#this is also like. kind of how I actually think the world works..

[gabessquishytum]

Hob thinking Dream is asexual because he never dates or shows interest in anyone, meanwhile Dream has been in love with Hob for 20 years. 😭😭

- 🚒

I love this because like. Hob could totally not be wrong! Maybe Dream IS ace. But he's still been in love with Hob for 20 years... and Hob is a himbo who may have completely understood how asexuality works.

Look, when he first learned about ace people, he didn't really get it. Hob is very much allo and finds it a little difficult to understand. But he had a friend in his university's pride group who was ace, and they explained it to him. The thing is, they were very much asexual in a sex repulsed, only interested in platonic relationship kind of way. And Hob never got the memo that not all ace people feel like that.

And Hob really really cares about Dream, who has been his best friend since high school, so he wants to respect and be fully supportive of any way that Dream may feel or identify. Having applied his own form of logic and decided that Dream must be ace, he does everything he can to respect his friend. And that means... not bringing up the fact that Hob loves him and really really wants to have a lot of nasty sex with him. Cause Dream would obviously not want that. Right?

Now. Hob is not entirely wrong. Dream does identify somewhere within the spectrum of asexuality. He thinks he might be demisexual, but he's never actually talked about it. What he does know is that there is only one person in the world that he wants to date and do sex things with, and that's Hob. Unfortunately he assumes that Hob (who screws pretty much anything with a pulse but has never tried to screw Dream) must not be attracted to him.

They're both their own brand of stupid, basically.

How does this ultimately resolve? They end up going to a local Pride event together. Hob sees a tent with the ace flag and heads over - he is a Supportive Friend. He's hoping they might be selling pins or flags or something. Instead, he ends up seeing a poster which briefly highlights a number of identifies which fall under the umbrella of asexuality. By the time Dream finds him, Hob is having a small crisis, being comforted by one of the volunteers, who is also gently explaining to him that yes, some ace people like relationships and sex.

All of this means that after 20 years of knowing each other, Hob and Dream finally have to have a conversation about what they both want. The volunteer hands them some condoms, just in case, but both silly boys are more interested in gazing into each other's eyes adoringly!

And they may be using the condoms later... But Hob doesn't really mind. He'll take Dream any way he can get him, forever. No taking it back <333

[w1tchybusiness]

possible spoilers for Warframe: Jade Shadows ahead

i wish people would stop, take a breath, and actually think about jade shadows from an analytical place before they leave their reviews rather than just going "i think it's icky" because like. obviously it isn't perfect, i don't think anyone's arguing that, but it isn't gross or wrong- it's art, it's evocative, and it's going to resonate differently with everyone. i want to pick apart some common criticisms i've seen here from the perspective of someone who's played a lot of warframe and thought about some of the heavier themes present in the quest quite a lot.

It's weird that Jade is pregnant because I'm afraid of it/it's gross/it's fetishistic

Personal feelings of revulsion are not a reason to judge something on an objective level. It's perfectly valid to come out of Jade Shadows feeling weird about it- I do think that's kind of the point. The quest has a content warning before you begin it, because the subject matter is something that is really uncomfortable for a lot of people- that doesn't mean that the game shouldn't be allowed to explore it. Also, even if it was wrong to include something like this as fetish content, this argument would imply the game has already gone to weirder places. Looking at you, Grendel.

It's weird that they make the operator give birth via transference

This argument has a little more ground, but also kind of misunderstands how transference works. Yes, it is a hand-wavy "linking of the minds," but we do see clearly in quests like The Sacrifice that when linking with the more sentient frames like Umbra for the first time, the Operator is not fully controlling the frame. I think Umbra is the most appropriate comparison- when linking with Umbra properly for the first time, you don't immediately control Umbra- it's a more spiritual "linking souls helping him find peace" thing. I'd also say that even in the case the Operator was fully in control, I don't think what happened was remotely equatable to literally giving birth. Like. She breathed for 20 seconds and then dissolved into light and died, then there was a baby there. I don't know if you've ever seen a birth, but that isn't how it works. I feel like after all the shit our Operator has been through, "giving birth" through transference is kind of a drop in the bucket.

It's misogynistic to have Jade die in childbirth

????????

Ok. So let's pick apart the possible reasons that this would be misogynistic. Maybe fridging the woman? But. Not really, because she isn't really gone- the game even acknowledges that she will live on through you and through the motes in Hunhow's message. You can literally craft her and then boom, she's back. She may not have a gigantic speaking role, but no warframe does- hell, even the Stalker barely grunts out single words.

Another one I see a lot is the argument that her sole role in the quest is the whole "her whole personality is motherhood" situation- and that is fair, her role IS that- but that is the point of the quest. They hid this in the teasers because they wanted the reveal to be significant, not to intentionally obfuscate their misogynistic writing- while I certainly do agree that it is all too common for female characters to be pushed aside and relegated purely to motherhood, particularly in fandom spaces but that's an entirely different discussion. I think Warframe handled the motherhood issue well- a person used as a tool of unjust death for years (remember the Jade Light?) giving her own life to finally bring life into the world rather than taking it away- it clearly had purpose and thought behind it, and Warframe has already spent years providing female characters that don't revolve entirely around motherhood- though they aren't pushed into your face and provided immediately without any exploration, so it makes sense that some people on Tumblr would miss them. Warframes don't generally have fully fleshed-out personality- the more sentient frames like Dante and Umbra are an exception. Jade was on the verge of death, it's not shocking that we didn't see much of her personality. I don't doubt that we'll get some codex entries explaining more of her actual personality and story- the quest was just not the place and time.

At the end of the day, Warframe is a game about love, family, and sacrifice. Jade Shadows ticks all 3 of those boxes, probably in the most on-the-nose way we've seen yet. I'd love to make a post soon lauding the things I liked about it, the real narrative depth it presented, the meaning behind and the significance of the discomfort rooted in its themes, and its connections to Warframe's broader themes, but I've seen more negativity than positivity thus far which is... genuinely shocking. When I played it I had nothing but praise. Warframe's writing is usually a bit clunky, so I hadn't noticed anything particularly out of the ordinary, but a lot of people seem genuinely convinced that this expansion was somehow the worst we've ever seen when that is far from being the case. Operation Belly of the Beast has been a ton of fun, and the seeming finite nature of what's left adds a real gravitas to farming for Jade. I'm not shocked the quest itself felt a bit half-baked, I'm surprised they released this at all with 1999 coming up- I'm just happy to get some new content and a new frame whose concept I really enjoy.

[jrueships]

Paul George on Stephen A. Smith’s Kawhi Leonard jab: “I didn’t like that moment… Kawhi wants to play… We exhausted a lot out of Kawhi this season. So at some point your body breaks you down… I didn’t appreciate that moment. I know I laughed because the situation was lighthearted, but deep down it was like you gotta let that go, Stephen A.”

