hates,” assumes he’s doing a good job pretending to be the character whose body he got stuck in, assumes other characters will stick to their original paths. Lotta assumptions, lots of rationalizing, lots of incredible feats of misunderstanding/misinterpreting things. His internal narration is also hysterical.

Lemony Snicket Propaganda:

(I would like to preface this by saying that Lemony Snicket is the author's pen name, not a real person, and he exists as a character in-universe as well as being the one in-universe who writes the books!) I'd say he's unreliable because he spent time collecting information about the Baudelaire kids and then... wrote books about it. He has no idea what any of their dialogue actually was, what they were thinking, or even the whole plot, he's just doing research into the incidents and then filling in the gaps to make it a story. What ACTUALLY happened to the Baudelaires? Nobody really knows for sure

While the Baudelaire siblings are in potentially life threatening danger, he will randomly start talking about his own life and just leave the siblings hanging. For example, once Count Olaf was threatening to kill Violet, and then Lemony randomly began talking about how he met the love of his life at a costume party. This man CANNOT stay on topic. Usually when a new character is introduced, Lemony tells us right at the start that they’re either going to die or that the Baudelaire siblings will never see them again. Foreshadowing is not subtle in these books. CONSTANTLY emphasizes how miserable he feels while writing these books. At one point he admits that he had to put his pencil down and go cry for a while because of how sad it made him. Once he filled an entire page with nothing but the word “ever” to emphasize how dangerous it is to put forks in electrical outlets. He also repeated a paragraph about deja vu later on in the book to give the reader deja vu.

[butch-reidentified]

Someone shared this to a gender critical lesbian group chat I'm in.

This is just heartbreaking. It's medical abuse, period. It borders on medicalized child slavery, given how much time this child will now be spending in doctor's offices and Quest labs and such, and how much money they will make off this family's decision to let the child transition medically, while the child receives nothing but a variety of health complications and a childhood spent in clinics. So deeply upsetting.

The parents say that Max, who is 8 years old in this, began having some breast growth A YEAR AGO. They cite Max taping her chest as proof of her dysphoria, proof that she's actually a boy, proof that she desperately and urgently needs medical intervention or she will surely be depressed forever, and will most likely take her own life because of it (note: this is not said outright, just my perception given the mainstream narratives and how the parents appear to be feeling in this video). This is just pure goddamn evil. What girl living in this screwed up world WOULDN'T tape her chest if she started growing breasts at 7 or 8 years old?!?! What girl in that situation WOULDN'T be terrified to her very core of puberty and all that comes with it? Hell, many (it not most) girls who aren't in this sort of situation are terrified of puberty.

"We know from studies and experience that if he changes his mind, we remove the blockade, and his body will naturally go through female puberty," (paraphrased from memory) is what that doctor told the parents. Just about anyone who heard that would interpret it to mean that the blocker is basically just a magical pause button, that it's safe, and that there are no consequences to use - the child's body will go back to exactly the way it was with no long-term effects. She is lying while not "technically" lying, intentionally misleading them. Just unbelievably morally repugnant....

We often hear about and talk about how the medical industry avidly supports gender identity ideology because transitioners are patients for life; they become highly lucrative pay pigs for the medical industry. Gender transition "healthcare" is a multi-billion-dollar industry. How is it that so many followers of gender identity ideology call themselves leftist/socialist/Marxist/communist/anti-capitalist, yet are utterly unwilling to consider that money could be a key motivator in the medical industry's decision to overwhelmingly support and promote gender transition, including for children?

How are we as a society failing GNC, homosexual, and female people so tragically?

[vexingwoman]

She uses the sound “you know what I think? I think you’re a fucking faggot just like your daddy” on this video.

So apparently, this female’s identity and self-perception is so powerful that it changes the sexual orientation of those around her. That’s right, males attracted to females are now homosexual if the female cuts her hair and puts they/them pronouns in her bio.

[terra-feminarum]

There's an European citizen's initiative to ban conversion therapy across EU. Conversion therapy refers to efforts to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. At first glance, this is awesome. Conversion therapy is extremely harmful.

