#nonbinary does not automatically equal trans

[aaa-battery-not-rechargeable]

every time someone says 'all nonbinary people are trans', an angel loses its wings.

other people do not get to label you.

[rjalker]

Edit: Can't believe the irony of me having to say this, but I do apparently have to say this: Not wanting boobs and not wanting to be seen as feminine does not mean you are, or want to be seen as masculine. I'm not transmasculine just because I don't want boobs and don't want to be seen as feminine.

You cannot read a post where the point is having boobs does not equal being feminine and go oh! right. Because not wanting boobs equals being masculine! No!! I'm not transmasculine! I'm not trying to look masculine! Kill the gender binary that has a stranglehold on your views of gender!

Stop shoving nonbinary people into a new set of binary boxes!

___

the idea that having boobs gets you automatically and inherently classified as being "female presenting" and "feminine presenting" in so-called progressive circles makes me want to maul people.

I've said this before and I'll just keep repeating it forever: I'm disabled. I can't wear a binder. If I tried I'd dislocate several ribs and that'd be the least of my worries. Like. you know why ribs not being where they're supposed to be is dangerous? Yeah. Yeah. Use your imagination. That's a real thing I have to worry about.

I can't even wear a sports bra that's several sizes """too large""" comfortably.

And yeah, I can use trans tape, but that takes concerted time and effort to put on and take off, and every time you put it on you get different results, and you might just mess it up entirely and waste it, and it can get itchy if you're sweating with it on (and it's 90 degrees almost all the time it's not actively winter here, so that's...literally unavoidable. Even sitting in the living room. Because the electric company charges an arm and a leg for AC during the summer AND won't even give you enough to actually cool your shitty tiny apartment even with all the doors shut and curtains drawn!!!!!), and it's expensive to buy more of.

And especially because this declaration of "feminine presenting" or "female presenting" that gets shoved onto you is not only misgendering you, but placing the blame on you for being misgendered for not looking not-female enough. It's no longer the speaker making incorrect assumptions, they're now literally declaring that this is a concious decision you make. You are choosing to "present" yourself this way...by having a body that you have no control over.

And even when it comes to clothes, the idea that the clothes you wear is another purposeful, conscious Presentation™ of your gender...

Even if we ignore for a moment the fact that being disabled and poor severely limits the clothes you can wear and even just have access to, what about people who literally don't get to choose what their clothes are? Kids whose parents buy their clothes for them, people whose carers choose their outfits for them?

My gender is not "sun-bleached tank top and shorts with a reflective sun hat". That's just what I wear so I don't die of heat stroke every time I set foot outside, and so that my joints are not being painfully constricted every time I move. I literally can't take my hat off outside during the day without developing a headache (or are they fucking migraines? fuck if I know!) within minutes from the sun trying to murder me from my light sensitivity. And it took me years to even realize that it was light sensitivity causing this. I remember in middle school the substitute gym teacher asked if I was a vampire because I moved to the closest shady spot every time we moved to a new area.

And like. Let's be honest. Even if I could safely wear a binder...They're fucking expensive.

It's just really fucking annoying that so many people equate binding with being trans and so many people who are supposed to be allies are just so comfortable labeling other people, who they haven't asked, as "feminine presenting" just because of the presence of boobs. Like we have any choice in the matter. Like having visible boobs just means you're asking to be misgendered.

[our-nonbinary-experience]

im agender and nb, people always assume that means im trans but it does not. im not trans, you can be nb without being trans, and i feel like more people need to know that

nb does not automatically equal transgender, they're not the same thing

Very true, just like not all trans people are nonbinary, not all nonbinary people are trans

[ashiffriend]

please stop calling me a woman, I'm a girl

not everyone fem is a woman y'all, the phrase "women and girls" is like that for a reason, boy and man do not mean the same thing and neither does woman and girl.

it just does not describe my gender and connection to femininity. femininity doesn't automatically equal womanhood, and to me at least, womanhood and girlhood can mean different things.

something something all trans people are in some fashion nonbinary usually, etc. (and I label myself as nonbinary also so like, come on now)

[lapsed-bookworm]

I left a nonbinary answer, but I didn't want to get into a lot of particulars (some were covered more in depth in the notes already). [I managed to figure out I was nonbinary before I realized that I was also intersex. Nonbinary does not automatically equal intersex, and intersex does not automatically equal nonbinary.] It did include some of an intersex answer as well:

It might be more of an influence from me being intersex, but I don't consider myself to have a sex-and-gender unit. Or - I don't use the sex binary to describe my gender, though I was assigned a sex at birth and couldn't escape early socialization that relied on tying 'female = girl-becomes-woman' and 'male = boy-becomes-man' together. The ability to update my 'gender' marker on official forms with either an M or an F doesn't actually relate to my gender, for example. Information that focuses on a very particular MTF or FTM trajectory doesn't account for my intersex experiences or experiences with genderfluidity.

Additionally, I've run into the following:

Supposedly, intersex people don't exist because sex is only male or female. (How do they define sex? I know it when I see it, more or less.)

Or, intersex people do exist, but it's only very specific ideas of people born with a penis and a vagina (with a slight possibility of completely functional reproductive systems that's maybe influenced by some sort of fictional porn).

Or, intersex people don't exist because they're shuffled into the category of cisgender people, especially noticeable in the past few years when it comes to bills and laws that carve out exemptions for intersex minors to access medical care that's denied to transgender minors. (These are mostly called trans bills without any mention of intersex advocacy.)

Or, intersex people do exist because they're naturally nonbinary. (Which may also overlap with conflating sex-and-gender terms when talking about animals and plants. Sometimes this gets into automatically sorting intersex folks in with nonbinary folks in a way that ignores the possibility of intersex men and intersex women existing.)

Or, historically intersex people didn't exist because that old myth or whatever it is actually belongs to transgender people. (Some people are open to a certain amount of vagueness or cross-application, but other people are fiercely protective of only-trans interpretations in a way that almost borders on presenting intersex people springing up out of nowhere in the past few decades.)

Or, intersex people do exist because they're diagnosed at birth. (This usually focuses on genital based ideas of intersex in a way that discounts the possibility of finding out that one's intersex 'later in life', but this also sometimes gets into whether someone can be assigned X at birth. Some places didn't allow that until recently, if at all, and the absolute conviction that all intersex people have been able to be assigned X at birth can come across like intersex people shouldn't have any stake in F or M markers on their paperwork.)

Or, intersex people don't exist because they're just cisgender people with certain medical conditions. (Sometimes this looks like non-intersex people gatekeeping who counts as intersex based on a list of medical diagnoses, so they can affect the perception of who supposedly counts as intersex contrary to what the intersex community has decided. Sometimes this looks like non-intersex people approaching an intersex person like a disabled person and wanting proof - name your specific diagnosis, give me an exact history of infant or childhood surgeries, what are your chromosomes, tell me if you use HRT or not.)

Or, intersex people do exist because they're hashtag transition goals. (I've seen people take up using bigenital instead, but I once ran into someone who had a very specific penis-and-vagina mental image that they want to describe as 'transitioning to intersex', possibly back during the discourse around what to call this instead.)