Paul George, knight in shining armor

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

im a trans boy who has grown up with very oppressive religious parents so ive never gotten the chance to experiment sexually or romantically with peers irl, im about to move to the city for college in the fall

(i will be living on campus with two roommates who i haven't met yet and i know basically nothing about, one of them i will be sharing a bunk bed with)

im really nervous about how im gonna do socially.. ive had a really hard time making and maintaining irl friends for like my entire life, which has been really upsetting for me obviously.

being able to experiment sexually is something im really wanting to do and im really really nervous about it, i know that the most straightforward advice is just "talk about it to people you wanna do sex stuff with" but like everything is new to me i havent had the chance to really socialize irl up until this point and now im being shoved into a group of other young adults who all have the prior experience of being well socialized and having complex interpersonal relationships with peers

i also feel extremely insecure about my lack of experience, like is it actually normal for someone my age to have never had a romantic or sexual encounter? are the things ive discovered and assumptions ive made about myself sexually through masturbating wrong?? i can't watch porn bc looking at strangers having sex grosses me out!! im pretty sure my front hole is like unnaturally tight?? anything wider than two of my fingers is uncomfortable and no matter how much prep and easing myself into it i do, it stays that way.. and i think my cervix is also lower than most, about 3-4 inches is the maximum that i can insert before i can feel it bump my cervix (which hurts REALLY BAD)

im just so nervous and scared about my own body and personality and all that andi don't know where to look for resources or reassurance. ive never been to the doctor for any kind of reproductive care and im really scared to!!! i live in a state that has completely outlawed abortion rights and im really scared that if i go to planned parenthood or something to get like a checkup that they will be mean and not gentle with me

i don't know, i guess im just looking to be heard and hopefully pointed towards some resources if anyone has any, thank you for the work you do and thank you for taking the time to read my panicked ramblings

hi anon,

there's a lot happening here so I'm just doing a numbered list

1.) man, how did the third guy luck out and avoid the bunk bed? you don't have to answer that, I'm just curious how you guys have already worked out that two of you are stuck with the bunk beds. unless you're into bunk beds (I was), in which case mazel tov.

2.) in the nicest way possible, I think you may be vastly overestimating how "well socialized" other students are going to be. reading between the lines a bit, it sounds like you were maybe home schooled, or at least don't have very much experience mingling with other people your age without adult supervision. I guarantee you every public school in the world is also full of introverted freak losers who rock up to college with no idea of what they're doing; I was one of them. the majority of first year college students are also running around panicking and trying to figure out how to be away from their parents for the first time; everyone is a loser and no one is cool.

would it comfort you at all to know that my day job is organizing events at my office's LGBT student resource center? I spend a lot of time hanging out with queer first year students, and I love them dearly, and they're all cringefail losers. it's unavoidable. every 18 year old is a cringefail loser. every single person on Earth looks back at their 18 year old self and goes "goddamn, what a cringefail loser." and it's fine! it's so normal! that's the entire point of your first year of college! you try things and you're socially awkward and you meet some of the most important people you will ever meet and you meet people whose opinions about you won't matter literally at all and you'll completely change how you think about everything for the rest of your life and you'll think you're going to die and everything will be fine!!!!

anyway moving on

3.) it's normal for anyone at any age to have never had a romantic or sexual encounter. I'm assuming you value my insight at least a little, since you sent this, so would it help you to know that I arrived at college as virginal as could be (wildly insecure about it, btw) and didn't have sex for the first time until I was almost 21? would it comfort you to hear from my housemate, also transmasculine, who gave me permission to share that they've never had sex and that none of their life problems really have anything to do with being a virgin?

4.) "are the things ive discovered and assumptions ive made about myself sexually through masturbating wrong??" hard to say, since I don't know what those things are, but probably not. it's extremely hard to get masturbating wrong, no one knows what feels good to you better than you. you're sort of an authority here. masturbating isn't exactly like partnered sex, of course, but it's a really good place to start learning about things that you like and make you feel good.

5.) everything you're describing about your front hole sounds very typical. two fingers is the max number of comfortable fingers for a lot of people, regardless of experience; often, taking something larger doesn't become easier until after having penetrative sex with a partner. average vaginal depth is about 3.6 inches, and while that can increase significantly with arousal, it's something that doesn't generally happen if you're not relaxed during sex. if I can be a bit presumptuous, it sounds like sex and masturbation are maybe a bit anxiety-inducing for you, in a way that is pretty much perfectly contradictory to comfortable penetration. if I can offer you some advice I wish I could give my younger self: calm the fuck down, buy some lube, stop worrying so much about making your body react the way you think it should and learn to appreciate what it's actually doing, and maybe see if your campus has some free therapy options available. anxiety meds probably wouldn't hurt this situation. also stop hitting your cervix if that hurts oh my god.

6.) Planned Parenthood is generally one of the best places to go if you're nervous; they're aggressively queer friendly and tend to be extremely accommodating of patients' needs. I personally do not care for penetration at all and have a difficult time with Pap smears, and every examiner I've ever had at PP has been an angel about letting me take breaks and swear my way through it. it ain't fun, but if you want to have an adventurous sex life you need to take care of the health of yourself and your prospective partners by getting STI tests and Pap smears.

you're so normal, calm down, I love you

[likegoldintheair]

and because i'm greedy, i'm sending you another one (feel free to only do them both if they spark joy though <3) but how about 40 + buddie? 💛

"You know you can always stay, right."

Eddie doesn't phrase it like a question, knows that Buck knows that he's not a guest in this house, that he's never really been one at all. That he has his own set of bedding neatly folded and stacked on a shelf in Eddie's linen closet, along with an old LAFD t-shirt that has definitely seen better days but works perfectly to sleep in. That there's even a toothbrush permanently taking up space next to Eddie's on the bathroom sink.

"I know," Buck sighs, shrugging on his jacket, looking longingly at the couch where they'd been sat just moments ago, and then back at Eddie. The longing look is still there, turning slightly apologetic, as he says, "but I got-"

"You got important uncle duties in the morning." Eddie fills in, voice gentle as he continues, "I know."

"Nsxt time?"

"Next time."

"Next time." Buck echoes, looking like he's going to say something else, but then he nods, says, "I should, uh, I should probably get going."

"Buck?"

Buck doesn't say anything, just tilts his head a little, face open and hopeful as he waits for Eddie to continue, and Eddie kind of just- breaks a little bit in the best possible way. He takes a deep breath, and then he's closing the small distance between himself and Buck, hands reaching up to gently, carefully cradle Buck's face. Then, before he can think twice about it, he's pulling Buck down (and isn't that thrilling in and of itself, that he has to pull him down towards him) into a kiss.