But do you see the problem? Sexual orientation and gender identity have been so thoroughly tied together in activism that you can't support gay rights without supporting the trans movement. They are treated like they are very similar to each other, but homosexuality doesn't cause any suffering to the homosexual person unless she faces homophobia. On the other hand, gender dysphoria is defined by suffering and the need for modern medicine to "fix" the body. Homosexuality is innate, gender dysphoria doesn't seem to be in many cases. There is very little in common, other than the fact that many transgender people are homosexuals.

To be clear, I'm very much against all coercive means to change someone's perception of themselves, no matter if the perception seems irrational to me. I condemn conversion therapy when it comes to gender identity because that's not how you help anyone. And obviously I condemn all efforts to change someone's sexual orientation.

I have no ill will towards trans identified people and I don't wish coercion upon them. My problem lies in the definition of conversion therapy: if it's defined as an attempt to change someone's gender identity, banning conversion therapy might ban potential non-invasive treatments of gender dysphoria and the research of such options. Affirmation-only and medical interventions could be solidified to be the only available options in the future, too.

My purpose isn't to say you shouldn't support the initiative. It's not guaranteed it would lead to this kind of outcome and banning conversion therapy is important. But I'm worried that not seeing the difference between transgender identity and homosexuality could make it impossible to help people with gender dysphoria in ways I personally wish had existed before I transitioned.

[flints-black-spot]

I've recently seen a few people talking about media literacy in relation to Flint's sexuality and labels and figured I'd throw in my two cents on the discourse that seems to pop up every few months.

Because, I honestly think it does a disservice to Black Sails as a whole to focus on "gay vs. bi Flint" because like... does it matter? if Flint only has attraction to men, that doesn't change the fact that he's canonically, willingly, had sex with women (namely Miranda). But, on the other end of the spectrum, it's just as important to recognize how, societally and culturally, gender is a construct, which will inherently mean that sexuality is fluid! Flint can be a gay man with some level of attraction to women (hell, the majority of the fandom agrees that Anne is a lesbian, yet she's clearly in love and has sexual attraction to Jack, and that doesn't take away from her lesbianism!), and that attraction doesn't make him any less of a gay man! Or he could be bisexual, and that doesn't take away anything from the overarching narrative of his queer relationship with Thomas! The focus on a single 'correct' interpretation of his sexuality, in my mind, takes away from what the show is really trying to say about sexuality, which isn't the "this way" or "that way" to be queer, but the overarching connection that struggle and strife can bring to a community. (For a similar issue, see James Baldwin's response to critics arguing whether the main character from his novel Giovanni's Room is gay or bisexual, his response is incredible.)

And, on the other hand, it's also not entirely accurate or even fair to try and ascribe modern labels and perceptions of queerness to a character that existed long before those terms were even coined? In Flint's time, homosexuality was something a person did, not who a person was. While, yes, his queerness is inherent to his journey as a character, and he very clearly views it as a part of his identity, it's also very much worth noting that two things (homosexual love and desire, and heterosexual love and desire) can coexist, and not either way take away from his narrative as a whole.

Finally, then, there's the common thread of 'media literacy' in determining Flint's label (which, again, I honestly think is just a non-issue because it has such little impact on anything in meta discussions?). To present an opinion like "Flint is gay" is an example of an interpretation, one which can and should exist among others! To have a single, 'correct' interpretation of a piece of media, especially one like Black Sails, is an inherently flawed idea, because every interpretation should have its own merit on its own. Flint can be both bi and gay, and both arguments have perfectly equal weight, but in the end, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of Black Sails meta. Either way, Flint is queer, and that queerness was a defining feature of his character for the rest of the show. To assign such importance to "gay or bi" just feels unimportant.

[flibbertygigget]

Ok so I'm fiddling around with a version of Company in my head that's like,,, still set in the 70s (at the very least implicitly, a la 2006 Company), but one of the girlfriends is a boyfriend. Like, I think it could work.

