#i see a lot of people who just refer to themselves as 'aro' and I'm not thsr because i still separate these two aspects of myself and don't

[fearcicada]

I am technically aroace but it's like I feel like being ace is so much less important to me and a much smaller aspect of who I am than being aro so I like. Never think about it. Being ace is like ok whatever I'm not attracted to people but being aro is like (the way I view humanity and relationships has been fundamentally altered in every which way and affects how I see the whole world)

[neonscandal]

jjk having queer-coded villains seems to be an intentional choice. what are your thoughts on this

Anon comin in hot today! I feel like this doesn't really need a spoiler warning though it does detail info about characters yet to be animated so read at your own risk.

To be honest, I wouldn't even say that it's coding, JJK has an assortment of characters with varied identities from our protagonists to our antagonists which includes:

Megumi - a lot of fans interpret his non-gendered answer to what his type is, focusing instead on personality, to mean that he's pansexual.

Mahito - genderless ✨ and/or physically lacking reproductive organs that would typically define gender binary

Tengen - presumably assigned female at birth, has since transcended gender or is more non-binary

Kenjaku - another character who's just.. lived so long that they're just kind of gender fluid? Though, considering their history, intersex may be more appropriate? We know that, as Noritoshi Kamo, he mixed his blood with what would become the cursed womb paintings but she actually consummated with Jin for some extra razzle dazzle

Uraume - canonically they/them

Kirara - assigned male at birth (though I believe canonically referred to as they/them) with an androgynous gender expression

Please note: I don't consider myself an expert on the matter as gender identity, expression and sexual orientation exist on spectrums. Subsequently, if you think any of the above characters belong elsewhere based on canon or headcanon, I get it. If, based on canon, I'm outright incorrect, feel free to drop a comment and I'll edit accordingly.

With the distribution of the above in mind, I don't think it's unilaterally something focused just among the antagonists. Though, ironically, some of my color coding is also debatable at this point, I suppose. I think the more interesting observation is that, with enough time, such labels aren't as binding or lack the need for definition. Like, Tengen has all the time in the world to be whatever they want to be and they simply become. In fact, unrelated but kinda related, you see a similar idea in Hell's Paradise with the mercurial gender fluidity of the Tensens, too. Honestly, that's another show to watch with a curious lens.

All that to say, I think the varied representation is more interesting due to the conversation around the mangaka's own identity. Gege Akutami's anonymity has been shielded by their pen name but, also, I don't believe they have confirmed pronouns. While people argue that they went to an all boys' school previously, they also, during a stint as an assistant on another manga, unveiled themselves with a femme presenting avatar. Seemingly to avoid being defined by visual perception (or to pre-emptively avoid recognition by devastated fans..), they appeared in a video interview dressed as Mechamaru. Couple that with the fact that there is a notable lack of romantic pairings within the story, especially those that would be typical of a shonen story. Arguably, that could leave a lot of Aro and/or Ace characters that I'm too obtuse to have picked up on. In fact, one could interpret Akutami's previous comments about Gojo accordingly.

Subsequently, I don't think the intention is to vilify queerness just because some of the antagonists fit the bill. I think, if anything, there's just representation that isn't necessarily cultivated around "othering" queer characters or using their diversity as a plot line, if that makes any sense? Which isn't just concentrated on the "bad guys". For the most part, these are just subtle realities of the characters... okay, Kenjaku's identity can definitely be charged to the plot though. 👀 Seemingly contrary to what I just said about diversity as a plot device, I'm now having mixed feelings specifically with Kenjaku because their identity does inform the plot but also intrinsically brings nuance to them as a character. The more I think about it, this diversity is actually what humanizes them which, connotatively, still seems like a positive thing. Hm. Maybe I'm a hypocrite? Not sure but I'm curious as to your thoughts so feel free to leave them below 👇🏾

[invierno-inferno]

rating Lovejoy songs based on how aspec they are

(disclamer: a lot (most) of these are a stretch. but nothing is more powerful than an aroace who wants representation.)

Are You Alright?

Taunt: off to a bad start- the only remotely-aspec-if-you-squint line is 'did anybody ever say no to you?' which implies that the singer is rejecting the subject of the song. why? aromanticism or asexuality, maybe. along with the general theme of running away in this song, although that's also a reach. 1.5/10.

One Day: again, not much. the song is about the singer's romantic partner not being good for him, which is a pretty common topic for a song. the idea of wanting to be in a relationship despite it not being good can apply to aspec people, but overall this song doesn't give much. 1/10

Sex Sells: now we're getting somewhere! I see this song as a story that 'call me what you like' and 'it's all futile! it's all pointless!' are also about: an asexual alloromantic and allosexual aromantic trying to make a relationship work. in this song, it's obvious that the singer and the subject want different things from the relationship- the more relevant of this song is that the subject prioritizes sex, which the narrator does not want. pretty aspec! 7/10

Cause for Concern: honestly, this song's got nothing. a banger, but not aspec. 0/10

Pebble Brain

Oh Yeah, You Gonna Cry?: definitely less to go on, but I hear this song as the singer helping his friend to break up with her boyfriend by implying they have the beginning of a relationship. maybe a sort of prequel to the 'sex sells' story. 4/10

Model Buses: the lines 'you're just scared/you're just scared of the future' is often something paraphrased by aphobes, invalidating their orientation by saying things like 'you're afraid of growing up' and 'you're afraid of commitment'. pretty aspec, but it is only a couple of lines that probably weren't intended to be read this way. 3/10

Concrete: not much of anything. 0/10

Perfume: that's what I'm fucking talking about. 'seems like all her friends/abruptly fell in love/and she was in the dust/darling, life was streaming past/so she learned to lie/she learned how to pretend/a drama in the futile/a means to an end'. it's aro! it's aro. to quote the writer of the song, 'you aromantics need to read my lyrics! listen to it's all futile! it's all pointless! and figure out what it's about. and perfume.' super aro, however it's only half a verse. 8/10!

You'll Understand When You're Older: same deal as 'model buses'. a lot of aspec people, particularly teens, are invalidated by being told that they are late bloomers. 3/10

The Fall: love this song, there's nothing aspec though. 0/10

It's All Futile! It's All Pointless!: aro. it's SO aro. see the quote above about perfume and iafiap. also, an entire verse explicitly about not being in love! subject is almost definitely alloaro. and general themes of doing what society tells you, despite you being unhappy with it. 11/10, aro anthem.