It's an impulsive thing, absolutely. But it's also been months, if not years, of Eddie embarrassingly often daydreaming about what it would feel like.

What Buck would taste like.

None of those daydreams, or anything Eddie could have ever imagined, compare to the real thing, though. Kissing Buck, and having Buck enthusiastically kiss him back, is - it's everything.

It's the whole world both expanding beyond the furtest corners of the universe and zeroing in on every point of contact where Buck and Eddie are touching, all at the same time. It's like every kiss, every touch, ignites a tiny spark that shoots throughout Eddie's body, setting him alight from within. He's burning up and yet he craves more, suddenly wondering how he could have lived his whole life up until this point without Buck's hands on his hips, his tongue in his mouth, his soft curls between his fingers.

When they break away, they're both panting, chests heaving from it and when Buck lets a small laugh escape his mouth, Eddie can't help but join in.

"This was a nice surprise." Buck says eventually, laughter still lacing his voice, eyes bright and cheeks flushed. "I-I, uh, I kind of wanted that to happen for a really long time, actually."

"Me, too," Eddie breathes, feeling like he might actually burst open from the sheer amount of happiness coursing through him. "I just... I couldn't- didn't want you to leave again without having done that."

"I'm glad you didn't"

"Me, too." Eddie says softly, thumb brushing against Buck's lower lip. He wants to kiss him again, wants to crawl inside Buck completely, and hide away in the space where their bodies touch. "Hey, Buck."

"Yeah?"

"You don't have to stay on the couch ever again, if you don't want to." Eddie drags his gaze from Buck's lips, his heart stuttering slightly when their eyes meet. "In fact, we should throw the whole thing away."

Buck laughs at that, a bright, carefree thing, and Eddie swears he's never looked more beautiful. Happiness suits him. He can't help but pull Buck down again, pressing their mouths together, neither of them able to contain their smiles. Eddie doesn't mind at all. Kissing Buck, teeth and all, is still the best thing he's ever done.

[aspd-culture]

Sorry ig in advance since you get questions a lot but got curious about a few things

1. Is it normal for pwASPD to view unbeneficial relationships as chores? I know I, a likely prosocial, when I don't see the benefit in a relationship, I have to view it as being a chore to continue it.

2. If a connection is established between harming others and being harmed, will a pwASPD, for lack of a better term, be able to mimic empathy or remorse?

3. Do you know if pwASPD and another comorbid disorder, if the other disorder causes already low or fragile self esteem (like another cluster B), can seem like they don't have ASPD?

These are mostly for project research but also out of curiosity because I can

Nothing to be sorry for!!/gen

1.) Oh yes. So very, very much yes. And honestly, it's even worse than a chore - more like if a dead-end job decided to stop paying you but you'd go to jail if you quit. If you've ever seen a kid stuck dress shopping with their mother on TV, that's the way I would like to act through every single interaction with an equal part useless and annoying but unavoidable prosocial irl. Every single non-Exception prosocial is that coworker you hate who won't leave you alone./hj Joking aside, not all prosocials are actually that annoying actually. So it kind of depends; sometimes it's fine at least for me.

2.) Yeah, I'd say so. This goes differently for all of us, but for the most part "connection formed" would probably go in the direction of an Exception, and that's where some symptoms of ASPD are lessened for those of us that have them. That includes often having some degree of effective empathy and/or a desire to work on cognitive empathy with them in particular (I use them as practice to make the necessary use of cognitive empathy less annoying with non-Exceptions). Ditto with remorse for some pwASPD, though for me in particular that depends on the Exception in question. Some still do not bring out remorse in me for whatever reason. This is a good place to note that actually, since I don't think I've mentioned this elsewhere. Exceptions do not all have to be the same even for the same pwASPD. Two friends may have different symptoms they alleviate vs don't affect vs worsen, and of course platonic vs sexual vs romantic Exceptions often vary in that as well. For me and a few other pwASPD I've met, this may also occur with some groups of people who aren't Exceptions but cause an Exception-esque response. For me, kids get that as most do other people struggling with mental health disorders beyond just depression and anxiety (nothing easy about those two it's just in our current world most people have those). If I hurt a kid's feelings, 25/10 times I am going to cry with them or force myself not to. And that will vary for each pwASPD based on how much social neurological development was completed before it was fundamentally changed and started developing antisocially too. Some of us have more empathy than others, or more remorse than others (and vice versa) in general, so that'll impact those situations too.

3.) So this depends on what you define as "seem like they don't have ASPD", though it won't be self-esteem that affects that. Generally I'd point that more in the direction of NPD. But yeah, looking at the symptoms of ASPD, there are a few specific disorders that cause someone who very much has ASPD to not be diagnosed and/or believed both professionally and personally. In personal relationships, it's honestly just not being a serial k*ller that will get most to think you don't have it. Professionally, you're looking at disorders that cause social problems (such as autism, SAD - social anxiety, and GAD - generalized anxiety), impulse control (ADHD mostly), emotional instability (bipolar disorder, IED - intermittent explosive, ODD - oppositional defiance, and yeah your other cluster b PDs). There are others that make a whole lot less sense imo to get in the way of an ASPD diagnosis too. Schizophrenia comes to mind, with some professionals thinking that it's just... so many episodes of psychosis that it starts to look like ASPD which, don't even get me started on how much of a medical failure it is that I have heard of that specific thing happening. But mostly, it's going to be the ones I listed previously. None of these are mutually exclusive with ASPD, but they have symptoms that overlap with or mimic ASPD's, and so you'll have genuinely good professionals who are trying to avoid over/misdiagnosis where it applies to a *very* stigmatized disorder, and you'll have lazy ones that don't care to try and pick out which it is if not both. That will all just depend on the pwASPD's presentation of symptoms. I had more than one professional refuse to believe I had ASPD, and my (very lovely and dilligent/gen) psychiatrist was also leaning to just diagnose autism until I said some line about the reason I try for social interaction not being because I want to but because everyone has to to be able to get what they need in life. Once she realized I see it as an irritating requirement to associate with other people - even ones I kind of like - she quickly turned on that and diagnosed both. That's why it's important to speak openly and with as much of the mask removed as possible without getting yourself in trouble. They will try and avoid labelling you with something like this unless they are 1000% sure because of its connotations and the social and professional implications of having ASPD. It is very possible to pick out which is which or if it's more than one with overlap in regards to any set of comorbidities even outside of ASPD, but it takes a lot of work for that to be done properly especially if you're still masking in front of them.