There's a huge amount of emotional distance between Bobby and the couples in the text - so much of Bobby's arc is wrapped up in his desire for the intimacy that a committed relationship would bring while at the same time he doesn't want the risk that that level of emotional intimacy would bring. "Being Alive" is the resolution of this, obviously - "too close" and "too deep" goes from something to fear to something to want (while still fearing, always fearing, but the fear doesn't overwhelm the want). His friendships and romantic relationships are all surface level - he keeps himself at a distance, an amused observer in his own life to keep from risking the potential hurt that intimacy could bring.

Which, if he's closeted to varying degrees with different friends (and this could easily be shown just through giving a fake name for the boyfriend in some circumstances and not in others), really works well with his arc. Of course he keeps himself at an implicit distance - he's always on the knife's edge of being rejected, both by his friends for his queerness or his partners for his bisexuality. Just watching and asking questions and never talking about himself beyond quips and safe anecdotes is easier and safer, even though it's killing him emotionally.

The boyfriend being Marta or April would work in different ways with the text. Marta because it would be an easy switch - Marty to Marta - that could have him slip with the fake name in ways that the audience would catch but the couples realistically wouldn't. Plus the idea of the one boyfriend being this fun younger twink really Tracks - he finds partners who allow him to put a wall up between him and the idea of commitment: Kathy because what they want out of life is so fundamentally different, April because of her job, and Marta/Marty because they're at fundamentally different stages of life.

April would be a good switch-to-boyfriend because a) the scene where he questions her/him about the roommate would get instantly funnier and more serious all at the same time and b) April is the most serious potential partner during the "present" of Company, which would be an interesting wrinkle considering the time period and Bobby's arc.

And, obviously, the various degrees of closetedness would make act 2 really hit. First with the "homosexual experience scene" - in my head Bobby would be implied to be the most closeted with Peter and Susan, so the fact that Peter's implied to have discussed his gayness with Susan and stayed partners-in-some-respects after the divorce would be wild in terms of Bobby's perception of his friendships with not just them but all the couples. The idea that he might be able to be more emotionally open with all his friends due to the rapidly changing attitudes of the time period and his own misreading of his friends is both devastating, because maybe he didn't have to feel so "alone, not alive" this whole time, but also liberating. Bobby admitting that he has Had A Homosexual Experience goes from kind of a gag to one of the linchpins of his arc.

In my head the Joanne scene after "Ladies Who Lunch" would combine both the OG (better) version of that scene and the 2020 Cuck Me version of that scene. Like,,, if he's been implied to be the most out to Joanne and Larry, combining the two would work - hell, rejig it to be a "hey, want to be poly with us?" kind of thing if that suits your vibe. If the Homosexual Experience scene is a breakthrough in regards to platonic intimacy in this version, the Taking Care scene can be a breakthrough in regards to romantic intimacy, where Bobby finally discovers what he wants in a committed romantic relationship, finally less afraid of what opening up would mean in all aspects of his life. And then he sings "Being Alive".

Idk, I'd have to really work on it irl to figure out exactly how it would work, but I think it would be interesting.

[proship-anti-discussion]

I hope you as the admin will be okay mentally while running this blog! It can be hard.

And also antis posting on here should probably know what's the actual meaning of proship before doing so. "Proship in my opinion means [something completely different]" there's no "your opinion", it's a word that already exists with an already existing meaning.

(Unless what one says is like "proship in my opinion means ship and let ship or anti harassment" because those *are* included in the definition. But you know they're not acknowledging what it is because being against "no harassment" makes them look like the bad guy, which they pretty much are sometimes.)

Thank you so much for your concern, but please don’t be afraid. I also run a side blog regarding mental health (apologies, I won’t link it as it has more information about myself there and I’d like to keep it separate from my psychology/sociology study.)

I have noticed that antiship people tend to have a “different definition” of proship based on who. Such as the en.stars fan base which considers a 16 and 18 year old to be EXTREMELY problematic and pedophilia. From a someone with a grass healthy relationship, those individuals seem rather grass deficient. The psychology and maturity is hardly different between those ages.