Wake Up & It's Over

Portrait of a Blank Slate: not super aspec. however, 'how do you all make it look so easy?/open your hearts up so quickly, it scares me' sounds arospec to me! 4/10

Call Me What You Like: this is the last song of the story that starts with 'sex sells'. some especially aspec lines include 'you could kiss the skin from my lips if it makes you feel good/not sure if you want it, not sure if you need me, too'. the first line implies that the narrator is indifferent towards sex and/or romance, and engages in it only if his partner wants to. in the second line, he wonders if his partner values him in the relationship. 'I'm not made for you/but what else is new?/oh lord, she tells me that it's nothing/I really hope it's nothing' to me references the narrator and the subject experimenting to figure themselves out- 'what else' could be new is romantic feelings. the narrator hopes there aren't any. 6/10

Consequences: One of my favorites, but there's not much here. Maybe 'I wish I tried more/wish I tried more/wish I tried' in reference to a romantic relationship, which some aro people can relate to by thinking that if they had 'tried harder' to be in love, the relationship would have worked. Kind of a stretch, though. 1.5/10

Warsaw: at first glance, there's not much but if we look closer... the subject is unhappy in her current relationship, (a common theme in Lovejoy's songs) and is sleeping with strangers, which is the same situation as 'call me what you like' and by extent iafiap, in which the subject is likely alloaro. 'the place that she got her first kiss is now a vaccination clinic' also supports that the subject of this song is the same as the one in iafiap, cmwyl, and sex sells- same meaning as 'what was your thought when you realized you'd never feel naïve love again?'. (I know I said cmwyl was the last in the story- I feel like this isn't solid enough to definitely be a part of it). my argument's a bit weak. 5/10

Scum: 'no matter how much you think you love him/you'll still flinch when his blood pool touches you.' can't figure out how to explain this one, but you get it. 'maybe he'll be jesus/maybe he'll be jesus this time.' 'jesus' in these lines might mean The One- maybe this person will be the one, maybe this relationship will be the one. I'd group this song in with model buses and you'll understand when you're older, just a couple one-off lines. 3/10

It's Golden Hour Somewhere: 'they'll tell you this is normal/they'll tell you this is love/I'm not sure if the stuff I want is even worth the price it comes'. again, can't describe it, just seems aspec. 2/10

[aro-bird]

The Alienation of being a Filipino Aro

There's a kind of cultural alienation that comes with growing up aromantic and no I'm not just talking about how most aros and arospecs would note experience relationships the same way an allo person would.

I'm talking about an isolation away from community and culture that becomes apparent when you really sit down and think about it. A sort of disconnect from your community not for the fault of your own but just by the mere fact that most of society didn't even know you could possibly exist.

I'm Filipino. In the Philippines, romance is an inseparable part of culture. It's not only liked by many as a concept and theme in their stories and discussions, but it's put on a pedestal. It's a pedestal that I could never achieve.

Most media references romance to some capacity. Children's media would have a lot of focus and emphasis on a romantic subplot even if that shouldn't be the main focus of the story. TV shows for adults, even if it should have little to do with romance like game shows, would make references to romance as a universal thing.

Despite the Philippines being one of the top producers of movies, you'd probably have a hard time finding anything that isn't romance save for the few horror films and the occasional comedies and action movies that constitute maybe about 3 movies a year out of the dozens made by the industry. Even indie films have a huge focus on love, romance, and relationships with the extremely few being dramas that drag or depressed the audience. Don't get me started about how 99% of music is about love and loss.

Outside of media, Filipinos are extremely romantic and not just exclusively with their partners. PDA is everywhere and is even encouraged. It is not uncommon to see students at school holding hands and cuddling on campus being tolerated and even celebrated as long as they don't kiss in front of a teacher. This would be fine if people weren't force to participate in it.

From early on in elementary school, children would exchange gifts during Christmas as they sing out loud "I love my Monito/Monita, yes I do!" as they play secret santa, with gifts exchange between kids of two different genders being met with typical romantic teasing. It's a pretty common question in playground discussions to ask who your crush is and if you didn't had an answer, you would be called a liar if they don't outright call you weird.

Friendships with someone who isn't your own gender (heck even friendships with someone who is of the perceived same gender too) are often met with romantic teasing and ceaseless inquiry. Even people you've only talked to once, without any indication of goodwill, or even positivity, gets you years of teasing and harassment from school boys that think they're being cute. Some of these people even thought it appropriate to drag me into a "chain booth" where they would tie me up with another boy in class just to tease me. The fact that this is seen as something romantic let alone acceptable is beyond disgusting.

Even adults push this narrative of romance and relationships to the point that you probably couldn't last a single day in school without teachers talking about the woes of romance and love to try to seem hip with the kids. Poetry nights arranged by language arts club are filled with desperate cries about their beloved and love that could never be which extends not only to the artistic events of the month, but even just the casual school-wide assembly. Poems that portray the unresponsive as a bad guy, as the heartless who dares not return affection. It was all alienating.

What happens to a person whose entire existence is not seen and not only not seen but dismissed entirely by the community? What happens to a person who can't find themselves in their own local media? To the person who can't relate to their community and peers? To the person being pressured to desire something that doesn't make sense to them? To the person being forced to be something they're not? All by their community and culture?

It's different for everyone, but in my case, I looked to somewhere else.

I found comfort in foreign media that didn't feel like it was talking down at me for not pursuing romance. I found comfort in English communities that didn't harass me and forced me to conform to an idealized romance. I found comfort in a place foreign, outside of the Filipino culture that does not have room for people like me.

This has made me avoid a lot of Filipino media, discussions, and communities even online. Why should I seek out a place that would fundamentally misunderstand me? That would alienate me and make me feel unhuman just as it did while I was growing up? That would pressure me to do things against my will?

It was empowering to find a community outside the community. It was as if I had found a secret club that understood me more than the people I knew for literal years. It was welcoming and warm and nice. Until things felt... off.

I look at this new community, this community away from community and realize something that has been bugging me for a good few months now.

This place also feels alien.

Discussions here may not revolve around a constant stream of love, romance, relationships, and heartbreak, but they are in a language spoken that's foreign to me. Not that the words being typed in English is the problem, no, even the shows back home speak loads of the language. It was something else.

The discourse was alien. The discourse was American.

Most of the discussions and the media around being aro places it squarely in the west. I've noticed that I even try to lessen my Filipino-ness at times when I would discuss my aro experiences despite the two being quite intertwined. I felt a bit of embarrassment just even thinking of bringing it up since it felt out of place. This didn't feel like the appropriate time to discuss this, but if not now, then when?