I have no issue with anyone asking just out of curiosity by the way. Seriously like I guess I see why some people feel weird about it, but genuine interest is the reason why disorders get looked into, researched, and potentially normalized and accepted. There is nothing wrong with being interested in any topic as long as you're respectful in your interactions with sensitive subjects, and this ask was completely respectful, so I'm happy to answer it./gen

Plain text below the cut:

Nothing to be sorry for!!/gen

1.) Oh yes. So very, very much yes. And honestly, it's even worse than a chore - more like if a dead-end job decided to stop paying you but you'd go to jail if you quit. If you've ever seen a kid stuck dress shopping with their mother on TV, that's the way I would like to act through every single interaction with an equal part useless and annoying but unavoidable prosocial irl. Every single non-Exception prosocial is that coworker you hate who won't leave you alone./hj Joking aside, not all prosocials are actually that annoying actually. So it kind of depends; sometimes it's fine at least for me.

2.) Yeah, I'd say so. This goes differently for all of us, but for the most part "connection formed" would probably go in the direction of an Exception, and that's where some symptoms of ASPD are lessened for those of us that have them. That includes often having some degree of effective empathy and/or a desire to work on cognitive empathy with them in particular (I use them as practice to make the necessary use of cognitive empathy less annoying with non-Exceptions). Ditto with remorse for some pwASPD, though for me in particular that depends on the Exception in question. Some still do not bring out remorse in me for whatever reason. This is a good place to note that actually, since I don't think I've mentioned this elsewhere. Exceptions do not all have to be the same even for the same pwASPD. Two friends may have different symptoms they alleviate vs don't affect vs worsen, and of course platonic vs sexual vs romantic Exceptions often vary in that as well. For me and a few other pwASPD I've met, this may also occur with some groups of people who aren't Exceptions but cause an Exception-esque response. For me, kids get that as most do other people struggling with mental health disorders beyond just depression and anxiety (nothing easy about those two it's just in our current world most people have those). If I hurt a kid's feelings, 25/10 times I am going to cry with them or force myself not to. And that will vary for each pwASPD based on how much social neurological development was completed before it was fundamentally changed and started developing antisocially too. Some of us have more empathy than others, or more remorse than others (and vice versa) in general, so that'll impact those situations too.

3.) So this depends on what you define as "seem like they don't have ASPD", though it won't be self-esteem that affects that. Generally I'd point that more in the direction of NPD. But yeah, looking at the symptoms of ASPD, there are a few specific disorders that cause someone who very much has ASPD to not be diagnosed and/or believed both professionally and personally. In personal relationships, it's honestly just not being a serial k*ller that will get most to think you don't have it. Professionally, you're looking at disorders that cause social problems (such as autism, SAD - social anxiety, and GAD - generalized anxiety), impulse control (ADHD mostly), emotional instability (bipolar disorder, IED - intermittent explosive, ODD - oppositional defiance, and yeah your other cluster b PDs).

There are others that make a whole lot less sense imo to get in the way of an ASPD diagnosis too. Schizophrenia comes to mind, with some professionals thinking that it's just... so many episodes of psychosis that it starts to look like ASPD which, don't even get me started on how much of a medical failure it is that I have heard of that specific thing happening. But mostly, it's going to be the ones I listed previously. None of these are mutually exclusive with ASPD, but they have symptoms that overlap with or mimic ASPD's, and so you'll have genuinely good professionals who are trying to avoid over/misdiagnosis where it applies to a very stigmatized disorder, and you'll have lazy ones that don't care to try and pick out which it is if not both. That will all just depend on the pwASPD's presentation of symptoms. I had more than one professional refuse to believe I had ASPD, and my (very lovely and dilligent/gen) psychiatrist was also leaning to just diagnose autism until I said some line about the reason I try for social interaction not being because I want to but because everyone has to to be able to get what they need in life. Once she realized I see it as an irritating requirement to associate with other people - even ones I kind of like - she quickly turned on that and diagnosed both. That's why it's important to speak openly and with as much of the mask removed as possible without getting yourself in trouble. They will try and avoid labelling you with something like this unless they are 1000% sure because of its connotations and the social and professional implications of having ASPD. It is very possible to pick out which is which or if it's more than one with overlap in regards to any set of comorbidities even outside of ASPD, but it takes a lot of work for that to be done properly especially if you're still masking in front of them.

I have no issue with anyone asking just out of curiosity by the way. Seriously like I guess I see why some people feel weird about it, but genuine interest is the reason why disorders get looked into, researched, and potentially normalized and accepted. There is nothing wrong with being interested in any topic as long as you're respectful in your interactions with sensitive subjects, and this ask was completely respectful, so I'm happy to answer it./gen

[psychic-refugee]

I've seen posts from the past year and more so recently, blaming Jenna for "not doing enough" regarding Percy.

This is just my two cents on the issue.

I think people grossly overestimate Jenna’s influence and ability to control her brainless, rabid fans. I do not think people will be like, “oh if Jenna supports him then he must be innocent.” As far as I’m concerned, that’s just as much of a fantasy as Wenclair or Jemma happening.  

Like 90% of her fans that hate Percy have no critical thinking skills, are creepy weirdos who infantilize her and make pornographic AI “art” of her, and their ardor of her is predicated upon whatever fantasy relationship they have with her in their head or fantasy relationship she has with Emma.

They cannot be counted upon to make rational conclusions from evidence that actually exists, they rely on willful ignorance and “what if” scenarios to justify their hateful actions. We cannot assume or even reasonably expect they can be counted upon to change their minds if Jenna gives more definitive statements supporting him than she already has.

Additionally, her opinion on the matter is of no relevance. She didn’t know him nor was she present when the rumours say the alleged incidences took place. She can only speak of Percy as she knows him now. She CAN’T proclaim his innocence to something that she didn’t witness nor has anything to do with her.

Further, she does indeed have her own career to think about. She doesn’t work for him and it’s not her job to rehab the unfortunate effects of a baseless rumour on his reputation and career.

People are forgetting that not only are they friends, but they’re CO WORKERS. Things get dicey when you mix personal friendships and business.

They have to balance both worlds. Sometimes hard decisions have to be made, and people need to learn to embrace the suck.

In the end, this is Percy’s problem, and he doesn’t have the right to ask friends and coworkers to go beyond what they’re comfortable doing, nor go against professional advice, if any has been given on the matter.

I think it’s really unfair to have these expectations of Jenna and the rest of the Wednesday cast/friends.

I also want to point out that we have no evidence that Percy himself has ever asked any of his friends/coworkers to do what you all seem to expect they are obligated to do. If Percy has no such expectation, then we as fans should have no expectation, much less think we have any kind of entitlement to demand these things.

What support she has given, people need to learn to accept and be grateful for it. She’s still his friend on “socials” for whatever that’s worth to people. She hasn’t disavowed him publicly, which we’ve seen she has no issue with stating her position on important matters.