Anyway, I digress, unfortunately in order to understand someone when they speak, we must come to terms with the ways in which other people are defining words. For more information about such a topic, I highly recommend the book “How to Read a Book” by Charles Van Doren and Mortimer J. Adler. (PDF) So while there is a word that exists with a definition, it is like using the words gay, retard, and molest. The words have taken different meanings. Likely, the words people associated with them are: homosexual, a slur describing one of special needs, and improper sexual advances. Originally these words meant happy, to slow, and to disturb. Not only do words change but their perception can as well, such as me calling people homosexual is often met with dislike. Like it or not, this is at the very least something important to consider when making these discussions. (Sorry for the large block on this, I find the subject fascinating!)

Unfortunately, even with my brief interactions, I’ve been finding myself in a rather, perplexing position. I’ve been accused of harassing individuals in a tag and being a drama blog (though apparently being mistaken as not being op makes it better?) while mistakenly being accused of being proship (I state myself rather clearly in my bio.) I’ve sifted through dozens of blogs that were academically impossible to use in a healthy discussion since the tags or blog included threats, suicide baiting, amongst other deplorable words. This topic is interesting, but I’m watching a lot of unhealthy behaviours. I even blocked a fandom callout blog recently for existing in the sense of wanting to harass others. So, it’s interesting, but so hard to find people who are genuinely interested in having a civil conversation from that perspective.

[gaia-prime]

op turned off reblogs because she didn’t like what @she-is-ovarit had to say in response:

I am not saying this with the intention of stirring controversy, but this is similar to being gender critical while having trans-identifying friends, except where you consider for yourself to be a lack of relating to or understanding gender identity, for me it is this plus a lack of belief in it.

"Gender ideology" being a term for the mainstream belief system currently within trans populations and "LGBTQ+" groups surrounding gender identity.

I do not "hate trans people". I simply do not believe in gender ideology or some concept of an ethereal, metaphysical gender identity. It reminds me of astrology or zodiac signs taken to an extra level. Sex-based stereotypes and fashion aesthetics internalized. A person doesn't even need to believe in gender identity (how the term is commonly used today anyways) at all to consider themselves trans or transition, technically. I've even met a few trans-identifying individuals who go by the pronouns associated with their sex.

no like I genuinely believe you that mcwilliamsburg kids are posers and forrester-smith-tailor students are snooty potheads, but I have no way to apply and no reason to internalize this information

If snooty potheads and posers represented gender identities, aka someone's interpretation or meaning they placed on the "vibes" of certain schools, I don't believe that McWilliamsburg kids are posers and Forrester-Smith-Tailor students are snooty potheads, because that's your own perception of your reality (royal "you", not you personally OP). That's the lens in which you see your world and the meaning you place on it. I believe in material reality that these schools themselves exist (aka, biology/sex). I believe that your emotional experiences are real (feeling discomfort or a lack of relation to sex-based norms, stereotypes, roles, aesthetics; or feeling more of a kinship with people of one sex or the other). However your truth isn't mine, and I simply do not see or define people as snooty potheads, posers ("non-binary", "transfemme", "cisgender") etc. I don't believe that a student from McWilliamsburg can call herself a "Forrester-Smith-Tailor" student and this makes her one. It's an imperfect example because transferring schools exists or whatever, but unlike transferring schools as a biologist I have learned it's not actually possible to change one's sex.

I have no way to apply and no reason to internalize this information, and this all makes me feel like I'm in some sort of church. If I were to say, "well, I perceive reality differently and I don't think god exists and I'm homosexual and I won't be having sex with men ("AMAB/OMAB") regardless as to what they believe in and how they perceive themselves", the response is generally, "She's evil ("terf/bigot"), she's a sinner ("genital fetishist"), she's going to hell".

"Gender critical" is just gender ideology atheism. And then in addition to this I just believe in women's rights and gay rights and these two things inform my perspective/lens in which I view my own world in addition to my own experiences. Just like how as an atheist I don't want to "kill all Christians" or think "Christians don't exist", I don't want to "kill trans people" or think "trans people don't exist". Sorry - the astrological gender identity belief system doesn't make sense to me, I already tried unsuccessfully to brainwash myself into believing in it, and honestly it's built off of concepts and beliefs I personally consider homophobic and misogynistic. The threat of persecution, name calling, or the fact that this belief system is considered status quo or the pathway to heaven acceptance doesn't change that I don't believe in this. I can't make myself believe in what I don't believe in.