❗️❗️ This is asked entirely in good faith. This post is intended to open dialogue and help with solidarity and understanding. ❗️❗️

I would like to hear specifically from intersex people how the system of perisexism/interphobia uniquely targets and affects you. Things that you feel other demographics do not experience. Reblogs and replies are very encouraged! If you would prefer, you could dm or send an ask to be added anonymously by me.

This is in the spirit of wanting to understand. I am listening. I encourage all perisex people to not speak on this topic and let intersex people do the talking here. Reblog the post to spread it, but please say nothing.

Any and all people who are intersex are encouraged to participate. This is not agab-locked. No matter your official diagnosis status, or your specific variation, if you are intersex, this post is for you. Even if you have already posted on the transgender posts, you may still post here. Your thoughts and opinions are welcome here.

This is not bait to start a fight. I will block without hesitation anyone who is actively being a shithead on this post. I want to hear and uplift your voices by getting it directly from you.

Click this to access the trans fem and trans women version of this post.

Click this to access the trans masc and trans men version of this post.

Click this to access the nonbinary version of this post.

[yugsly]

Can you have gender envy if you are not trans but like gender envy of a different gender than yourself? Asking for a friend..

I am only one person, so I do not speak for every trans person, but this is my perspective: Gender is very complex and nuanced, but in the end, there are no rules. You can look however you want, while identifying however you want. Looking at someone of a different gender than your own and thinking, "I want to look like that" does not necessarily mean you are trans, but also might mean you are! Everyone's perception of their own gender is different and means different things to themselves. If this is something you're thinking about a lot, you might want to think about what your perception of your own gender means to you. But like I said, what is commonly seen as a certain "gender presentation" by the general public does not always equal your gender. You can be a cis man, have a beard or something, and feel great wearing makeup and long hair. Just because that doesn't "match" what society thinks is the gender presentation you SHOULD have, doesn't automatically makes you trans. That's up to you to decide how you want to label yourself- and that's the great thing- you don't even HAVE to give yourself any kind of label. You can just sort of vibe. Apologies if I worded any of that sloppily, but you probably know what I'm trying to get at! Figuring out gender stuff can take YEARS! And remember you don't have to "stay" one thing forever. I've gone through identifying many different genders in my life as I've grown older, and who knows, that may shift in the future. Right now, "nonbinary transmasc" fits me the best. I'm growing a mustache, and dress masc, but I still like to wear lipstick and mascara because that's how I choose to present myself! THERE ARE NO RULES! Just live and be your authentic self! Look how you desire to look! Identify as whatever you want! Just vibe!!!

[glisteninggreengardenias]

Ok, well I'm sorry to hear that you have a psychological struggle, but you can't be a woman just because you like clothes. That's not what being a woman is.

Mne should get to feel that way about clothes. They should get to like clothes. Being a GNC man who likes clothes and styles himself is good! It's better to defy social norms than go through hoops to fit in because it shows other men that they can do it to.

You can wear whichever clothes you want and I'll listen to you. What I'm saying is that a woman is an adult human female and that women are not only feminine and they should not be called nonbinary just because they don't conform to stereotypical expectations because that's not progressive, it's regressive and misogynistic.

I'm sorry that your mom told you that. I'm sorry that she was abusive and controlling and didn't let you have autonomy. I know what that's like too. I'm sorry about that.

You are nonbinary I think (or a trans woman) and I'll treat you like one, they/them or she/her pronouns and all. What I hate in this discussion is treating people like enbies just because they express a dislike for social norms and don't follow gender expectations. You're automatically assuming that woman means feminine and if you don't conform you're nonbinary, when in reality you can be a woman and not conform because woman does not equal gender roles, it equals biology. That's what I'm trying to say.

i really like the definition of “adult human female” because it says “thats all it is. its not femininity, makeup, submissiveness, softness, anything. all it is is biology. the rest is up to the individual”

[friendlyneighbourhoodpapergay]

hello, without saying bi ppl are attracted to parts and pan people are attracted to people regardless of gender (that feels so biphobic to me ngl) can you please explain the difference between bi and pan? if bi is 2+ doesn't that include all? (which is what pan people say they are attracted to)

I've yet to see a single distinction that doesn't make it seem like bi people are only interested in s*x and not the personality

Hey there! Thanks for asking, I'm happy to answer questions like this and it's important that people ask so that they can learn!

I'll point you in the direction of this post for a summary definition of the two: https://moist-astronaut.tumblr.com/post/178797634275/pansexual-and-bisexual-can-be-easily-confused-but

(@moist-astronaut for credit)

A more detailed explanation:

Bisexuality and Pansexuality are both inclusive of trans and nonbinary people. Generally speaking, "bisexual" is used to mean "attraction to more than one gender". This could be men and women (this is inclusive of trans and cis men and women) or it could be men, women and nonbinary people, it could mean women and fem-aligned NBs, or men and masc-aligned NBs, it could mean "anyone non-male" or "anyone non-female", it could mean all genders! There are a wide variety of ways to be bisexual.

Bisexuality is not transphobic, though exclusionists have tried to paint it as such in the past; some from the pansexual side who claimed bisexuality wasn't inclusive, some from the bi side who were transphobic and didn't want to admit that their sexuality is inclusive.

Bisexuality does not mean genitalia, only that for most bisexuals, gender (NOT SEX) is still a factor in their attraction- perhaps the attraction is there for all genders, but feels different when it is directed towards fem-aligned Vs masc-aligned Vs androgynous people.

Pansexuality generally means "attraction regardless of gender", as you said. I am pansexual, gender is not a factor in my attraction level to someone. My attraction does not feel any different depending on the gender of the person it is directed towards. Pan automatically means "all genders", whether male, female, NB, genderfluid, or anything outside of the Western binary system of "man" and "woman". Bi people can still be equally attracted to all genders, the attraction may just work a little differently for them.

Pansexuality is not transphobic, though exclusionists have tried to paint it as such in the past; some from the bisexual side who claimed that pansexuals were "otherizing" trans people by saying pan meant "cis and trans people" and some from the pansexual side who were transphobic and didn't want to admit that trans men are men and trans women are women.

There is some overlap between the two communities- think of it like a Venn Diagram! But the distinction is still important to many, myself and my mspec friends included.

Over time, the two communities have moved past our differences. Some people remain ignorant (keep an eye out for "Battleaxe Bi"-this term means a bisexual who is panphobic, and for people who claim that bisexuals are only interested in genitalia, which is biphobic), but overall the communities are supportive of each other, as we should be!! And it's worth noting that "bi-pan discourse" doesn't really exist outside of Tumblr, and certainly not outside of the internet.

IN THIS HOUSE WE LOVE AND SUPPORT BI-PAN SOLIDARITY!!

[miraculouslumination]

"Nonbinary and trans basically used to mean the same thing and nonbinary used to automatically be part of the trans community but then suddenly people said it wasn't what happened with that ://"

Well you see we all basically, eventually realized that

No

Nonbinary does not automatically equal being trans! Why?

Because cis people can be nonbinary! And still be cis! All at the same time!

Like this is literally just. So shallow and also such an easy question to answer if you know where to look. Nonbinary is more than a gender, in more ways than one.

Nonbinary is more than a gender in the sense of it being one, singular gender. Nonbinary is also more than a gender in that it can also be a lifestyle, a political statement, presentation, and more. Which means that, yes! Cis people can be nonbinary AND still be cis!