I cannot stress enough how we don’t know what goes on between them in private messaging and real life. Perhaps all the support she has for him is done in private. Privacy is their prerogative and right.

As @shiptillitsinks has stated on her post, Jenna has given support via the podcast when it first happened. As far as I’m concerned, her support has been asked and answered. She does not have to keep repeating herself.

Whatever is happening with the professional side of their relationship, such as WSSF, they know their own business best. That's all I can say on that matter.

[lingthusiasm]

Transcript Episode 93: How nonbinary and binary people talk - Interview with Jacq Jones

This is a transcript for Lingthusiasm episode 'How nonbinary and binary people talk - Interview with Jacq Jones'. It’s been lightly edited for readability. Listen to the episode here or wherever you get your podcasts. Links to studies mentioned and further reading can be found on the episode show notes page.

[Music]

Gretchen: Welcome to Lingthusiasm, a podcast that’s enthusiastic about linguistics! I’m Gretchen McCulloch. Today, we’re getting enthusiastic about nonbinary speech with Dr. Jacq Jones. They’re a lecturer at Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa / Massey University in Auckland, New Zealand. But first, our most recent bonus episode was about various kinds of fun mishearings and missayings and misparsings that people make in songs, in phrases, in idioms – all sorts of, like, you know when you hear “an acorn,” and you think it might actually be “an egg-corn” because it’s like the egg of the tree? Well, we talk about what strange things that you mishear, or misparse, can tell us about how language works. Go to patreon.com/lingthusiasm to listen to this bonus episode, many more bonus episodes, and help us keep the show running.

[Music]

Gretchen: Hello Jacq!

Jacq: Hi Gretchen!

Gretchen: Thanks for coming on the podcast.

Jacq: Thanks for inviting me. It’s awesome.

Gretchen: Before we get into all of the cool research that you’ve done about how nonbinary people talk that you’re working on, let’s talk a little bit about your origin story. How did you get into linguistics?

Jacq: Okay, well, I mean, how far back do you wanna go, I guess? I was a high school dropout. I was in my teens. I was going around North America, in Canada and the United States, working and this and that. I decided I wanted to go back to school. I did get into an adult education programme and finished up my high school. It was in a really small town in rural Alberta. It had a community college, and they didn’t have that many classes. I went into geography.

Gretchen: That’s super related to linguistics.

Jacq: You’d be surprised.

Gretchen: Great.

Jacq: Yeah, because I had spent time in the southern United States and in Alberta and in Ontario and things, and so I liked seeing all the different places. I went into geography. For people who don’t know, geography has these two big branches. There’s physical geography and human geography. Physical geography is rocks and trees and mountains and weather, and human geography is how people affect the world and how the world affects people.

Gretchen: So, like cities and stuff.

Jacq: Yeah, right. So, I was sitting in a class, and we were talking about how goods move across borders and how a lot of human influences – including language and political borders – can affect the movement of goods and, alternatively, how languages can be stopped by things like mountains.

Gretchen: Oh! Okay.

Jacq: You’ll have dialects that won’t go over the top of a mountain because you have this physical barrier. I was like, “That’s amazing.” Somehow, something about this interaction between this natural world and something like language, which is very, sort of, in your heads – but of course, you’re not gonna walk up a mountain to go talk to the person on the other side.

Gretchen: I live in Montreal, which doesn’t even really have a mountain by proper mountain-people standards, and I don’t wanna walk up that mountain just to talk to someone at the top. I totally understand that prehistoric people also did not wanna do this.

Jacq: Exactly. People, you know, live along rivers, so you have languages and language change and language contact all along these natural systems. That was the bug.

Gretchen: That’s fascinating. That’s so cool.

Jacq: And then I went from this community college – this adult education programme – to university, took a linguistics class, and as they say, that was it. Fell in love with phonetics and acoustics and all the meaty bits inside of you that create language. And here we are.

Gretchen: You do sounds – phonetics, how people talk – and specifically, I first encountered your research when I was in New Zealand last year at the New Zealand Linguistic Society Annual Meeting in Dunedin. You were giving a talk about your dissertation on how nonbinary people talk. How did you get into that topic?

Jacq: Sure. I think for most linguists, if you can press them, for most people in academia, what you’re into – there’s always something personal in it. There’s always something in what you’re doing. As a nonbinary person, navigating the 2010s – the late 2010s – trying to navigate what “gender” means, I kept catching myself really interrogating, really thinking about how I interact with people around me and what assumptions they’re going to put on me, what assumptions I’m putting on myself. You know, I’m getting on the bus, how low do I wanna talk to the bus driver? Just really silly stuff like that.

Gretchen: Like, are they gonna “sir” or “ma’am” me to show how they’re parsing my gender?

Jacq: Exactly. And do I want either of those options? Not really.

Gretchen: Which are both wrong.

Jacq: But if I can barely figure out what being nonbinary means to me as a nonbinary person, how can I expect the, you know, 60-year-old parent that I’m talking to, or a random person at the coffee shop I’m talking to, to understand all these backflips that I’m trying to do in presenting my gender? I mean, I’m into phonetics. I’m into acoustics. I’ve always been interested, linguistically, in this space between “This is how people talk because they are from Canada,” “This is how people talk because they’re a woman” – or because they’re a certain socio-economic class, or this – versus “This is how a jock or a burnout talks,” “This is how somebody asserts their identity.” When you’re looking at gender, that’s really this difference between a lot of stuff that we’re taught growing up and a lot of stuff that people might argue is inherent – a lot of stuff that is constrained by physiology, in some ways, by your existence in a meat suit – but you still always have control over it. That’s where this is. Part of it is being nonbinary and wanting that legitimacy of examining the numbers and proving that I exist, and nonbinary people exist, which are not represented historically. That’s changing now. And so, wanting that studying me and people like me to show “Hey, we exist. This is a thing that we can measure. This is a thing that we can look at,” and studying why, and yeah.

Gretchen: If you study all the other nonbinary speakers, then they’ll just tell how you need to talk now. So, that’ll be really handy.

Jacq: I mean, that’s part of it, too, right, is something that’s really exciting about studying nonbinary people during my dissertation – and I think that this is very much changing for the better, and I’m so happy that there are so many more options for young people in terms of gender and for old people in terms of gender and for anybody in terms of gender, but at the time, it really felt like all the templates that were out there were very binary – all the methodologies for studying speech, all of variation studies, everything, was, “This is how men talk,” “This is how women talk,” “This is how you’re supposed to talk if you’re a man or a woman,” or you want to present yourself – it was all binary.

Gretchen: I remember even when I was just being trained at grad school, everything was very binary. People weren’t even really questioning that. Even 10 years later, it seems like there’s been a lot more people thinking that through.