Discord servers, although international, are mostly filled with American aros and if not Europeans. Major blogs and resources are run by westerners who primarily discuss western issues and discourse. Those that try to cater to a more general discussion about aromanticism feels hollow as culture and community is stripped to its very basics to avoid alienating everyone else.

Now I'm typing this all out to reflect in it further. I'm still at this awkward place in figuring out how to handle these ideas. The reality that I'm not truly a part of my Filipino culture as someone aromantic, and the reality that I'm a foreigner to the aromantic community as a Filipino still messes with my brain.

I want to be clear, this is no one's direct fault. It is definitely more of an issue that a person only encounters when they don't fit the larger culture's idea of the standard, whether it be being an alloromantic Filipino or a western aro. I am not calling for all of the aro community to make space for me specifically just because I feel weird and awkward as a Filipino and I'm not calling on all Filipinos to keep checking on their amatonormativity just because I can't relate with their gushy romance.

Either way, I guess I have to try my best to create spaces for myself and open the discussion on both sides. Maybe I would finally start to feel less alien in my own skin.

[oh-my-im-ply]

I don't see these slogans used as often as I used to, but I still want to talk about it, especially as a polysexual trans person. Be it as a retrospective, or as commentary aimed towards anyone who might still use these slogans today.

"[Bi/pan/mspec people] fall in love with a person, not a gender" and "[Bi/pan/mspec people care about] hearts, not parts!" are really bad slogans. Here's why.

"[Bi/pan/mspec people] fall in love with a person, not a gender" invalidates the love experienced by those whose attraction is impacted by gender, and erases many aromantic mspec folk who don't fall in love.

Falling in love with a whole person is not unique to those who experience attraction to all genders, or regardless of gender. This slogan implies that if you aren't attracted to all genders, or aren't attracted to people regardless of gender, it's impossible to love people for their entire being... "You just love the gender they have."

I'm a polysexual lesbian. I experience physical and emotional attraction to many genders, but I am not attracted to binary men. Gender impacts who I'm attracted to, who I'm comfortable being physically intimate with, and who I'm comfortable being partners with... But that doesn't mean my love is just about gender.

I identified as bi/pan for years, largely in part because of this rhetoric. I struggled to accept who I am and how I really feel, and a lot of it was fueled by slogans like this one. I felt like I had to give all genders a chance, because if I didn't, that would invalidate my love. I felt like I owed it to binary men to try... and to try... and to try again. Because, how could I really love someone if I wasn't willing to set gender aside?

(Among other reasons, because it was a very complex issue.)

And not only does this slogan invalidate the gendered love that many people experience, but it also erases mspecs who don't fall in love to begin with. Bi/pan/mspec people who are aromantic (or on the aromantic spectrum) exist too, including those who never fall in love.

Please don't devalue or invalidate gendered love by implying that it's less about the person than non-gendered love. Slogans like these harm mono-spec LG+ people, multi-spec people who don't fall in love, multi-spec people who aren't attracted to all genders, and even multi-spec people who are attracted to all genders in different ways.

Please don't use this slogan.

"Hearts, not parts" as a bi/pan/mspec slogan is not only dismissive of other sexualities/orientations, but also carries cissexist and endosexist connotations.

Using this as a bi/pan/mspec slogan implies that a person's "parts" are inherently relevant to other orientations. It implies that gender and "parts" are inherently linked. It implies that transgender and intersex people with certain genitals are inherently excluded from certain orientations, even if those orientations include their gender.

Genital preferences are not an inherent aspect of any orientation. In addition to that, some bi/pan/mspec people have genital preferences themselves. Because, ultimately, none of these orientations are defined by genital preferences or lack thereof; they're defined by how gender does or does not factor into one's attraction.

Not only that, but this slogan can also be alienating to bi/pan/mspec people who are romance-averse/repulsed, loveless aros, and heartless aros, for reasons that are probably obvious. Sometimes, it just isn't even about "hearts" to begin with, and that's okay.

The "hearts, not parts" slogan only works if used to explain the experiences of sex-averse/repulsed love-favorable people, because then "parts" refers to genitals in general, rather than associating specific genitals with specific genders.

Please only use "hearts, not parts" to explain how a person can be in love without having sex involved. Please don't use it as a bi/pan/mspec slogan. It originated during a time when transgender, intersex, and aromantic awareness was even less common, and it shows.

These are just my personal thoughts, but I hope that you take them to heart (no pun intended) and consider dropping these slogans if you haven't already.

[necros-writing-stuff]

How do you know you're aromantic? How do I differentiate between sexual attraction and romantic attraction? You don't have to answer. I just want to know if I can be considered aromantic or not😅

There's a few ways to figure it out depending on what works for you! I learned after just... never feeling comfortable in relationships. It took a while for it to click with me lol, only figured it out this year.

The first step is to define the differences in platonic love and romantic love, rather than sexual vs romantic. Now, while platonic is often used to refer to both friendships and familial relationships, in this example I'm solely speaking about friends. Physical intimacy (not just sexual, but including it or excluding for my ace people), emotional closeness, and doing activities together are all acts that overlap between platonic and romantic relationships.

Where these two differ is in expectations. You wish to share your life with that other person. This can mean marriage, kids, living together, shared finances, intermingling with each others friends and family. Once you start doing these things, you're seen as a duo. An aro person may look at these things and think they're pretty icky, or just plain not right for them. Some aro people may still want kids, or a long-term living partner, but not the romance that societely comes with said things. They don't want to be seen as part of a duo (or more if you're poly).

Friends may have sex. Friends may go for meals together. Hell, two friends could have kids or get married. But when you do these things with a romantic partner, there is an intimacy that is different. Not more or less important, but different. That is, for those that experience romantic attraction.

Many people use the example of aromantic people simply feeling more comfortable with no relationships because they want to sleep with more people without those expectations. Personally, I would be comfortable with a monogamous relationship - it would just be more distant than a classical relationship that would appear as more of a friends with benefits style. You do your thing, I'll do mine, we can hang out and fuck whenever we feel like it, and when we hang out without sex there's no expectation of holding hands or saying "I love you."

An aro person in a monogamous relationship will need to be more communicative about their boundaries and goddamn militant in making sure they're kept up to stay comfortable - especially with someone who isn't aro. They may deeply love the person (platonically), but they don't want that level of commitment you see between romantic couples. It can be exhausting, so a lot of aro people will stay single.