It isn't "MOGAI nonsense", it's people learning and changing things as time goes on, as well as making them more inclusive of all the different lived experiences there are. It's not some secret evil MOGAI scheme. There is nothing nefarious behind it. Stop trying to twist it to make it so!

[margridarnauds]

So, I’m trying to articulate my thoughts on Valhalla and gender, which is sparked by the fact that, while Lagertha is prominently mentioned as the mother of the Ragnarssons (and you can find her axe), we never hear so much as a word about Aslaug/Thora, who is pretty much the real protagonist of Ragnar’s saga. 

On one hand: Lagertha is pretty much at a high of popularity right now, courtesy of Vikings (derogatory). On the other hand: Aslaug is in Vikings (derogatory) too. We see her AS THE MOTHER of most of Ragnar’s sons. There’s no reason for her NOT to be recognizable enough to be included. (Lagertha’s inclusion is also problematic - Instead of being able to divorce Ragnar and have her own life, they went the cheap route by having her being shot by a Finnish arrow.) But, at the end of the day.....it feels like, while Valhalla DOES include a diverse range of women (including our protagonist), ultimately there is....some sort of hierarchy involved, where women who fight, or at least wield weapons are automatically seen as better? 

Of our two longterm romantic interests, neither one wears a dress, both of them in traditionally masculine clothing, likewise for Ciara in WOTD. With Randvi, we’re first really invited to pity her/consider her as a really viable romantic option when we hear that she COULD have been a Jomsviking....had she not been married off to Sigurd. We see her taking down bandits, drinking ale, and we’re supposed to think, at that point, that she’s a worthy love interest. 

There’s this rather confusing line from the artbook, which says: 

“As a strategist, Randvi does not dress in a warrior’s outfit, but neither does she wear the typical women’s clothing of her time.” 

Which...seems to imply that being a strategist (a role that primarily involves her being behind a table), is automatically at odds with wearing a dress. Even if 9th century Scandinavian clothing was restrictive (it isn’t - We’re well, well before the days of tightlacing here, and women had to be able to go about their daily chores, and even IN the days of tightlacing as the peak of fashion, plenty of women didn’t, or went about their daily chores), she’s not doing anything that involves intense manual labor. Putting her in pants is simply a way of saying “Look! Look at Randvi! Look at how independent she is!” which....actually doesn’t work, when almost EVERY OTHER major female NPC is ALSO in pants. Including Valka who, as a völva, ergo a non-combatant role that mostly involves eating shrooms in her huts, has no practical need for pants, even if, once again, the clothing was impractical. If I didn’t know What A 9th Century Norsewoman Should Look Like, I would just assume that this was something that all noblewomen did. 

It’s very rare to see women actively weaving, as I’ve discussed before, with Eivor only weaving as one of the disguises that she can take to blend in. As a shieldmaiden who’s up and about constantly, I honestly wouldn’t expect Eivor to devote that much time to weaving, but it is a little jarring when the women who are constantly at the settlement don’t so much as mention it, since this was a great opportunity for women to get together, share gossip, tell tales, talk shit about the men, etc. in their own spaces. And there was a bit of an anxiety around it, because, while this was a necessary function for the creation of clothing (which, in the game, seems to just materialize in chests over the game world), it also was tightly associated with magic and sorcery. (Hence why there was a stigma against men practicing magic....unless you’re Odin, in which case Loki will talk shit about you but is anyone else? No. Because you’re Odin.) I want to emphasize that my issue here isn’t “STAY IN THE KITCHEN AND BE A PROPER WOMAN, EIVOR”, it’s more....erasing what the vast majority of women in the Viking Age DID. 

The closest we get to more traditional, more conventional women would be in the form of the religious women, but, from the Anchoress to the one murderous nun in the mysteries event to Frideswid in the Lunden Arc to Acha in the Lincolnscire arc, they tend to be portrayed as either zealous and evil or confused and easily manipulated, which ignores the reality for many medieval women, which is that, for many women who didn’t want marriage for one reason or another (whether it was that they were facing the possibility of a forced marriage, or they had no dowry, or they were lesbians, or they were ace, or they were any combination of those things), it was their one chance at a life of their own. I’m not saying that it was IDEAL, or that the medieval church was ideal, but it did give them options (that, incidentally, in the pre-Christian times....you didn’t have. Which is why I don’t attach any real sense of horror to Christianity coming to Ireland, at LEAST from the standpoint of women’s rights. There are other aspects to that, but we’re here, in 9th century England, so I won’t go into it.) No, it has to come from some moral defect, otherwise, they would be independent, like Eivor, like Randvi, like Petra, like Eadwyn, like Valdis, or even like Fulke, who is a religious figure referenced, extensively, as mad and heretical, but who makes a large impact on the plot and at least earns some level of respect, as opposed to the others who make relatively brief appearances.

Now, when discussing women warriors, there tends to be some moral value attached to it: “Women warriors DIDN’T EXIST, and if you argue that they DID, you just want women to be men, ignoring that non-femme women might find comfort in the knowledge that they aren’t alone”, often with a sense of moral guilt-tripping over “Erasing women’s suffering” (which also falls into the trap of assuming that being a woman = suffering, or that that’s the defining experience of being a woman) VS “Women warriors EXISTED and they were #NotLikeOtherGirls and that’s ALL we’re going to talk about as far as women at the time, as well as ignoring any potential evidence for trans or otherwise nonbinary identities”. Both options have the potential to erase or diminish what either option can mean to people. I hate both options equally, and I find that the way they’re brought in is incredibly manipulative. I’m not interested in saying that putting an axe in a woman’s hand = setting back feminism for twenty years. I’m not interested in saying that having essentially no more conventional women in the main cast = feminism. Both are bad, but what I’m concerned about is the lack of nuance in Valhalla and how it seems to assume that there’s ONLY ONE WAY to have power. (I’d hoped that Lady Eadwyn would be cool, and she is....even though we only see her in armor, she’s kind of what I would expect from a medieval woman, in the sense that her husband was Ealdorman and now she’s following in his footsteps, defending her rights as his widow, but then we replace her with a dude.)

As someone whose relationship to gender is Weird, I actually really, really enjoy playing a female character who has the kind of independence that Eivor has - I enjoy getting to jump around, killing things in a gloriously rendered historical environment. I enjoy that, with the exception of Dag, no one really questions it (though I would have been down for a more in-depth examination of gender in the Viking Age). I enjoy that Eivor is compassionate, clever, and aggressive, and that she’s able to have romances with both sexes. I’m not trying to nuke her via historical accuracy here (especially since the historical reality of shieldmaidens is SUCH a hot topic, I feel like wading into either end of the historical accuracy pool is a recipe for disaster) because I actually really, really like her as a character. There are relatively few times where I really, really identify with and love a main female video game character, especially since, so often, even into the present, when things are supposed to be better, I can still TELL that they were made by and for straight men, and this is one. What I AM saying is that I hate that it comes at the expense of basically every woman who ISN’T a warrior or otherwise “independent” by the game’s standards. You do have merchant women, the tattoo artist in camp, Valka, as mentioned before, but it all goes back to that point - We never really see a prominent woman running the household, managing the money, giving orders, which was an immensely important, powerful job, and as a result, it always feels kind of halfway done, that we’re over-representing one relationship to gender at the expense of another. 