Jacq: Exactly. That is so amazing. From the point of view – putting on the researcher hat – studying it at the point where the speakers are making these first decisions without any templates – without a YouTube person to look at to model this kind of language on – felt really exciting.

Gretchen: And then somebody else who’s doing this study in another 10 years or 20 years or something when possibly nonbinary identity may have coalesced a bit more, then they have this to compare to as a baseline to see – it’s not often we get to watch a new gender evolve in real time. I mean, that’s not quite true because non-cis people have always existed, but the coherent, legible, nonbinary category, we get to watch it evolve in real time.

Jacq: Exactly. Traditionally, in these linguistic studies of dialect formation, that’s the 10-dollar word. You’re looking at something that’s very geographically bound. You have a group of people from one dialect that are moving to another place for another dialect. You have this contact, and you can study things coming out of that. But for nonbinary gender, even now, I can say, “Aw, there’s so many more nonbinary people out there.” I mean, realistically, if we think about our own networks, we do not have – I mean, I guess I can’t say this about everybody – but most of us don’t have a huge amount of nonbinary people in it compared to how many other LGBT people or how many other men or women – there just aren’t that many nonbinary people. We do tend to find each other, but we don’t have these big communities.

Gretchen: There’s a certain clustering, but it’s also not absolute, and there’s lots of other stuff. Do you feel like the internet has an influence on how nonbinary people talk?

Jacq: I think it does in the sense that the internet – and in particular, that kind of American sphere of the internet – influences everything that everybody does all of the time in some ways. But I also think that gender – sex and gender, in particular – these core identity things interact so strongly with where we are and our immediate context that it’s not quite as – in terms of speech, I don’t think it’s quite as strong. I did have one participant – if I can talk about my dissertation a little bit.

Gretchen: Oh, yeah, please, no, tell us about how the nonbinary people talk.

Jacq: One of my participants, Istus, is nonbinary and very femme. One of the things I talked about at that conference talk that you saw me – the slides are on my website, if you wanna take a look.

Gretchen: Excellent, we can link to those.

Jacq: Sweet. Istus is nonbinary and also very femme. This is something that really challenges the stereotypes that we have. Even me as a researcher coming into this had this idea of you have these men and women, and then you have these nonbinary people that are challenging these stereotypes, but “nonbinary” is not necessarily “non-femme.” So, Istus’s femininity was very nonbinary. When she talked about trying to construct her voice, this femininity that she wanted to get across, she would talk about putting on, basically, a Californian accent. She would say, “I can talk like this, and I sound very feminine, but I also sound like I’m smiling all the time, and I’m not that nice a person.”

Gretchen: Is Istus a New Zealander? Because you’re doing your PhD in New Zealand.

Jacq: All of my participants were from Christchurch (Ōtautahi), New Zealand. They were mostly between the ages of 18 and 22 – so this really specific first year of university cohort where you’re learning your identity and really stretching out from under your parents’ wings for the first time. I also had a couple of participants that were over 40. That’s interesting because it also challenges our stereotypes of gender as this static thing that you’re a man or a woman. When we look at how language can change over time, we don’t always think about how the people that are speaking can change over time.

Gretchen: A lot of the most visible nonbinary people are younger, but there’re also older people who are saying, “Oh, these young people have described a word for this thing that I’ve felt my whole life, and actually, I’m also this identity, and now there’s a word for it.”

Jacq: Absolutely. I mean, being a 45-year-old nonbinary person, you don’t necessarily want to speak like a 20-year-old nonbinary person, right.

Gretchen: Totally.

Jacq: If 20-year-old nonbinary people are trying to navigate what sex and gender is, if you’re 40, there’s that much more history of trying to figure all of this out.

Gretchen: Absolutely. Going back to Istus, who is the subject of the talk that you gave at the New Zealand Linguistic Society, one of the things that struck me about this talk when you were doing it is that you had participants take selfies of what they wearing at the same points as they were doing recordings. They did a bunch of recordings with different people in different environments, so you could see how they changed how they talked in relation to both what they’re wearing and also who they’re talking to.

Jacq: Absolutely. Because I think all of us have this experience of thinking about how we’re perceived by somebody else. That perception, for many of us, isn’t limited to just our voices. We don’t exist as a voice that wanders around in the ether.

Gretchen: We are not disembodied voices. We are meat suits wearing clothing suits.

Jacq: Yes. Which is super frustrating for many people, too. I call these recordings “in the wild” because I had this idea of David Attenborough following – “And here, he encounters the cis person.” But yeah, knowing that how we choose to present ourselves in that way is gonna change the way that we talk. This is pretty established. Also, the person that we’re talking to is gonna change the way that we talk. If you’re talking to your parent, you’re gonna talk to them differently than if you’re talking to your boss. We know this. But I was particularly interested in the way that these gendered relationships are navigated for nonbinary people.

Gretchen: Do you have an example of how some of your participants talked differently with different people?

Jacq: One example is Istus would play with makeup in really interesting ways. When I had the participants come, they would show me their selfies of these recordings, and I’d say, “Describe this outfit to me,” so I could see what they found really important because what you choose to wear has a lot more different – like, you know what is significant to what you’re wearing versus you don’t know if I’m wearing my lucky socks. That kind of thing.

Gretchen: Yeah, I dunno if your socks are lucky. I dunno if this is, like, the same shirt I’ve been wearing for three days which gives it a different valance to me compared to “Oh, yeah, this is my favourite shirt that I never wear, and I only wear on special occasions.”

Jacq: Istus didn’t have this in a picture, but she described her “stealth outfit,” which was every aspect of the outfit presented very masculine – sort of a suit jacket and loafers and this kind of thing. But every minute aspect of the clothing was actually feminine. The buttons were on – I can’t remember what side buttons are supposed to be on – but the buttons were on –

Gretchen: Neither can I.

Jacq: – the buttons were on –

Gretchen: The feminine side.

Jacq: Yeah, and the shoes were from the women’s section. There was this whole stealth coding that Istus was doing for herself – not for other people unless they’re cued in.

Gretchen: If she needs to go about as someone who doesn’t want her gender remarked on that particular day.

Jacq: Yeah, then she can choose where that gets presented. She would also wear different kinds of makeup. She would describe it as “enough eyeshadow so you can’t see the bags under my eyes” was one of her quotes.

Gretchen: Love it.

Jacq: The other quote was “makeup for the sake of wearing makeup” versus makeup that you would wear sort of a more natural face. You’ll forgive me if I get any of this wrong. I am not a makeup person. It was interesting because the – in her voice – the feminine cues that she used would change based on how overt her makeup was.