Could an aro person still feel jealousy? Of course! People feel jealous when their friends seem to prioritise other relationships in times when there appear to be no factors in the way of closeness all of the time. It's just once again, different to the jealousy of a romantic couple.

Romance and the expectations around it can also be defined not just by the aro person, but by their upbringing and culture, so it's wise to look at what you consider to be romantic, what your culture views as romantic, and see what your response to it is. If it's apathy to the point of wanting little to do with it or disgust, I'd suggest that you may be on the aro scale.

I'm personally repulsed by romance, hence why I only write fluff on occasion and stick to smut. Many are fine with romance around them, but not for themselves. I might add that fictional romance is mostly fine too me, unless it's tooth-rottingly sweet.

Hope this helped!

[oblivious-aro]

I don't think I realized how helpful JaidenAnimations 'not straight' video was for me at the time. I might be wrong, but I don't think I was fully comfortable using the term 'aromantic' to describe myself before I saw it.

I mean, I had the feelings figured out. I knew I didn't feel sexual or romantic attraction, but actually using the terms 'aromatic' and 'asexual' felt so wrong for me at first.

Like, I figured out the no sexual attraction part, and eventually warmed up to the term 'asexual', but that at first I phrased it as "I don't feel sexual attraction (side note: this all happened in my head, I never talked to anyone about any of this ever. Still don't). I knew that that was was asexual meant, but for some reason I didn't feel comfortable using that word right away.

I started figuring out I didn't feel romantic atrraction a few months (I don't know how many, maybe 1 or 2 maybe more) after I became comfortable with the term ace for myself. I did the same thing where I referred to it as "I don't feel romantic attraction" but didn't feel at all comfortable with 'aromantic', despite knowing that that's what that meant.

Again, I'm not 100% sure if I started feeling comfortable with the term 'aromantic' before Jaiden's video came out, but I definately felt a boost in my security with using the terms 'aro' and 'ace' after seeing it. Seeing someone like me who felt so sure of themselves really helped ease a lot of the hesitancy I'd been having.

I didn't magically become 100% confident (to this day I still worry people will just think I'm being attention-grabby when I say the terms out loud) but Jaiden's video made the words feel more right and inspired me to look into the aro ace online community (especially the aro one).

Yeah, I'm only just realizing what that video did for me. I wonder what would have happened if it'd come out when I was still in my aro ace egg (when I was still oblivious, lol). Interesting alternate time line, but I'm glad it came out when it did in this time line.

That being said, I wonder how many teenagers who assume they're totally straight will see that video and have their minds blown. I wonder how many disastrous futile attempts at romance she's prevented. How much confusion she's cleared.

I guess what I'm trying to say is representation matters. Asexual and aromantic identities are still relatively fringe (especially aromantic), so it was really good for me to see someone so well known and cool talk about having some of the same experiences I've had.

[thatsnotxitsy]

That's not aromantic that's you just hating love

Aromantic - a person who doesn't feel romantic love/rarely feels romantic love.

Even though that statement is in some ways a little vague, accounting for the greyness in the area, it is very clear in others. If you consider this label to fit you, it's because your feelings of romantic love have never surfaced, may never surface or perhaps do so in such an infrequent manner as for this label to still fit.

But more and more there seems a rise in 'aro' people who have rejected the very concept of love in all forms and use their aro status to justify some very unfair and ridiculous statements. Statements that are the very reason other community members (I'm talking LGBT+ here) see you as being against them* or at the very least, incredibly hostile, unfriendly and difficult to talk to or express themselves around. If this is what you wish to do - do away with platonic love, love for oneself, love for objects, love for activities, love for life (the Greeks knew what was going on when they named a lot of different types of love) then you are perfectly fine to do so. Happiness and contentment may look a certain way for you and another for others. But then I see statements like "Iconic lines from romance movies are arophobic." or "Love is Love*^ is actually a terrible slogan because it excludes aro people." You cannot expect the whole world to not talk about love, except in vague ways which water-down it's importance and the happiness it brings in order to accommodate you. No more than hetero people can do away with ss attraction and importance. Love is important. Love has done many great and terrible things for people all throughout history. Love has pulled people, communities, hundreds of people through tragic events and hard times for centuries. Love has enriched people's lives and made them worth living. It doesn't mean it's 'necessary' to live a full life, or to do good things for people, but it has done, will do, is doing and will continue to do this things for those who feel it and that's a fact.

You cannot as an aro person say "I understand, appreciate and validate that allos feel this way and that love is very important to them" but forbid the expression of it in your implications of it being 'arophobic or 'aphobic' to do so. ** That's like a straight man saying "I understand, appreciate and validate that gay men like men but could they not have shows where gay men get together, songs about loving men, posts online about loving men and basically express this love in a place I might see it because it excludes me as a straight man from projecting onto it and makes me uncomfortable to see/hear?" The world you sometimes speak of it's one that is 'aro friendly' it's one where love is censored. A blank world where people have sex not because of attraction or feeling aroused but because of procreation and 'because you should' (after all, demonising feeling sexual attraction or 'being horny' is also common in the same circles). That is not a world that exists, nor should it exist. The world which exists now is a diverse one. Your main issue should just be standing up for yourself as an aro person and showing the other ways in which you find happiness. In other words, legitimising aromanticism. If you must make your life revolve around your sexuality labels at all. It should not be telling those who feel love that they are banned from words like 'loveless' because they're not aro, or that the presence of love in media is automatically arophobic even if no actual direct reference to 'if you don't have love how can you ever be happy' is really, truly made, except when you squint to see it and stretch really hard. If you find yourself offended by any talk of love, you just hate love, it has nothing to do with being aromantic. Sincerely, a fellow nb aroace - Gravy [Chalk Circle System] ^ 'Love is Love' is intentionally simplistic so it can have a wide meaning with variations depending on the person. Love is Love for aro people could simply mean 'my form of love is no love'. It is that vague for a reason. **I often wonder what aro people like this would be like as parents. I can't imagine you would possibly get offended if your child was allo and wanted to say 'I love you' and hear it back. But you sure act like you would be that callous as to deny it even empty words of love to make it feel warm and safe. It can learn to understand your aro standpoint when it's older.

[sudoscience]

Oh, jeez, I thought I had a coherent idea, but as soon as I tried to write it down, I was like, "This doesn't make any sense." I'm going to try anyway.

I was kinda thinking last night, "What if Alan Waterford used they/them pronouns?" Is that weird? That's weird, right? Because I'm not Alan Waterford. That's just my pseudonym (sudonym? nah). It's not even an OC, it's literally just me. It's a name I use when I don't want to use my real name. There is an idea of an Alan Waterford, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real them. Maybe you could call it a persona for lack of a better word.