[nopeferatu]

I am the anon that asked you about seme England and top America. I agree you how the some ukus fans when there make the case why England should on top can also be homophobic and transphobic. But a lot feel also feel having super submissive England is also bad. Due to the fact it reinforces gender roles. I like England as a a power bottom due to the fact it matches his personify. Also America is super romantic and sexual buy wtf. I feel like out all allies we see America is a Virgin before he started dating England.

Yeah I mean like I had said before, I can understand where a lot of that pushback comes from against femmes and bottoms (bottom oppression lol) because people wanna steer clear of stereotypes that gay ppl face IRL and don't wanna fall into heteronormative ideas of what gay relationships look like, but like. The 180° transition that england stans of a certain demographic make is to say "I'm gonna eradicate every single ounce of femininity from him because feminine = woman = bad" and I don't fuck with that. I'm not a trans man myself but I'm a nonbinary person who identifies mostly with male femininity and male icons of the late 60's through the 90's who broke gender stereotypes by wearing makeup and wearing loud, garish outfits and being glamourous in a way that men in the public eye had never been before and so again like, I really don't fuck with fandom's absurd impulse to hyper masculinize male characters with established feminine traits because "feminine man is a bad stereotype".

Also I just want to clarify, femme guy does not equal automatic bottom; the reason I'm conflating the two here is to explain that I don't usually consume ukus fan content because a lot of the ukus content that I've come across is created by people who fall into that category of making england really hyper masc because "he was a powerful pirate empire so he cant be soft and feminine". I consume a lot of usuk content because like. Usuk content creators don't have that weird hang up? Like dont get me wrong theres usuk content I avoid like the plague because I dont like hyper masculine daddy dom America, either. I don't like hyper masc men, period, but its much easier for me to find portrayals of ame and eng that I love in usuk works than it is in ukus works. Like I said before tho, I like imagining ukus scenarios because I'm able to characterize them the way that I want in my mind's eye.

Also yeah I can see that thing about Ame being a virgin until he and England got together! I have a lot of different headcanons and thafs one of them, but in canonverse I tend to most often buy into the headcanon that France was the first person he ever slept with back when he was asking him for help during the revolutionary war. It was kinda like...a private way for him to get back at England, in a sense

[faemytho]

If you're not too busy, I need some LGBTQ+ related advice. I was talking to someone earlier today, and I mentioned the topic of transgender people. I gave an example of "just because someone has the chest and (other parts) of a female doesn't automatically make them a woman", but they said it didn't make sense. They're older than me, so they know what a transvestite is, and they told me their work involves understanding brain development, but they only think of this as an opinion, (1/2)

(2/2)not an identity. I don't want to accuse them of being a t**f, but I don't know how to prove my point without simply calling it intuition. As someone who was a she/her but isn't anymore, do you know how to/if you can help me/anyone else that can have this problem? 

-

(here’s a good post that debunks the ‘gender is in the brain’ myth)

Note that I am not a professional, nor do I claim to speak for all trans people, but I am a trans person and I have a lot of experience with other trans people (I think I can count on one hand the amount of cisgender friends I have). So here’s my essay. Clowning in the notes will get you blocked on sight.

Also I’m not typically an advice blog but sure, I can answer this. Your friend actually is spouting t**f rhetoric, but that doesn’t necessarily make them a t**f. They probably genuinely do not understand the difference between sex and gender. So let me tell you, there’s a huge difference.

Gender as it pertains to our biological sex is a social construct. In other words, “sex=gender” is an incorrect formula. It’s not true.

As far as gender identity is concerned, it’s important to stress the fact that feeling an inherent sense of ‘this is incorrect’ when a trans person’s gender is associated with their birth sex.... is not an opinion. It’s not a choice a trans person just decides to make, nor is it a choice they even can make.

Thinking from this standpoint through a logical lens, if trans people could choose their genders, they likely would not exist as “trans people” if they could just choose to be cisgender. So why do so many trans people exist if it’s all just “a choice”? Do they choose to be part of an oppressed group that has no set in stone protections (in America) so they can make themselves targets of discrimination so they can wallow in self-pity about how they’ve reached rock bottom because of how discriminated against they’ve been? Why would they do that, that’s stupid. That is what makes no sense to me. It’s illogical, so why would people choose to do it?

Because it’s not a choice. Sex and gender identity are not the same; they are far from it. It has been proven before and it can be proven again.You can’t chose your sex, and you can’t choose your gender identity either.

A personal experience of mine, I used to know a trans person who encountered a xenogender label they absolutely adored. It catered directly to their special interest, they said it was a fantastic label with a beautiful flag and a beautiful definition... but it wasn’t their gender. They wanted so badly to identify as this gender but they couldn’t, because it just didn’t match their gender identity. “It’s not me, no matter how badly I want it to be.” It would be just as bad as forcing themself (a trans person) to identify as the same gender as their assigned sex at birth. It wasn’t them.

And that was that. I’ve actually encountered several labels like that myself; where I just loved them to death but I couldn’t identify as them because they weren’t me. Because it would feel wrong if I just decided, “you know what? Fuck it! I’ll use this label!” It would feel just as bad as being forced to be a gender I am not.

Would I benefit from identifying as a man? The answer is yes, I would! We live in a patriarchal society, I would reap a ton of benefits by identifying as and presenting as a man. But I don’t, because the idea of being male is inherently incorrect to me. I can’t choose it, even if I wanted to.

I love the female label. I love feminine things. I love them a lot, but I don’t love them when they’re used to refer to me. I can’t force myself to be female, nor would I want to, because it’s not what fits; it’s incorrect. It’s incongruent with me.

Here’s a roughly paraphrased transcription from one of my textbooks:

Biological sexes are the genitals and sex characteristics one is born with (when those sex characteristics may not fully match up as entirely of the male sex or entirely of the female sex, that person is considered intersex). Gender identity is defined as one's innate, inner sense of being male, female, something other, or something in-between. Gender expression is how one chooses to present themselves to themselves or others, which includes their appearance, dress, mannerisms, and speech patterns. Gender expression and gender identity do not have to match.

Here’s something you can choose: Gender expression. Dressing in drag, for example! Let’s break this down.

Transvestism is the practice of dressing in a manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex. (Why do we associate clothes with specific sexes? Why have we given specific clothes a sex assignment? Clothes are clothes; they can be worn by anyone regardless of sex and it’s not going to change someone’s sex. If women can wear pants and suits, why can’t men wear skirts? It’s actually the misogyny and toxic masculinity, but that’s a whole other rabbit hole).

Your appearance, your clothes, your personality, and even the way you talk, those are all things you can consciously influence and change. Expression is something you can change, but gender identity is not. An identified woman in a suit is still a woman. An identified man in a dress is still a man.

Food for thought. An intersex person exists, and stands before you. How do you answer the question, “What’s their gender?”. It cannot be answered by applying the “sex=gender” formula. Their sex is intersex; they are not completely, entirely, or just male or female. If one is supposed to go off of biological sex, how then do you determine their gender?