[the-lonelyshepherd]

I hope this doesn’t get you in shit anymore. But can we please discuss fanon Laura Lee? Because like… when ever I see her it’s all “she’s so horny” like that’s all I ever see or it’s like “homophobic” or whatever. But like…? Laura Lee is a religious person but like she’s on a soccer team… like that’s not grounds for homophobia, that’s grounds for homosexuals. Also doenst the Bible teach to love everyone???

fanon laura lee is basically “she’s religious so she’s homophobic :/ sad bc she had so much chemistry w lottie. oh well”

honestly horny LL is REALLY funny to me. she’s allowed.

homophobic LL on the other hand,,,, i know jane (LL’s actor) always said that they wanted to change ppl's perception on Christianity and based laura lee on their own experiences being raised in a pro-LGBT church. it’s also based very much off of current day politics - it’s SUPER heated rn and so a lot of people, esp younger teens watching yj that may have had their own negative experiences with religion, tend to see LL and be like oh christian so homophobic conservative which is just. not true. ESPECIALLY in laura lee’s case.

i think a lot of people ignore how batshit insane LL is like she’s such a funny character she’s so DETERMINED. she has this whole little arc of standing up to coach ben, she’s a general manhater, she flies a plane and fucking explodes, the whole “lottie you’re getting messages from god :) i’ll baptize you lets hold hands :)” like she’s SO fascinating and like she just gets reduced to “the christian one”. give her some fucking credit she’s awesome.

[a-rebellious-waffle]

Alright, let's go point by point, @ancientdriftwood.

Paragraph One.

Firstly: Sexual attraction is not attraction to a sex, it's attraction that makes you want to have sex with someone.

Secondly: Homo means "same", yes, but the suffix "-sexual" does not actually mean sex. It actually denotes that the word it's used in is a sexuality. Hence, "homosexual" would actually translate as something along the lines of "sexually attracted to same".

Thirdly: Do me a favour and define what "male" and "female" are for me? Because it's not determined by chromosomes, or else there's at least three sexes. Klinefelter Syndrome results in cells having XXY chromosomes, one more than normal. Swyer Syndrome and de la Chappelle Syndrome give the other sex's chromosomes to people who will develop into men or women; i.e. XX chromosomes in AMAB men, XY chromosomes in AFAB women. These are abnormalities, yes, but if you have 1,000 instances of the letter A 1,000 instance of the letter B, and one instance of the letter C in a dataset, you still have three different letters.

Fourthly: Lesbians are, in fact, attracted to gender. That's why women in relationships with AFAB non-binary people aren't called lesbians—unless we admit that "lesbian" doesn't mean "women who love women", which destroys your flawed point.

There's also a deeper problem present, which is that you're saying that gender is social, but sexuality is somehow independent of that social aspect.

To explain, allow me to begin with a few things about gender. Gender is the social perception of your sex, yes. However, everything has a gender. See, gender is chiefly a grammatical thing that determines what pronouns are used for something. A rock, for instance, does not have a sex, but it does have a gender; I call this gender something along the lines of "null". Since we perceive that the rock doesn't have a sex, we automatically assign it a null gender and start using "it" as the pronoun for said rock; i.e. "The rock got in my shoe, but I removed it from my shoe."

Since we communicate to each other via language, and language has grammar in it, we do something similar for people. If you see a person wearing a bridal dress that shows off a pronounced chest, you might assume they're a woman and therefore they have a female gender. This isn't necessarily accurate, but it is understandable.

However, we can alter how people see us. We can therefore alter how we present our gender by, say, cutting our hair, wearing a binder to compress our chest, and so on. These actions change other's perception of us, and accordingly, their perception of our gender.