But, me, real name redacted sudoscience? I use he/him, and I would likely continue to do so even if I changed Alan's pronouns. Idk, I feel like it would just further separate Alan from sudoscience, and I'm not sure I want that. (Also, it feels inauthentic and maybe a little like appropriation?) I mean, it's not like I have a deadname. I still go by my birth name in real life. I've never had a problem with it. It only makes me uncomfortable when strangers use it a lot, but that's normal, right? Like, you only know my name because I have to wear a name tag. Don't try and act like that makes us friends. But even when I was writing my made-up stories in 3rd grade, I wanted to use a pen name. I don't know why. It just felt more natural. Maybe I do want Alan to be separate. I'm not sure.

At any rate, I so rarely see people talking about me (or Alan, as it may be) that pronouns are pretty much a non-issue. But, that's why I have pronouns in my bio in the first place. Not so much to establish that I am male, but in the off chance that someone finds themselves needing to use pronouns for me they're readily available. At the same time, I don't think I'd be particularly bothered if you use they/them for me. But, again, it's not like that many people refer to me in the first place, so it's a bit of a moot point.

I don't know. I've always identified as male. I'm biologically male, and I'm fairly masculine in my presentation. Like, I think the last time I got misgendered was over the phone before I hit puberty. Nobody mistakes me for a woman. Many people mistake me for straight. But, lately, it's kinda like, "What gender am I? Who gives a shit?"

Actually, "officially" changing my pronouns, though? Feels like a bridge too far. Do I want to use they/them because I want to or just because other people are doing it? I don't think I'm nonbinary or agender. And I'm not saying it's trendy. Trust me, I'm in the UT/DR fandom. I know they/them pronouns aren't as trendy as they may seem on Tumblr. I see how often real NB content creators get misgendered. But, maybe with the popularity I eventually hope to attain, I can... be an inspiration? See, that just feels disingenuous. I don't feel like I'd be doing it for me. But maybe it would be for me, a little bit.

In conclusion, I have no fucking idea. But, if I want to be queer rep, I can settle for just being aro/ace rep. Also, I think it's possible that maybe I'm one of those he/theys you sometimes hear about.

[britneyshakespeare]

6, 8, and 10 for the ask game ❤️

Funny enough, these were three of my favorite questions in the prompt :^) good taste anon

What is your favourite part about being aromantic?

The best and worst things about being aro kind of go hand-in-hand in my experience. You're unique! But no one understands you. You defy expectations! But you never fit in with other people. You can be all alone! You're all alone. Etc. etc.

But yes, the uniqueness of it is what makes me feel comforted, especially when I put my feelings out there and other people actually understand them. Which is mostly just other aros, but still, other aromantic people are awesome. We learn so much from each other. I genuinely do feel closer to people when they tell me that they're aro and/or ace or even that they've questioned (or are questioning) that in themselves because it's like, phew. Someone who has a bit of experience in my shoes, even if we still ultimately come about it differently.

But as a creative writer, being aromantic fucking rocks. Fuck amatonormativity. Soooo much literature is amatonormativity. Especially poetry, and I know that intimately well as a goddamn poetess! I've gone on this rant before but being an aromantic poet is kind of inherently rebellious to me. I love writing about my aromanticism. Often I come to it since it's been a topic of confliction and confusion in me more than pride, but the pride comes in looking what I've done. And the creative product of an aromantic person reflecting on their experiences is always going to be subversive and interesting to me.

Do you associate anything with being ‘aromantic culture’?

I guess this kind of relates to the last question, in that, yeah, I think my poetry is pretty Aromantic Culture™ if that is a thing. Well I mean, it probably is a thing, but I'm not the moooost involved in aro or ace-spec circles online? I used to be more active in them, although never too immersed because back when I would go to blogs and pages and all that to feel affirmed, I didn't wanna be chased by the exclusionists since that was the height of Tumblr ace discourse.

And nowadays I'm just not as online as I used to be. Sometimes I see posts from other aros coming on my dash that reference an inter-community discourse that I'm just not aware of and not necessarily interested in forming a stance on? I could name examples but I kinda don't want to since I don't wanna offend anyone or invite those discussions I'm admittedly ignorant of to begin with.

I guess certain spaces on the internet are just aromantic culture to me. I don't overly personalize the things I like to be aro (unless I make them of course). Perhaps certain works of art that other people make, particularly other women when they're defying heteronormativity. For me my identity as a woman is inseparable from my aromantic experience but I also feel like... well, a shit ton of the aro people *I know* (I don't know the hard numbers on this, if there are even surveys) are nonbinary, so. My aro culture doesn't speak for everyone. Idk. This is a fascinating question and I feel like I could get lost in a million tangents about just what it means to be this or that thing. I guess aro culture to me bleeds everywhere but never shows itself solidly. We're all aro in an amatonormative culture, aren't we?

How long have you known you are aro?

Six years, as a matter of fact. Around the time I started my senior year of high school and I was overall in a very bad place, feeling how transitory my current life was but not being able to see anything in the future. It also felt like a lot had been behind me since, well, when you're 17, you're not grown up for sure but you really don't feel like a kid anymore either. I reflected on a lot of my "romantic" experiences and how I came out of them, and some things just didn't add up anymore like I thought they once did.

Sometimes I still have internal doubts because I'm like "am I really aro if—" (you know how it is) but I've always kind of known since I first accepted it that there's really nothing else I *could* be, in this lifetime anyway. But yeah, even as I have known for a relatively long time now (I just realized that's most of the time I've had this blog lol) I think my feelings about my aro identity have moved around a lot. Life experience certainly is something that happens and happens even more to you when you age beyond high school, and I am not perceived or treated in anything like I was back then.

I know I already answered that question with the first paragraph, but I just had to elaborate, because of course I would. :^)

send me aromantic asks

[juiceastronaut]

(I'm neither aro nor ace so if I overstep pls let me know, I don't mean to attack anyone with this just pointing out some use of terminology here)

In light of Jaidens coming out video (which I'm super proud for her and could tell that wasn't easy!) I was looking thru ppl talking about it. And I saw the word "representation" thrown around a lot. And saying that they got Lilith in the time span which is means to celebrate. (Like people reference both her and Lilith in the posts at the same time)

And it's great that people are seeing themselves more in the things they watch! Not saying it's a bad thing at all, and it's a good thing people are seeing more people like them in the world (I haven't seen the Lilith episodes so hopefully this isn't word of god but not the point). Which normalizes it.