Logically? The “sex=gender” formula holds no weight. It just simply isn’t true. Another example. We insist on giving non-human characters genders, even when there is no biological component to go off of.

Wall-E and Eve, for example. They may be male and female coded respectively, but they don’t have any biological sex; they’re robots! How then does the “sex=gender” formula hold up? There’s no “sex” variable to equal the “gender” variable. So then it stands to reason by this formula that as robots, they have no gender, yet we insist on calling Wall-E a boy, and Eve a girl. Why would we do that if we, hypothetically, intend to uphold the “sex=gender” formula? They have no sex, so why would we call them male or female?

Because “sex=gender” is not true. What parts you were born with do not define whatever gender you may end up being.

There is a desperate need to differentiate between the female-sex, the female-gender, the male-sex, and the male-gender. They are not co-dependent; and they can exist without “matching up”. They don’t even have to exist in a person at all; take me, I’m trans-nonbinary person and I use a ton of xenogenders, but male and female? Those aren’t me. Would identifying as one of those make my life easier? Sure would! But I refuse to live as someone I’m not; I can’t live as someone I’m not.

Your friend should also probably come to terms with the fact that there are 7 billion people on this planet. The odds of all 7 billion+ of us fitting into one of two categories? Statistically, very unrealistic. We are unique individual people, with our own experiences and our own thoughts and beliefs. Why wouldn’t our genders adhere to our individuality? Even our biological sexes don’t adhere to a binary; they live on a spectrum, and anything within that spectrum isn’t entirely male or entirely female! Our sexes are as individual as each of us.

My experiences with my body, and my gender, are going to be different than anyone else who may even use the same label as I do! That’s just how it is. Our sex does not define our gender. Our gender identities cannot be chosen. We are who we are, and that in itself is pretty unique.

[nerdygaymormon]

what do you think about the new handbook?

In January 2016 I received a calling that gave me access to the Church’s Handbooks and I was surprised at the amount of specific things in there on which I had never considered the Church having an official position. I imagine a lot of people are having that experience this week.

I’m glad the Church made the Handbook available to everyone, it’s a move towards transparency. Before this, people were being held to standards or facing processes that only their leaders could access.

I appreciate that in some areas there’s better framework and clarity, but am sad that it often came in the form of being more restrictive or not in line with modern science.

I’m going to outline the changes and add a few comments. ’ll put my opinion about all of this at the end, so if that’s what you want to see, scroll to the bottom.

————————————————————— 

Miscellaneous

The Handbook covers a lot of information, so I’m certain in the days and weeks ahead more new things will be discovered. But for now, here’s some assorted policies.

Sacrament

We’re supposed to take the Sacrament with our right hands

The wording that young men are encouraged, but not required, to wear a white shirt and tie is gone. All males who pass the Sacrament are asked to be clean and well groomed.

For a long time, which hand to use has been considered a personal choice, and some associated special meaning by using their right hand.

In February 2019, Elder Oaks saw some youth take the Sacrament with the left hand and he gave a short lecture that went viral telling these kids they were wrong, and now it’s official policy in the Handbook.

Dress Standards

The Relief Society Presidency is to teach dress standards to the sisters so their appearance and clothing show reverence and respect at Church and at the temple.

These are adult women!!! They can’t figure this out for themselves? It mentions ostentatious jewelry and casual clothes without any examples of what this means. I’m afraid some leaders will enforce their personal opinions, such as pants are verboten.

Also this section included a comment about ostentatious jewelry. What is that? Having 2 earrings in 1 ear?

—————————————————————

Discipline

Disciplinary councils have been renamed “Membership Councils”

People no longer are disfellowshipped or excommunicated. They have “formal membership restrictions” or “withdrawal of membership”

Does away with the unequal disciplinary structure for adult men vs adult women.

Before, men who were endowed had a disciplinary council at the stake level. Everyone else had a disciplinary council held by their bishopric.

Now anyone who is endowed and likely to have their Church membership withdrawn will have a stake membership council. Everyone else has a ward membership council for serious sins & actions

At the ward level, membership councils still function the same (the bishopric holds a council with the person whose membership is at risk).

At the stake level, the council now is similar to the way it works at the ward level (the stake presidency meets, without the high council also being involved).

The individual’s bishops can sit in on the council. The individual can also choose for the Elders Quorum or Relief Society President to sit in on the council.

Same-sex marriage is no longer apostasy

Apostasy has been removed from a list of reasons to hold a membership council. Instead it is on a case-by-case basis.

The stake president can place informal membership restrictions on the person and the stake president counsels with the Area Presidency (which are Seventy) about anything more than that, such as a membership council

The language is softer but the results are the same.

I like that men & women are treated equally in this new system. It always struck me wrong that most men in the church automatically had a council of 15 men and women had 3 men.

The reversal of the 2015 Policy of Exclusion finally made it to the Handbook. 

————————————————————— 

Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Same-Sex Attracted

Families & members should be sensitive, love and respectful of people who are gay, lesbian & bi

Sexual activity with someone of the same gender is on the same level as an unmarried sex.

Membership councils are optional in these cases, based on the leader’s discretion.

As long as an LGBTQ member is “striving” to live the law of chastity, they’re allowed to hold a calling and temple recommend

“Sexual cohabitation” used to be forbidden, now it’s “cohabitation”. So I guess gay people living together is a problem regardless of whether they have sex. I do know of a few couples who live together, but have given up sex in order to be temple worthy. I guess that’s no longer an option.

The mormonandgay website was done away with and some of the items moved to a new page titled “Same-Sex Attraction.”

Most of the links on this new page don’t work. I’m sure this will get fixed

Most of the “resources” from the old page aren’t on the new page.

The last 4 video stories of members from the former site are on the new site.

Credit for finally making this page available in languages other than English.

I wonder if it will still say it’s okay to identify using the terms gay, bi or lesbian.I know President Oaks prefers the phrase “same-sex attraction” and a lot of his influence is seen in the new Handbook changes. 

The best section of the previous site was a collection of 17 members who are gay, bi and lesbian (well, 2 of them are parents of gay kids). Hearing them tell their story in their own words was powerful. Most of them have asked for their video to be removed.

The only stories remaining are 2 people in a mixed-orientation marriage and 2 parents who have a gay son. Each of those 4 members now has multiple videos (Laurie, Laurie’s husband, Laurie’s bishop, Laurie’s friend). 

The experience of most LGB people in the Church is now absent from this page, which again confirms for me that this has been a site for leaders & family, not actual members who are bisexual, lesbian or gay.

—————————————————————

Transgender

Preferred names can be noted in your membership record and Church leaders are encouraged to use them.

People can also to ask others to use their chosen pronouns

Elective surgical or medical intervention (which I believe means hormone treatment) for the purpose of transitioning, and social transitioning will result in membership restrictions.

These restrictions include not getting to exercise the priesthood, receiving or using a temple recommend, and receiving some Church callings

Even if the hormone therapy is prescribed by a medical professional to ease gender dysphoria or reduce suicidal thoughts, membership restrictions will result

Transgender people who don’t transition can have Church callings & temple recommends

Gender is defined as “biological sex at birth.”