Now, as I said before, sexuality is determined by social perceptions. Here's the thing. We don't know what sex someone is inherently. It's just not something we can know; no one has magnifying-glass eyes that can see chromosomes in the body on the fly. All we can know is how someone presents themselves. Therefore, if someone presents as a woman, a lesbian isn't going to have zero attraction to them until they hold up their birth certificate that says they're AFAB—they're going to see a hot woman and go "Damn, she's hot! I want to date her!"

Similarly, if you see two female-presenting people kissing, you're naturally going to assume it's probably two women kissing, and then you're going to assume they're lesbians. You're not going to demand to see proof they're AFAB before assuming this.

Fifthly: So, question: Are trans men, in your opinion, women? Because by your logic, a trans man dating a woman is a lesbian. But, trans men can have phalloplatsies; this gives them a penis. Therefore, a trans man who's had a phalloplatsy is a lesbian who does dick.

The other option here is that trans men are, in fact, men, which means that trans women are, in fact, women, because you're admitting that you can transition from male to female, which logically means you can transition from female to male. After all, doctors don't just carry out phalloplatsies; they also do vaginoplasties, which give people vaginas.

So, do lesbians do dick? Or are transfemmes women? (The answer here is "yes" and "yes", since if transfemmes are women, and women can be lesbians, some women will have dicks and therefore be lesbians who do dicks!)

Otherwise, you're just assuming gender is based on genitalia, which, well... I think we can agree that reducing womanhood to having a vagina is insulting.

Second Paragraph

Ah. Chief. One brief thing you don't realize. A slur only has as much power as you say it does. Every time you use the phrase "Q-slur" to mean queer, you're not just empowering homophobes when they use it on us, but you're also spitting on the efforts of all the people who fought to reclaim it for LGBTQ+ people.

Lesbians, gays, bis, transfemme and transmascs... we're all here, and we're all queer!

Aside from that... yes, we do need legal definitions for these things. Here's the issue. In the absence of things inside a legal textbook, we default to dictionary definitions. You're just trying to restrict them to sex instead of gender—which means you're actually weakening our legal defenses.

Queer labels will always have a bit of vagueness. It's an unfortunate reality that not everything is cut and dry. However, this vagueness also gives us freedom to define ourselves how we like. Not everything has to be cut and dry, after all! It's not like there's one true way to be queer. Identity is fluid, after all, and the law is basically set in stone. It's hard to make the two sides play nice with one another, like how it's difficult to make oil and water mix.

Third Paragraph

What are you... sis. Sister, what are you on about. How is child labour law and military enlistment age requirements the same thing as having legal definitions for LGBTQ+ people? That's apples and oranges! Age is something set in stone! We all agree on how time flows swiftly and in one direction. It's not like sexuality or gender in that you cannot change your age by your own free will! You will always be one year older than last year, one month older than last month, one minute older than you were a minute ago!

Your TERFism is not just harming people, but it's harming your cause. Like, you want better rights for lesbians? You know what would help that? Having more lesbians! What to know what'll help with that? Dropping this TERF rhetoric!

I want to end this with a modification of the very good poem First They Came, originally written by Martin Niemöller.

First they came for the transgenders.

But I did not speak out, because I was not transgender.

Then they came for the asexuals.

But I did not speak out, because I was not asexual.

Then they came for the bisexuals.

But I did not speak out, because I was not bisexual.

Then they came for the gay men.

But I did not speak out, for I was not a gay man.

Then they came for the lesbians.

And there was no one left to speak for me.

[diablointercept]

pain sharing soulmates 🫣

this one can't be explained in just a snippet so.

okay painsharing has been done a few times with soulmates so i wanted to tweak it a little and just mess around with the concept. so instead of sharing the physical sensation, i wanted to make them experience a more consistent pain based on the physical distance between soulmates.

obviously you can see how this would be an issue since maxiel were born on very opposite ends of the world and both have to travel a lot for yk. their jobs.

i haven't fully worked through it yet besides some general ideation and such, but was also thinking of making one of them hyper-sensitive to the pain and the other very blind to it. for angst reasons.