Gretchen: This is something that stood out to me about your talk, the makeup thing, because I’m very femme, I’m very cis. To me, I want all of my gender vectors or all of my gender points in the femme tally. But what Istus did in this thing was, if she was wearing makeup, she would do less femme gender vocal cues, like she’s counterbalancing the gender points, and as long as you have enough in the femme category and enough in the masc category, then it balanced in her head for whatever her personal definition of “balanced” is, which isn’t how I approach gender but is a really interesting thing that I learned from your talk.

Jacq: Aw, thank you. I’m glad that you found it interesting. Yes, Istus – and this is a theme throughout all of the participants. I should say that I also interviewed binary participants – men and women – and there were certain themes there, too. I don’t want to leave them all the way out.

Gretchen: Totally. You gotta have a control group.

Jacq: Yeah. But for the nonbinary participants, there was this – in my dissertation, I called it “incongruence” – but this idea that if you want to create some kind of mixed signal or if you wanna create something that isn’t quite in the two boxes that the people who are listening to you maybe have, then you can either take cues from both, or you can try to find some kind of middle ground. Those are two quite different things. Something very overtly feminine in your physical presentation combined with something a little bit less feminine or more masculine in maybe your vocal presentation, that can still get to something that isn’t binary in a way different than being very neutral-sort-of-middle-ground is.

Gretchen: The neutral-middle-ground is like, “I’m just gonna wear a hoodie and jeans because every gender can wear a hoodie and jeans, and then nobody will be able to perceive me as any gender at all,” whereas in a clothing way, doing something that has mixed signals would be like, “Okay, I’m gonna have a beard and also this super sparkly eyeshadow” or something like that.

Jacq: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And that wasn’t quite where any of my particular participants went. But the idea that if you only have these two options, and you need to create a third option, there isn’t only one way to do a third option. There isn’t only one way to be nonbinary. A lot of how you do that, I found in my dissertation, is based on your own personality, which is like, “Oh, surprise, people have agency in how they talk,” and some people don’t like wearing super sparkly eyeshadow.

Gretchen: Totally. But also, sometimes you need to do the academic version of establishing that baseline because you could say, “Well, based on my friends, a lot of them which are nonbinary, people seem to do these strategies,” but having written it down in this academically legible place and gone through and done it with some statistics or something lets you say, “Okay, here’s what we have in terms of what we know now and maybe this would change in another decade if there becomes a more socially legible category of nonbinary-ness.”

Jacq: And I think, also, part of including binary participants in this work is to bring nonbinary people into both an academic conversation that’s already happening, which is, again, that sort of talk of legitimacy and saying, “Here’s an established body of work,” and bringing a “new population” – I’m making finger quotes; they’re not actually new – but bringing a different population – an “understudied” population, let’s say – into the fold, at the same time, that allows you to interrogate what’s already there. We have this whole body of literature that ignores that nonbinary people exist –

Gretchen: But that also doesn’t ask cis people or people that we’re presuming are cis, “How did you know that you’re cis? How do you know your gender? What are you doing to signal your gender with your voice? And how much of that are you doing deliberately?”

Jacq: I think that that’s really valuable, too, the idea that – I mean, there’s nothing that says a cis person isn’t allowed to think about masculinity, or how they present masculinity, or how they present femininity, or what that means. I mean, personally, I think it would be really useful if more cis people did that. If more people just thought about gender in ways that weren’t binary, talking to the binary men and women in my study, I was a little bit surprised, but it was amazing to see – I mean, some people never thought about it. There’s questions about “How do you feel about being a woman?” or being a man, and people said, “I dunno. I never thought about it. It just felt right.” But not everybody. Some of the participants that I spoke to did deeply interrogate their gender at some point in their lives. One of my cis male participants talked about thinking that maybe they were trans for a while and then realising they weren’t. I think the fact that we, as people – and also, we as linguists doing these studies on language – can interrogate even binary gender from these perspectives is really valuable.

Gretchen: This was something that came up in a recent episode that we did about the vowel space and how gender affects the vowel space, which we can link to. One of things that I find neat about that research is that even kids who haven’t gone through puberty yet who still have all identical vowel spaces or vowel spaces with as much variation as they have in heights but nothing specifically affected by the physical changes of puberty are still doing social genders and actually have different vowels based on the genders in their heads even though their bodies aren’t affecting what sounds they can produce yet.

Jacq: That works the other direction, too. We often think of puberty as this thing where a bunch of stuff happens to you, and then you pop out the other end like, talking and looking like –

Gretchen: A gender, now.

Jacq: A gender. You are this. But that’s not – I mean, the variation that almost any given human can produce is so much wider than the constraints of physiology. I’m not the only person to look at this. I know that Viktoria Papp has done really excellent work with transmasc people. Lal Zimman also works with transmasc populations a lot, too. You can take testosterone, and it can thicken your vocal folds, and it can create a drop in pitch, but that’s not what it means to talk like a man if you’re transmasc. That’s not the end of it. At the risk of summing up someone else’s research in two sentences, what you tend to see, I think, in Vietze’s work is a drop, an initial drop, from testosterone, and then it kind of pops back up again with the idea that, as people become more comfortable in their bodies and in their lives and in their situations, there’s less pressure to perform some stereotypical masculinity and more to just be the person they are, the transmasc person they are, or the nonbinary person they are.

Gretchen: That sounds neat. We can link to that study so that if people want to hear more than the two-sentence summary version, they can follow up on that.

Jacq: And Lal Zimman’s work is amazing. Every single thing that Lal has written is fantastic, too.

Gretchen: Yes. Everyone’s in the Lal Zimman fan club. So, you have a corpus, which is delightfully called, I think, “The RAINBO Corpus.”

Jacq: Yeah, “Recorded Audio-visual Interviews with nonbinary and Binary Orators. It’s “RAINBO” without a W.

Gretchen: Oh, and it spells “RAINBO” – that’s so good!

Jacq: For the sake of the acronym.

Gretchen: That’s such a beautiful acronym. You have six nonbinary participants in there, and six binary participants, and they held this speech that you looked at the pitch of it, and you’ve looked at how they do their vowels and things. You also have a talk and a paper, I think, you’re working on that’s co-authored with one of those research participants who then de-anonymised themself from the previous anonymous corpus work that they were in.

Jacq: Yeah.

Gretchen: I find this really interesting because there’s this interesting balancing act in academic between, “Oh, I’ve got a research participant. They’ve got sensitive data. I’m going to preserve their anonymity,” and also, sometimes when people are telling us really interesting things about their lives or their language choices or their identities, giving them credit for that intellectual contribution to the work which names them – yeah, can you talk about this balancing act about participant and researcher collaboration?