This is recorded on Church records and determines whether someone can receive the priesthood and how they experience the temple ordinances

Transgender people & their family are welcome to attend Sunday church meetings and social events

There is now a page for transgender people, just as there has been for LGB people

This whole section of the Handbook makes me sad because it reduces these members to being a mistake and they need to choose a side. Nevermind they were born this way and have complex lives, they need to look and act like a cishet member.

I’d love if the church leaders could show scriptural backing & the words of the Savior to justify their views on trans folks other than the Family Proclamation.

Credit to the Church for switching from “transsexual” to “transgender

While trans people are welcome to attend the 2nd hour of church, no guidance was given about if they can choose either Relief Society or Elders Quorum

It’s problematic to define gender being as your biological sex at birth. If gender is eternal, why is “at birth” needed? A doctor or nurse assigns a biological sex at birth by taking a look at the newborn’s external genitals. This is only 1 of 5 markers of gender. A doctor or a nurse is not God.

5 components of biological sex

external genitalia

inner reproductive anatomy

sex hormones

chromosomes

gonad differentiation (gonad secretions cause sex-specific patterns in many other tissues & the brain)

This section of the Handbook still speaks of gender as binary–you’re either male or female and trans. Genderfluid, nonbinary, or any acknowledgement of a spectrum doesn’t exist.

To say a trans person will face consequences for social transitioning is really troubling. What does “social transitioning” mean? Do pronouns count as “social transitioning?” Long or short hair? If people must dress according to gender stereotypes, then it seems like leadership is more concerned about the feelings of the 99 and not the health & well being of the 1.

Why is it only transgender members who have a ban on these surgeries? Lots of breast enhancements, reductions and mastectomies take place every month with not a whiff of interest by church leaders, but if it’s done to affirm one’s gender identity, then it’s forbidden, even if it’s life saving.

It did make me feel queasy to read that even if medical or surgical intervention is prescribed by medical professionals to deal with gender dysphoria or suicidal thoughts, too bad, we’re still going to punish you. What kind of monsters came up with this?

————————————————————— 

Intersex, aka People Whose Sex isn’t Clear at Birth

The Handbook says the incident rate of intersex is extremely rare

Questions about membership records, priesthood ordination and temple ordinances for youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity should be directed to the Office of the First Presidency.

This is the first I’ve seen Intersex given their own section in the Handbook.

While policies about LGBT people are listed as “moral issues”, the section on intersex people is under “medical and health policies.” That’s a good sign, it means that the medical profession determines what is best, not a church leader.

I appreciate that church takes this out of the hands of local leadership. It’s a complex issue that untrained people shouldn’t get to have say over.

The Church assumes that surgical & medical intervention is needed for this group of people. Unfortunately it implies the default is to do so in infancy or early childhood when current best practices would be delaying, if possible, until the individual can weigh in on their body & identity. 

The idea that intersex is rare, well that depends on what they consider rare.

The rate could be as high as 2% of the population or as low as 1 in 2000.

If we think of that in terms of Church congregations, it suddenly seems not so rare.

In North America, a ward must have 300 members. If 1%-2% are intersex, that’s a couple people in each congregation.

If we go with the lowest rate of 1 in 2000, consider that in the US & Canada a stake requires a minimum of 3000 members. So 1 or 2 members per stake would be intersex.

—————————————————————

I think these changes show that the Church is willing to include queer people up to a point. We can feel & be the person we believe ourselves to be as long as we don’t actually act in a way that affirms who we are.

We are to be loved, respected and welcomed, however these homophobic and transphobic policies remain in place. Love & respect is more than smiling & being nice to someone.

The policies of the Church regarding queer people is out of line with science. As science continues to advance and confirm that gender identities and sexual orientations are real and biological and not changeable by will, the tension for the Church on these topics will continue to grow.

“The only clear line I draw these days is this: when my religion tries to come between me and my neighbor, I will choose my neighbor. Jesus never commanded me to love my religion.” -Rev. Barbara Brown Taylor

Considering Jesus admonishes us again and again to love each other and that we are all alike to God, I can only guess that Jesus wept. Again.

[rittz]

thoughts about being trans, idk where else to put them so here u go

it’s not like i don’t have trans guy friends to talk to about this, it’s just usually in the form of jokes or passing comments rather than an actually serious conversation. also, the transmasc people that i’m closest to identify more with the label “nonbinary” than i do-- it’s not like they couldn’t understand or relate to things i’m saying, but i’m just assuming that they probably don’t feel the exact same way i do

anyway, as a trans person we get often asked “so why do you feel like a [gender]?”, and the answer is usually some variation of “i just feel like it”. this is the most accurate but also vaguest possible answer, so i kinda wanted to break down my personal answer to that question?

basically, i identify as a man because i identify with men. in a general and also personal sense. gender stereotypes are something that trans people by necessity both embrace and reject. i relate to gender stereotypes about men more than those of women-- i’m less outwardly emotional, i like being handy, i don’t like kids, i have questionable personal hygiene, etc-- but obviously these things alone don’t make someone a man. however... you can’t deny that there is some general truth about behavioral differences between men and women (bc of society, not biology). men and women both experience different problems in the world, and each have trouble understanding the experiences and problems of the other. generally, i can relate to the experiences and problems of men more than those of women, even if it seems like i shouldn’t (for example, i am not afraid of walking alone at night, even though i am very tiny).

i, from a young age, have had a constant yearning for more male friends. i would occasionally choose to play video games as a male character. i was upset that i couldn’t be in boy scouts. i have been jealous of my younger brothers being treated by my parents the ways i wished i was treated. when i imagined myself older, i pictured myself less like my mom and more like my dad. when i’m around men, i want them to treat me like one of them. i want to be seen as a man.

and i think that’s what being trans really boils down to. wanting to be seen as someone other than how everyone sees you. wanting what you see on the outside to match how you feel on the inside. this obviously extends to nonbinary individuals, who face their own struggle when it comes to presentation. but at the end of the day, i think that presentation is equally important to gender identity as internal feelings. i mean, i think we’re all familiar with the research proving that transitioning makes trans people happier. surgery is an invasive, expensive, painful process that i DON’T think is necessary for every trans person, and HRT isn’t always easy to get. but changing a name, getting a new haircut, dressing differently, binding, etc. counts as transitioning. you don’t have to hate your body to be trans, but wanting to alter it in order to better connect your internal identity with your presentation, i think is necessary in order to consider yourself to be trans. 

i will admit i am confused by “GNC trans men” i see on tumblr and insta, who use he/him pronouns but exclusively present femininely. i’m not talking about trans guys who don’t yet pass, i mean trans guys who don’t want to. i don’t harbor any ill will, i’m just confused. if i understand being trans to mean “wanting what you see on the outside to match how you feel on the inside”, you can see how. doesn’t that make you feel dysphoric? don’t you want people who see you to read you as male? how is your life different from when you didn’t identify as male but presented the same way? this isn’t me trying to gatekeep on who’s “trans enough”, and especially when it comes to nonbinary identities it’s arbitrary to harp on presentation like this. but like, what’s going on here?