snippet below

According to the thousands of historical records on the subject, the phenomenon could be dated back to the same period as the dawn of humanity.  In 1951, when it could still be found in roughly 8.7% of the world’s population, the World Health Organization dubbed it NSPD—Neurologically Shared Pain Disorder. No treatment options.  In 1980, when NSPD could be found in roughly 7.5% of the world’s population, the DSM-III was released. It featured new sections on gender dysphoria within children and renamed the extremely controversial “ego-dystonic homosexuality” with a tamer sounding but equally controversial “sexual orientation disturbance.” If one turned the pages of the DSM-III even further, they would chance upon a section dedicated solely to NSPD. This series of entries would be removed in the next volume, 14 years later.    In 1999, when NSPD could be found in roughly 6.3% of the world’s population, it was formally renamed to the more sanitized Distance-Relative Pain Reflex (DRPR). A single treatment had emerged earlier that year, in which one affected by DRPR would be placed on routine doses of Aphairo, a version of duloxetine that was targeted toward pain relief.  On April 15, 2012, when DRPR could be found in roughly 5.2% of the world’s population, the first Formula 1 racer known to have DRPR stood on the top of the podium. As far as the public would know, Nico Rosberg would remain the only Formula 1 racer with this condition until 2022.  In February of 2021, when DRPR could be found in roughly 3.3% of the world’s population and several months before Max Verstappen would win his first Formula 1 world championship, a legal case would be brought before court regarding the prescription and usage of Aphairo on patients with DRPR. One of the 1,387 pieces of evidence collected was made by Winona Flemming, a 27 year old woman, who testified that her medication had not only vastly dulled her perception of DRPR-related pain, but it had permanently damaged her ability to determine the distance between herself and the person she was linked to. 283 other people, varying in age, race, and gender, would claim the same over the course of the next month.  Five hours later, when the story would break into the mainstream news cycle, Max Verstappen would email his doctor and ask to make an appointment regarding medication, and then he would dump 42 tablets down his drain. At the same time, Daniel Ricciardo would ring his doctor up, discuss the possibility of trying Aphairo, and then call his mother. 

this was thrown together pretty quickly a few days ago so i have no idea whether or not my ideas will change. for now here you go.

[makethosenarratorsfight]

UNRELIABLE NARRATORS; SIDE B

Shen Qingqiu Propaganda:

The entire series is told from his POV and the story seems like a comedy. The side stories from other characters POVs make the story sound like a tragedy. He thought that Luo Binghe hated him and wanted him dead while everyone else knew that Binghe was in love with him.

the whole book he’s using his OWN interpretation of the world to explain literally everything, not knowing that his introduction into the world changed it so fundamentally that his prior knowledge of it is less than useless. he’s like “binghe is being sweet to me because binghe is sweet to people that wronged him before repaying their slight a thousandfold, and he only adds their acceptance of his sweetness to his tally of their sins!! i have to run away forever or he’ll tear my arms and legs off!!!!!!” and binghe in reality is like “wow the love of my life my beloved shizun is scared of me still :( i should act sweet and nonthreatening so he’s not scared of me :(“ and he literally doesn’t have this corrected until the end of the book. but even when that one thing is corrected he still is like “haha okay but these other six things-“ bro……. cucumber bro………….. you homosexualized the world just accept it

He examines the entire reality he's isekai-ed into as if it's still fictional and his inner monologue ignores any "character trait" of the people around him that doesn't fit into his perception of "canon" despite everything he's done to change reality from the canon of the novel he first read. He routinely mislabels his own emotions as well as making heteronormative assumptions about himself and the people around him before he finally realises he's in reciprocated gay love with a man. It's a book that benefits being read twice, so the second time around you can focus on the implications Shen Qingqiu blatantly misses.

Transmigrates into a novel he “hates,” assumes he’s doing a good job pretending to be the character whose body he got stuck in, assumes other characters will stick to their original paths. Lotta assumptions, lots of rationalizing, lots of incredible feats of misunderstanding/misinterpreting things. His internal narration is also hysterical.