But what does bother me is to take a real, living and breathing person coming out to their fanbase and calling it "representation" and putting it in the same vein as a *fictional* character being said identify. Saying that you're being "fed" by her being such and such identify.

JaidenAnimations is not "representation." She is a real person who made a discovery about herself and made the incredibly personal decision to share that in the hopes to try to educate others about what being aroace means when they might not have previously.

It's okay to relate and feel seen by the video! That's not what I'm talking about. It's reducing her to being content that one consumes, and a new checkmark to be crossed off that has bothered me about this. It's unfair to her experiences to put her in the same category as fictional people. To reduce her down to a fictional character when she's not.

Support her like the real life person that she is and not throw her in the same pile as you would characters that also fill those same traits

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

Should be studying but meh. About the Renesme and E.J forgive me for this ask. Lets say Belle has twins. Cool. Lets say the twins think twincest is not that bad. Will the Cullens be shocked or pretend this is not real?

I say this bc I can see her prefering to date her twin then Jacob.

Asker is referring to this post.

I just like the prelude to this.

Bella has twins.

Alright.

Now the twins are incestuous. Go!

Just, okay, we're going straight for it. Skipping past all the worlds where they might not be incesutous and going straight for it.

I mean, to be fair, these two grow up in a shoebox where people adore them while simulatenously paying no attention to them whatsoever. The "incestuous relationships are wrong" might genuinely never be conveyed to them.

Will the Cullens be Shocked or Pretend it's Not Real

They won't even notice.

Per canon Renesmee, for the vast majority of the Cullens, is little more than a prop. Granted, she's only three months old at the time, isn't having very interesting conversations, and a lot of shit is going on but her mother and father treat her like a doll and put her in their Marie Antoinette sex cottage, Alice dresses her like a doll and is otherwise annoyed her gift gets blocked, Rosalie sees her as the child she never got to have, and Jacob isn't even a person anymore.

I can't imagine it'd be any different with a brother. The difference being that, at the very least, they'd have each other.

I imagine the Cullens wouldn't notice or, if they see signs, tell themselves they must be seeing things. Because... no.

As it is, I'm sure they share the same over decorated room in Bella and Edward's sex cottage and probably are sharing a bed. Bella and Edward don't find this weird as they find nothing in canon weird.

No, the one I'd worry about is Jacob.

Alright, What About Jacob?

Jacob probably kills Edward Jacob.

Edward Jacob is not an imprint and he's in the way. He likely doesn't have Renesmee's gift (perhaps not any gift with which to protect himself or his sister), and he alone stands as the biggest obstacle between Jacob and Renesmee.

With Edward Jacob in the picture, Jacob will never be the first priority. I highly doubt that's allowed.

Edward Jacob will be lured out on his own, unprotected, and murdered in the woods with Jacob blaming the Volturi. Or, perhaps, if Renesmee refuses to leave him then Renesmee witnesses the murder of her brother and Jacob still blames the Volturi and is horrified to see that no one in her family believes her when she claims it was actually Jacob.

(Well, half the family might, but Edward and Bella certainly will not.)

Renesmee then is probably set down the path of murdering Jacob if not Edward as well. If the Volturi can murder her brother why can't they murder Jacob and her father as well?

Aro then gets blamed for all the murders he didn't commit.

WHAT?! BUT THAT'S SO DEPRESSING

Alright, if Edward Jacob has a phenomenally strong gift (possible with Bella's genes in the mix) then I imagine after Jacob's failed murder attempt, they probably murder him in self-defense and tell the family that Jacob went out for cigarettes.

Bella implodes and they live knowing they've emotionally wrecked their mother who still thinks Jacob Black was a great man.

[therealvinelle]

Hi there, I'm a really big fan of your metas and I appreciate the perspective you bring since you are a lot more focused on canon than most people I follow (I personally prefer the ~vibe of twilight over the execution so Im guilty of a lot of canon-divergent "what-if-ing" lol). I'm not sure if you've addressed this before but I was wondering: what draws you most to twilight? Is there anything you would want to change about the series? I hope you're having a nice day! -bellaslilpapercut

Ooh this is a fun ask. And thank you for your kind words!! For the record I too enjoy my what-ifs, too much in fact. Fanfic is a years-long addiction of mine.

As for what draws me to Twilight, I’ll just bullet point them.

The vampires Meyer’s vampires aren’t really vampires at all, they’re aliens who call themselves vampires. They’re absolutely fascinating creatures, terrifying and inhuman in a way so few authors manage to create true inhumanity. (I find so many supernatural creatures end up basically being gimmicks, enhanced humans at best. If you can’t tell your vampire apart from an MCU superhero, you’re doing it wrong.)

The worldbuilding There are many things I like about Meyer’s worldbuilding, one of them being her restraint. There are vampires, shapeshifters, and a one-off reference to the nearly extinct werewolves. That’s it. She created the creatures her story needed, and not one leprechaun more. And I like that for a lot of reasons, the big one being that it makes her creatures serve the story, rather than the other way around. Another major thing I like about her worldbuilding is that a lot of fantasy stories want to have their regular modern world the reader can recognize and eat the vampire cake too. You get these universes where the supernatural exists, only it’s secret and hasn’t impacted the world we know in any way because... reasons. The Vampire Diaries is a great example, we have vampires eat people with abandon yet their existence is a secret to the world at large. Why is that? Why, in a world where the supernatural is commonplace, does the world not look different? Twilight answers these questions.

The characters Meyer creates so many great characters. I have my favorites, of course, but I find nearly all the characters she created interesting. (Well, considering how so many of the characters we get to know in the Guide are hilarious, perhaps “entertaining” is a better word for it) More, while there are some characters that could have been cut (Esme and Emmett come to mind), on the whole most characters in the story have a reason to be in it. And that’s not a given at all, Harry Potter is a shining example of a cast where 90% could have been cut. (Example: remove the Crouch family from Goblet of Fire and have Pettigrew abduct Harry instead of Barty Crouch Jr.. The plot doesn’t change at all. The Crouch family has failed the sexy lamp test. So have almost all of Harry’s classmates.)

The unreliable narrator Caveat - I think all narrators are in some way unreliable. The difference is how much, and to how great a degree what’s actually happening shines through to the reader. And Twilight is a story where there’s stuff happening behind the scenes all the time, people Bella doesn’t understand doing things for reasons Bella doesn’t know about, and Bella never realizes any of it. This makes Twilight a lot of fun to engage with.