taking a turn here that will come back around, an extremely key component to why i identify as and with men is my sexuality. i have always idolized, envied, and evoked various queer icons from media and real life. the hunky, grunting, macho, hetero version of “man” never appealed to me the way that the fashionable, artsy, flirty, homo version of “man” did. drag queens, my mom’s hairdresser, glam rock stars, i could go on. associating my more feminine qualities with GAY stereotypes instead of FEMALE stereotypes suddenly made more sense, and made me feel less dysphoric. it’s also something that took me a long time to realize, because i had surrounded myself with queers who were mostly attracted to women. transmascs and butch lesbians historically have a lot in common, but personally, i didn’t relate as much to lesbians as i did to drag queens. in dating and loving men, i developed my understanding of them. but my attraction to men was why it had taken me so long to realize i felt more like a man-- i thought i was just some weird straight girl.

now, am i calling these “GNC gay trans men” with long pink hair and poofy skirts and conventionally attractive bisexual boyfriends “weird straight girls”? ...well, not to their faces. but i have to admit that i’m thinking it. these people would never go to a predominantly-male gay bar, these people would never be harassed on the street. i’m not saying i know someone’s identity better than they do, but i don’t agree with the liberal utopian ideal of “let everyone do whatever they want as long as they aren’t hurting anyone” when taken to mean that we can’t question other people’s choices. “why do you feel like a man?” is a question that, coming from another trans person, isn’t inherently transphobic. it’s not “forcing” someone to “prove” their “transness”, no one “owes” me an explanation of their identity. i’m just confused. i don’t disapprove of the way these people live their lives, i just want to know why.

a straight girl being feminine is different from a gay man being feminine, because it has less to do with personality and more to do with society’s historic view of gay men as closer to female than male because of the loving and fucking men aspect. an AMAB gay man wearing makeup and a crop top probably just wants to look good, but he is also signaling to other men that he’s gay via gender non-conformance. by being AFAB and female-passing, wearing makeup and a crop top is not GNC. in fact it’s pretty GC, and gay men will not recognize you as a gay man.

it’s easy to say “gender is fake so do whatever you want”, but like, we have to acknowledge reality. time is a social construct too, but we still use days of the week when talking to each other. strangers will treat you differently depending on what gender they interpret you as. different people will be willing to date you or not. you have to choose which public bathroom to go in. if being misgendered doesn’t bother these people, then who cares? but if it DOES, which it usually does, wouldn’t you want to take steps to prevent being misgendered in the future? if your desire to present femininely is stronger then your desire to be seen as male, then like... why call yourself a male at all? ultimately nothing these people do will really affect me in any way. it just makes me wonder if these people will eventually go on to present as male, or if they will later ID as nonbinary or even cis. i encourage people trying out different labels and exploring their identity, so it’s not like i think these people SHOULDN’T identify as trans guys. it’s more like, i wish they were able to articulate WHY they identify as trans more than “because i said so”. not wanting to be a woman doesn’t automatically make you a man, it just makes you not a woman.

maybe i’m particularly cynical because of the MULTIPLE times that people with larger online followings who identify and present this way have later turned out to be lying, manipulative people. hopefully it goes without saying that i do NOT think that everyone who identifies and presents this way is a toxic liar. the reason i bring it up is because some people genuinely can’t understand the possibility or purpose of misleadingly claiming a marginalized identity, but it can and does happen. an analogy could be made here about white people claiming indigenous heritage. we all WANT to believe what people say about themselves, and asking for “proof” is a social no-no. but we shouldn’t just... automatically trust everything someone says about themselves, right? and as bad as i WANT to live in a world where gender doesn’t matter and everyone default uses neutral pronouns and there are no divisions in clothing stores and bathrooms, we don’t live in that world (yet). when you are AFAB, /extremely/ femininely presenting, and have little to no plans of transitioning, saying “i am a man” will not make other people see you as one. and if you don’t want to be seen as a man, then maybe you aren’t one.

[boxedforyourdemise]

let's try this again

I usually stay out of the shit storm but... I'm really pumped for this game. And I hate to see people trash it for nothing.

The backlash against Cyberpunk 2077 as being transphobic or fetishistic is honestly laughable.

Take, for instance, the poster with the ambiguous sex character. The one with a "female" body and "male" genitalia.

The character has a female body with a penis. That's it. Could be nonbinary/genderqueer, could be a guy. Could be a girl. To see it as "fetishism of trans women" is to a) imply that only trans women can have a female body with a penis and b) to ignore the contexts of the Cyberpunk 2077 universe, especially with its relationship with gender and sex.

Cyberpunk 2077 is set in a universe in which all are equal because nobody matters. It's run by capitalism.

Trans and GNC people are a regular thing.

Nobody cares if you have tits and a dick and nobody cares if you get rid of your tits or dick or if you have any combination of the two. It's a society with undoubtedly and indisputable free expression.

And about the advertisement.

As already stated, the universe and society are different from our own in that they are actively and openly controlled by capitalism. They are all manipulated and used.

When all are equal under capitalism, all get used. That poster is not fetishistic. It's just using a group of people to sell a product.

It's sexualization and nothing more.

You know, like how people use a sexy man or woman for their advertisements? It's like that but in a society where sex doesn't matter. It's not necessarily good but it is a direct result of capitalism. That is what this poster is saying to our world. "We're all tools, nobody is better or held higher than the other"

This is the context you are taking out of the content when you call that poster fetishistic or sexist.

There is no sexism in Cyberpunk 2077 because sex does not matter in a society where people are simply tools for the money and power machine.

(and, by the way... seeing a person with a "female" body and "male" genitalia and automatically thinking "trans woman" is honestly kind of reflective of how you yourself view trans women)

[nommy-thoughts]

Hi, OwO from earlier. I meant, like, in the top part of your blog, 'Feel free to ask questions about any and all of my characters!' And I wanted to hear about any of them.

Okay! In that case, I will take this as an opportunity to ramble about literally all of them. Jason and Dan, Tom and Reggie, Aji and Mitz, Candy, and Mike and his friends.

Jason and Dan

Jason looks human, but he very much is not. He’s some sort of… I don’t know, a criptid of my own invention, I guess. Kinda like a vampire? He can’t eat normal food, only feed off of people’s energy. It doesn’t hurt the person he’s feeding off of in any way, but it is definitely a weird experience, because the only way Jason can absorb said energy is by shrinking people and swallowing them whole.

(technically, it doesn’t have to be human energy. But that’s what works best.)

It only takes a touch for him to shrink someone, and he instinctively knows how to do it. It doesn’t automatically happen when he touches someone, but if he’s hungry and gets startled, it can happen by accident. And once he’s done it, the person becomes only 1/24th of their original height. (For example, someone who’s 5 feet tall normally would become 2.5 inches tall, and someone who’s 6 feet tall normally would become 3 inches tall.)

And of course he can restore people to their normal height again. It takes rather more energy to make someone bigger than to shrink them, though, and he has to have a person in his stomach for at least a while to not have a net loss of energy. 

Now, Jason was abandoned in the forest as a baby, and got by entirely on woodland creatures. Dan happened to wander into Jason’s territory one day, and didn’t have much time to be confused about this grubby naked child before Jason ate him.

Which was terrifying.

But Jason’s stomach is nothing like a regular stomach. The only opening is on the top, for one thing. And it’s covered with soft hairlike things, much like the villi in your intestines, which glow a greenish blue as they siphon energy, so after a few minutes, Dan was able to see his surroundings. And it wasn’t slimy or wet. He eventually fell asleep.