Cale Henituse Propaganda:

Motherfucker is out here saving the entire continent and then gets confused when they become loyal to him. he's all like "oh yea, they're just repaying their debt then they'll leave and I'll be able to slack off" and then he gets mega confused when they DONT leave and instead fight anyone who mildly insults them. He chalks this up to them all just being unstable. Also he casually wins a war, doesn't realize he's a war hero, and casually walks away thinking it wasn't a big deal. Fucking idiot I love him

[nerdygaymormon]

Did you hear about the pope saying an anti-gay slur when talking with catholic bishops? I thought he was a good guy. What do you think about this?

At a conference for Italian bishops, the Pope was asked if gay men who remain celibate should be allowed to enter seminary to train for the priesthood. The Pope answered that there was already too much "frociaggine" in seminaries. The Italian word "frociaggine" is a slur and can be translated into English as "faggotry."

It was surprising to hear Pope Francis said this given the perception he is friendly towards the queer community.

Pope Francis apologized for using that term and we have to remember that Italian is a second language to him so he may not have understood the severity of that word.

Also, we can't forget that Pope Francis has changed the tone and made some positive steps forward in the Catholic Church. Previously the Catholic Church didn't let priests bless the marriages of gay couples, but Pope Francis said that the Church considers sexual relations inside of marriage to be legitimate and the Church shouldn't limit the unconditional power of God's love. The Church still considers gay couples to be an "irregular" situation but wants to make the Church's practices more good for the soul so it deepens people's relationship with God.

Pope Francis wanted church members to have a better experience and not feel shunned or pushed away. It was a change to the pastoral approach…but not to becoming a pastor.

It was surprising to me to hear Pope Francis say gay men shouldn't become priests. He was reiterating the policy of the Catholic Church which since 1961 has not allowed homosexual men to enter seminary and enter the priesthood. There is a perception among more conservative elements of the Catholic Church that there is a problematic gay subculture at seminaries which they've worked to eradicate.

However, if all Catholic priests are to be celibate, it shouldn't matter whether they are gay or straight. Many estimates are that 40-60% of celibate priests are gay, of course, exact numbers are difficult since most are closeted. Without gay men, there would be far fewer priests and seminarians. We know a lot of gay men have become Catholic priests, and how much better for them would it be if they didn't have to hide a secret in order to do so, and this is probably what prompted the question asked to the Pope.

Back in the day when being gay was not accepted by society or Christianity, gay men & women could escape questions about why aren't they dating or married by taking shelter in the priesthood or nunnery. I'm sure some closeted gay Catholics still seek to become priests and nuns, but since being gay is more acceptable by society, my guess is far fewer seek this path than in the past.

The world is changing, and slowly the Catholic church is, too, and Pope Francis has helped push them forward on the path of change. Perhaps one day in the not-too-distant future they'll change their policy on forbidding gay priests.

[harkenizalone]

I’m sorry that instead of getting much needed help for your serious mental health issues you got sucked into a trendy genderwoo cult that erases and demonises homosexuality, is deeply racist, misogynistic and unscientific, and is completely dependant on controlling others perception of you. You’ll never ever be able to stop people from perceiving you as the sex you are, they’re just scared to admit it. And you know what, that’s fine because sex is a neutral fact and it’s impossible to change. Go develop a personality and interests outside of your obsessive navel-gazing brainwashing cult. Good luck!

1: I have 2 therapists, so I do have mental help

2: being LGBTQ+ isn’t my entire personality, I just tend to talk about it often.

3: interests you say? How about me being obsessed with Pokemon for over a decade and having a huge collection of everything Pokemon related?

4: I’m technically not cisgender, because I don’t identify as completely female, but I’m still on the feminine side of things, so people calling me a woman is fine 🤷‍♀️

5: I don’t really care how people see me, as long as they don’t harass me or anything because of how they perceive me, I’m fine.

6: how is it racist or misogynistic? Idk where you got that from.

7: I don’t demonize homosexuality, I’m literally under the bi umbrella, so it’d be impossible. Also, I don’t care about demonizing, bc I’m pretty demonic myself ٩( ᐛ )و

Anyway, imma eat breakfast now 💅