The loose threads I sort of get into this below, but there are so many loose threads in Twilight, which means endless fanfic material. Other fandoms, where I wouldn’t change a thing, end up being fandoms I don’t write anything for either. (See Prometheus - loved it, never writing fic for it) Why change perfection? Twilight, on the other hand, I get ideas faster than I can write them.

As for what I’d change...

I’m happy with the story. It’s not quite the story I would have written, off the top of my head I would have gone a different direction with Victoria and had her successfully kidnap Bella in New Moon, only to find that killing this human when Edward clearly doesn’t care would be no revenge at all, and that this human is really all she’s got left at this point. (See? I do like my what-ifs!). 

Alternatively, if I was writing the story that occurs in Twilight, then I would have chosen Carlisle’s point of view and it would have been Othello with vampires, featuring Aro as Desdemona. I mean, that already is the story, it’s just that Bella’s narration is so oblivious she never realizes.

This is not to say I wouldn’t have done a lot of things very differently if I were writing Twilight. Jasper, for instance, I would not have him drop “fun fact, I fought for the right to own slaves!” mid-conversation and then never bring it up again. And bigger things, such as I would have cut Jacob and the wolves entirely (And now we’re back to “Victoria kidnaps Bella and the story turns into femmeslash”. I end up with weird ships in Twilight, and the thing is that I see no way around them. How do you people who ship the canon pairs do it?! Tell me your secrets!).

Point being, I would have changed a lot of things. Breaking up the Cullens is another big one, that coven is unsustainable and I'm like a Persian warrior because all I wanna do is watch these Olympics fall.

And there’s one thing I’d change unequivocally, the first thing I’d change, the thing I would pull into a dark alley and stab, and that’s the imprinting. It’s a life-ruiner for everybody involved, it plays into this nasty theme of the shapeshifters losing their free will, and it doesn’t even serve the story to make up for it. Jacob and the Quileutes had no need to be in the story in Breaking Dawn, the Cullens could have left town (and were going to) and that would have been it. So, I would cut the imprinting. With a knife.

This is not to say I don’t like what Meyer did, though. I agree with the decisions the characters make, big and small, at no point in the series do I go “X wouldn’t do that, that’s OOC!”. I even like the plot of Breaking Dawn. Everything that happens in the story makes sense to me. I do, sincerely, enjoy Twilight. It’s just- well, it’s not how I would have told this story.

Oh, and of course - the use of a real minority the way Meyer did was egregious and she should never have done it. More, I was shocked and disappointed to learn the Quileute tribe didn’t profit from this. You would think they would have been involved in merch for Twilight - this could have become a huge source of income for them - but nope. Others have spoken far more eloquently than me on this matter and have said everything I could, so I’ll just note that no fictional series should use (there’s really no other word for it) a real and oppressed minority the way Twilight did. The fact that the Quileute tribe didn’t even get to see any of that Twilight money is just salt in the wound.

[nrhodact]

As an aro, the aromantic community needs to have a serious talk about the "Why can't two people just be friends?"

I agree with this statement a lot but sometimes I see it being used when referring to the fandom shipping two people of the same gender and uuuuh...that's where the problem is.

Friendship is an under represented part of fandom but like some of you all say this like there isn't a BIG CULTURAL reason WHY fandom ships two dudes or two women that are friends in canon. LGBT+ community has been and still is underrepresented in media. The two guy characters will have more chemistry with eachother than the love interest because cishets see a woman and a man and believe that's enough of a reason for them to be together, no build up needed. This is a common issue that queer shippers know to be heteronormativity at it's finest. The only way the LGBT+ community could find solace in these shitty canonical pairing decisions, is within fanfiction (and fanart but I will stick to saying fanfiction cause you'll get the point) where the show,book, movie, comic,play could be as queer as they wanted it because mainstream media wouldn't dare to do it themselves. I know people love to bring up cishet women being a big part of fanfiction culture but the lgbt+ community and fanfiction have deep ties. Yes, amatonormativity is an issue in fanfiction spaces, aphobia is prominant in the LGBT+ community, especially arophobia. But not every shipper has bad intentions when they write lovey dovey fanfiction of their otp. We aren't the only oppressed community. Recently there has been small growth in lgbt+ rep but queerbaiting still happens and I can name recent books with strictly cishet casts. I don't say this to start a "Who's more oppressed olympics but a reminder to look outside your bubbles and be mindful of what you say. Not every step forward will directly affect us but that doesn't mean we shouldn't respect or celebrate when our LGBT+ siblings are represented in entertainment.

Ok, you'll are probably still wondering why saying "Why can't two characters just be friends." Is an issue. Everything I said above comes back to why this statement can be harmful. Emphasis on can. I'll touch on that later, but the how is because this has been used by homphobes to defend why queer ships don't need to become canon. Using "friendship matters!" as a weapon for bigotry. Friendship does matter and we love to see a healthy friendship. The problem is, homophobes say this... A lot. If they genuinely cared, they would say this when a man and a woman kiss but they don't. I'd love to see a man and a woman be friends because I see that less than people of the same gender being friends. We do see Men being friends, and sometimes women being friends.(Media needs to work on the women hating eachother but this post isn't about misogyny. Hooo boy, that's a can of worms I'm not opening, people breka down these problems all the time and I have nothing to add to it) It's not like other queer people hate friendships being seen but saying "Why can't two men be friends" is not helpful to the lack of rep across all communities.

But this statement isn't always said to keep the homophobic agenda alive. Aro community has good intentions but for all that is good- PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT WHEN IT COMES TO QUEER SHIPS. Sure, say this to all the canon straight couples in media but be more mindful about other queer struggles. I am so sick of seeing that statement being thrown around, as if certain comments don't have bad connotations attached to it too.

Ok I'm done. Feel free to discuss or add to this but be civil. Arophobes/Aphobes/ exclusionist/TERFS dni.

Me bringing up issues within the Aro community does not mean you're bigotry will be tolerated. Comparing the oppression of aro's to the rest of the LGBT+ community as gotcha points to attack aro people counts too.

Ok, thanks for reading.

[anchoviesinthenightsky]

Fair enough, lesbian meme is goodest meme. Curious though, if you're the ace that wraps in aro with it? Usually I see ace people put that and its kinda referred as no romance/no sexual attraction, while others make it clear they are romantic. Im sorry if its personal, I just like to understand the different types yaknow?

Yeah it's the best!