After Jason released Dan, he left, but he kept coming back, and even though Jason kept eating him, he stopped being frightened by the experience.

And then he kinda adopted Jason! So now Jason lives with him, and Dan lets him eat him basically every day. There’s also at least one other person who knows about what Jason is, a coworker of Dan’s who’s about halfway between them in age. He doesn’t mind getting eaten either

—

Tom and Reggie

These two live in a mixed-height society, where humans and minis have equal rights, and while sizeism exists, it’s considered a flavor of racism. Tom is human, and Reggie is a mini, who’s six inches tall. They’re housemates. (also. Tom is nonbinary, and uses they/them pronouns. Reggie’s a guy, he/him.)

Still trying to figure out how their current arrangement got started, considering Reggie is embarrassed to admit he likes it, but the two of them frequently engage in what they call “Games” (yes, with a capital G), which always involve Reggie being inside Tom’s mouth (not all the way, the scale difference isn’t enough for that, but it varies from a finger or two all the way to as much as they can fit at once), and often involve him getting covered with something tasty first. In addition to those, they sometimes do smaller-scale things with maybe a lick or two.

No swallowing, because it wouldn’t be safe in their world, but loads of mouthplay.

They’ve definitely taken the time to sit down together and talk about what they are and aren’t okay with, and they have a safeword in case either gets uncomfortable in the middle of things.  And they make sure to communicate with each other the whole time, when they’re in the middle of it.

Tom’s usually the one to initiate things, and they always check first to make sure that Reggie’s okay with it. Sometimes it’s just something as simple as “May I lick you?” and sometimes it’s laying out the plans for a Game. They usually don’t go into detail, because Reggie likes to be a bit surprised, but Tom might say, “You in the mood for a Game? I had an idea,” and if Reggie was, they might tell him a few of the aspects. (powerplay, foodplay, how much mouthplay it would involve, maybe the kind of food, those such things.) And then they would get into it! Or not, if Reggie didn’t want to do that particular Game after all.

I’m currently working on a story titled ‘Chocolate’, in which there is a fondue pot. And Reggie definitely gets dunked.

He’s also been covered in frosting, been tied up with spaghetti (and accidentally broke several noodles before Tom could bite them off, cooked spaghetti does not make a strong rope), sat in Tom’s ice-cream on a hot summer day, and lounged in more of Tom’s drinks, both hot and cold, than they’ve bothered to count.

Reggie’s sister is aware of their arrangement, which embarrasses Reggie so much, but she doesn’t care what they get up to so long as it’s consensual.

Oh! And I have some art of them! I apparently only have one posted to this blog so far… I’ll have to get on that, cause there are two more. [link]

—

Aji and Mitz

I created Aji for a fanfic of @vore-scientist‘s Mystic Woods stories! (In Which a Giant Wizard Noms a Firewitch) They’re basically a self-insert. Short redheaded li’l nonbinary firewitch. (the firewitch part is not so much a self-insert. That was something Tuitey suggested, to make Aji fit in to that world.)

Mitz is Aji’s giant friend. The two of them have done many noms before, and Aji’s even been swallowed! Only briefly, though, because they don’t want to risk staying in a real stomach for very long. Since Aji is a firewitch, they’re pretty spicy. 

I honestly haven’t developed a lot about these two yet…

Tho!

Aji has a familiar. Her name is Soot, she’s a cat, and she was the one who decided she was gonna be Aji’s familiar, back when she was a kitten. Aji wasn’t even looking for a familiar at the time, but Soot took one look at young Aji and decided, That human is mine. I’m keeping them. So she went right ahead and formed the familiar-witch bond, and next thing Aji knew, this little black ball of fluff was talking to them, and yes it was meows, but it also sounded like words.

Soot’s mom was not so pleased that her kitten had gone and gotten bonded to a witch. Especially a firewitch. Soot’s dad was proud of her, though. (I think he was one of those rough-and-tumble stray cat types, while Soot’s mom was a pampered housecat. Very different backgrounds.) Soot’s mom eventually accepted Aji as her kitten’s witch, though.

Also, Soot is trans. And she thinks that spit is gross and Aji is weird for being okay with being in a mouth.

—

Candy

Alright, so ‘Candy’ was originally not going to be her name, but I’m seriously tempted to name her Candace and have her curse to have been inspired by her name.

Cause Candy was cursed! There was this wizard who was trying to woo a woman who was gay and far more interested in Candy, got pissy that she didn’t like him back, decided that Candy had stolen the affection that was “rightly his,” and cursed her. 

So now Candy is only about an inch tall, immortal, and made of candy. The type of candy she’s made of changes sometimes. (still working on the mechanic of how/why.) She prefers some to others, and hates being gum.

She’s changed hands several times over the years, and is currently in the possession of a college student. She spends a lot of time being oral stimulation for late night studies, but at least the student treats her fairly well. They usually ask permission first, and by this point, Candy’s gotten pretty used to being in a mouth, so she lets them do it as long as they don’t bite down. (It doesn’t hurt, but it’s not a pleasant sensation.)

She’s been swallowed more than once, and she doesn’t like that. It’s groossss.

—

Mike

This one isn’t technically actual vore, but it’s vorish, so I’m including it.

Mike lives in a mixed height world. Maybe it’s the same as Tom and Reggie’s, as the main scale is 1:12, the same as theirs, but maybe it’s not, because there are also smaller tinies, who mostly live off on their own away from the other two sizes.

Mike is one of the smaller tinies. He’s about two inches tall. And he has a mech! It’s a very good mech, and looks like a human. The entire inside of the head is on stabilizers so that no matter which way the mech is oriented, that room is always right-side up. And in the middle of the skull-room, there’s another room, where Mike goes to control the mech. He has to put on a special motion-sensing suit, and the room is filled with a special material that mimics the outside environment. It’s all very complicated and sciencey, and I don’t know where he got it.

Some of Mike’s friends are humans, and some of them are tinies. Regular tinies, not extra-small ones like Mike.

(A scene:

Tiny Friend: Why do you spend all your time inside that mech?

Mike: I’m not about to be out in the open with a bunch of giants!

Tiny Friend: Why not? I do it every day.

Mike: … I don’t think you understand. You’re one of the giants.

)

Now the vorish part! 

In order to make the mech look realistic, there aren’t seams for it to open. Instead, you gotta climb in through the mouth. Mike’s small enough that he can have the mech lying down and just walk through the throat like a hallway, but a regular tiny has to crawl. Or, if the throat is vertical, there’s a ladder built into the side. (though to get past the part at the back of the mouth is very awkward for a regular tiny, because there’s a wall (again, for realistic looking reasons) in front of the ladder there, and Mike can easily climb through that space, but it’s too small for a regular tiny to fit into)

Sometimes, Mike’s friends get overwhelmed from too much stimulus, and they need somewhere quiet to relax again. If the overwhelmed friend is a tiny, and there isn’t somewhere else available (or sometimes if there is), Mike will let them chill inside his mech with him, either in the torso area (which is a storeroom) or in his room in the head. (They’re allowed to sit on his bed, but because they’re three times his size, they can’t fit to lie down.) Which, of course, looks like he’s swallowing them.