And it is a bit personal, but I don't mind answering it (especially since you acknowledged that it can be a personal question 🥰)

Um, hm. how to answer this. the truth is that it's kind of complicated, so i might end up over explaining things.

Essentially what you're referring to is the Split Attraction Model where sexual attraction and romantic attraction are separately identified and labeled. A lot of asexual people use SAM, because they find it useful to label both aspects of their identity

There's also Tertiary Attraction which is a different way of describing how a person experiences attraction without using SAM, though I don't understand this model as much. (and that's also not even getting into repulsion descriptors which is a whole other way that some a/arospec people use to describe themselves)

And then there are people who just like to use Ace as an umbrella, in a similar way that people use Nonbinary, Trans, or Queer as umbrellas. Where they can refer to the gist of their experience, without having to be specific about it, explain their identity, and/or because they have some uncertainty to it.

And that last one is what I do. The short reason why is because I'm old, and I'm tired of trying to find the the exact descriptor for myself.

The longer reason is that, while I think that SAM is a really useful model, I personally find it difficult to pin down my romantic orientation. I used biromantic for a long time, but I'm not sure that's exactly it. I'm also not sure if aromantic, demiromantic, grayromantic, homoromantic, or sticking with biromantic feel right either (and if you're thinking "that's a very big range. how can you not tell the difference between not feeling romantic attraction at all to being romantically attracted to everyone" ... yeah lol. that's why it's so confusing!).

which is all to say, referring to myself using SAM just doesn't feel comfy /shrug

I like to use Ace, because it's a big enough blanket that it allows me the room to be uncertain about some things, while still accurately describing how I experience attraction and how that impacts the way I interact with the world around me.

I can't speak for other people who use just Ace to describe themselves, but that's how it is for me/ why I do it that way!

[customemoji]

this may sound stupid but i'm a super conservative republican and i'd really appreciate someone explaining all the sexualities and pride flags you're posting! i've never heard of anything besides gay, straight, and bisexual and now i'm really curious to learn more and educate myself about it :)

hi!! i’ll answer this as unironically and to the best of my ability as possible, assuming good intentions here.

i’ll organize them by set, since i do pride flag edits in sets of 9 at a time! these also won’t be in order.

under the cut because it’s very long!!!!!

set 1:

transgender: someone whose gender differs from their assigned gender at birth. note that “assigned gender at birth” does not always denote birth sex, as intersex people are often raised as a binary gender. transgender is used as an “umbrella” term for anyone who follows the definition, including nonbinary people.

pansexual: someone who is attracted to all genders; some people see pansexuality as interchangeable with bisexual, and other people choose to define it that gender is not part of their attraction, instead focusing on other qualities.

asexual (”ace”): someone who does not experience sexual (sometimes romantic) attraction at all.

aromantic (”aro”): someone who doesn’t experience romantic attraction, but may be attracted to people in a variety of other ways; while romantic attraction is a desire for a romantic relationship, aromantic people can still find people aesthetically pleasing, for example.

people who use “x-romantic” terms often subscribe to the “split-attraction model”, which is a way of labeling oneself with different amounts of romantic and sexual attraction. it’s very prominently used in the asexual community; for example, an ace lesbian may describe themselves as homoromantic asexual. some people don’t use this model at all and use their sexuality label to describe their romantic orientation as well.

nonbinary: someone who does not identify as 100% male or 100% female; nonbinary people have their own spectrum of identities, such as aligning with both masculinity/femininity, neither, some in different amounts, changing, et cetera.

genderfluid: someone whose gender identity changes over time, whether between specific identities or seemingly at random. the owner of this blog is genderfluid!

set 2:

gray-asexual: someone who experiences a partial amount of sexual attraction, often very little to a point where it’s distinguishable.

demisexual: someone who experiences sexual attraction only to those with a deep bond. demisexual people often don’t experience crushes; even when a demisexual person does form a strong bond, attraction is not guaranteed, much like how a gay person isn’t attracted to everyone of the same gender.

gray-romantic: same thing as gray-asexual, but for romantic attraction!

demiromantic: same thing as demisexual, but for romantic attraction!

genderqueer: generally interchangeable with the term ‘nonbinary’ with a slightly longer historical significance (the term “nonbinary” came after genderqueer.)

abrosexual: someone whose attraction to certain genders may change over time, again whether between specific points or at random.

he/him lesbian, she/her gay: due to many people’s differing experiences, people may identify a certain way but use pronouns that seemingly “contradict” their identity. he/him lesbians aren’t men, nor are she/her gays women.

pronouns aren’t synonymous with labels; a he/him lesbian may be a woman or feminine-aligned person who has a unique relationship with masculinity that makes him use he/him pronouns, and vice versa for she/her gays. another example is that sometimes trans people aren’t used to using new pronouns or may still use their old pronouns even after coming out/transitioning.

nonbinary lesbian: generally speaks for itself! remember that nonbinary people can experience masculinity and femininity in a variety of ways, and not all nonbinary people can be lesbians (don’t take that the wrong way), but some can and are!

set 3:

trixic (NBLW): means “nonbinary loving women”.

toric (NBLM): means “nonbinary loving men”.

trixic/toric are distinguishable from “nonbinary lesbian/gay” in the fact that just as binary pan/bisexual people can be WLW/MLM, a nonbinary pan/bisexual person can be NBLW/NBLM. some people use the terms in place of nonbinary lesbian/gay for themselves, though!

aroflux: someone whose romantic attraction may change over time, but always stays within the aromantic spectrum.

demigender/boy/girl: someone whose gender is “partial”, such as partially male, partially female, or something else; between “nothing” and another identity.

intersex: not a gender (usually)/sexuality label. someone born with a medical condition that makes their body’s sex “not fit a typical male/female definition”. this can be shown at birth or may become apparent later in life (especially during puberty). the creator of this blog is intersex! intersex people are estimated to occur in about 1.7% of the population, which is almost definitely a low-ball given that many intersex people may never find out they’re intersex.

autism pride: not a gender/sexuality label. the autism pride flag is for people with autism to show unity as a community! autism pride isn’t always necessarily about being happy that one has autism, but instead is a movement that seeks to normalize and accommodate for autistic people in society as opposed to the stigmatization/infantilization that we experience nowadays.

despite the number of labels here, a lot of them are very personal to some people or very uncommon - not that it makes them any less valid labels. the first set, for example, just about covers all of the most popular labels used.

also, even if someone’s gender or sexuality may be defined under a different label, people choose their own labels and how they may refer to their identity. for example, i’m a genderfluid person, but i often call myself “transgender”.

i hope this helps, anon!