Jacq: Absolutely. I would love to. I’ve been thinking about it a lot. I don’t want to portray myself as an expert. There is a whole other body of work where your collaborators, your language consultants, work very closely with the researcher, but that’s not always the same methodology as the bigger picture, what we call “variationist,” studies where we’re trying to look at large groups of people and how they speak. Kaspar is the name of the person that I worked with. And I got their permission before this episode – I asked them how they wanted to be referred, and they said, “Okay.” We’ll call them Kaspar, which is great because that’s their name, so it’s super easy for me to remember.

Gretchen: But they also had a pseudonym in the study originally.

Jacq: Yeah. In the study, if you read my dissertation – which you don’t have to, but if you do – in the study, they were called “Alex.”

Gretchen: Dissertations are notably very long and, often, in the years after a dissertation comes out, people will write some shorter papers that summarise small bits of the dissertation. Keep an eye on Jacq and their website. Maybe there’ll be shorter versions. But if you really wanna read the whole dissertation or skim through it and pick out the bits that look interesting to you, we will link to it.

Jacq: I had set up, for my dissertation, you know, as a – I think there’s something else. Dissertations are a long work, and you’re learning as you go. That’s the point. When you’re planning these ethics and all of the things in planning this dissertation, you go through the process that has already been established. I did that. It’s fine. Kaspar came and was recorded. It ended up, as it happens, after I had done my data collection, Christchurch is not a huge place. Kaspar and I were in the same social circles, and we became friends after the data collection. Every once in a while, we would talk about the work that I was doing and stuff I was studying because they were super interested. They have a background in mathematics, and they’re familiar with linguistics, so it’s not like they knew nothing about linguistics.

Gretchen: So, when you were showing them some pretty graphs, they were like, “Oh, cool, graphs. I like those.”

Jacq: Yeah. And then I can’t remember if I asked them or they offered to do some proofreading before I had submitted it, and I sent them a draft. I got it back, and there were smiley faces and frowny faces on a lot of stuff. Then because we’re friends, we went and hung out and talked about it, and there’s something different. You’re participating in research. You’re getting recorded. And then research comes out. You know that you’re maybe nonbinary. You’re this population. And then you see yourself on a graph that plots your pitch somewhere, and you know what the stereotypes about feminine pitch and masculine pitch are. I mean, I did a bad thing in that sense. I hurt somebody, right, in not earth-shattering ways, I don’t think – or at least Kaspar didn’t tell me it was earth-shattering.

Gretchen: But in frowny face ways, yeah.

Jacq: And we share this perspective of the importance of examining new populations using established methodology and these traditional ways of doing things to grant – whatever you wanna call it – some kind of legitimacy from the academy – or however we wanna navigate this – but then this is still real people that are given little dots or little diamonds and plopped on a graph. I can say in 300 words how this isn’t meant to tell people how gendered they are; this is meant to examine nonbinary people and compare them on equal footing with binary populations, but of course, nonbinary people don’t come to the table with no baggage, with nothing behind them. You come, and you come with a gendered upbringing, a gendered – you exist in a world, right. You can’t just not.

Gretchen: Totally.

Jacq: That was really hard. We had a lot of conversations about that through the course of proofreading a dissertation and submitting it and trying to get to a point. And I didn’t have – because of the way that the ethics works – I couldn’t contact every other participant afterward and get the same insights and things. But it’s not all bad. Kaspar expressed to me how interesting it was and how amazing it was to see their plots there and the joy of seeing themself not in the ASAB cohort that they expected versus the sadness when they came a little bit too close or that kind of thing. We gave a talk about this and, hopefully, a paper that examines that a little bit more. The other benefit is that, now I have a collaborator and a co-author, it means that we can do a lot more really interesting stuff with data.

Gretchen: Well, and if they know all this math, you can do such cool math.

Jacq: And we can track them over time, and we can do new recordings and even stuff about how these interviews with people, or these recordings, are still a snapshot in time. Things aren’t static. People change, and people’s interpretations of themselves are reinvented constantly. I’m really excited. Watch for that paper.

Gretchen: That sounds really cool and really exciting. We will look forward to the Jacq-Kaspar collaboration, Kaspar-Jacq collaboration. You can keep swapping your names for who goes first if you do a whole bunch of different co-authorships like people do.

Jacq: It made me glad that I wasn’t recording myself.

Gretchen: Were you sometimes interviewing or the interlocutor?

Jacq: Yeah. We did these “in the wild” recordings, and then we had the traditional sociolinguistic interview with all of these questions. We recorded me at first thinking there might be accommodation stuff, but then it’s also just like, I can’t transcribe, like, 400 million hours of –

Gretchen: So, “linguistic accommodation” is the thing where, when you’re talking with someone, especially if you like them or you’re trying to get along with them, you talk more like the person you’re talking to, which happens to lots of people lots of the time. I certainly do it. And you were thinking, well, maybe if people are talking more like you when they’re talking with you, then that might shift things, but also, you end up with a lot of data.

Jacq: Yeah, that’s true. It ended up doing a little bit of spot checking. It didn’t seem quite there because of these outsider-insider relationships of I am Canadian sitting in New Zealand interviewing people. There was enough of a gulf that it didn’t seem –

Gretchen: They didn’t all start sounding Canadian when you were interviewing them. I’m shocked.

Jacq: They weren’t like, [stereotypical Canadian accent] “Oh, hey, thanks for interviewing me.”

Gretchen: Maybe this is a good segue actually because you’re a fellow Canadian, hello, “Welcome to the podcast, eh” – [laughter] – who’s been living in New Zealand for nine years now.

Jacq: Yeah, almost a decade.

Gretchen: Amazing. We’ve had a previous interview with Ake Nicholas talking about Cook Islands Māori if people want to hear someone with a more New Zealand accent.

Jacq: Actual New Zealand accent.

Gretchen: An actual New Zealand accent. But this is presumably a linguistic experience for you. Do you wanna say anything about what it’s been like? Do you talk differently to people other than me who don’t have a similar Canadian accent?

Jacq: It’s kind of hard to know. I think there’re a few things. I noticed about four or five years in that I was losing my Canadian raising. We had gone somewhere, and I said, “Aw, look at those three houses.” I was like, “Ah! What did I just do?” Instead of saying /haʊsəz/, I said /haʊzəz/. I was like, “Ugh.” Which is funny because when I lived in Canada, I never noticed Canadian raising. It was one of those things that was so –

Gretchen: So, Canadian raising, which we actually haven’t talked about on Lingthusiasm yet – so maybe someday in the future –

Jacq: What!

Gretchen: – is the thing that is responsible for the differences between how I say the vowel in “house” [noun] versus “house” [verb] or in “height” versus “high” – “height,” “high,” “house,” “house.” I will say, I don’t Canadian raise that much, so it’s a difference in terms of how you say the vowel between /t/ and /d/ or /s/ and /z/. There’re some people who say something like, “about,” more like /əboʊt/. There’s a stereotype that Canadians say /əbʊt/, and that’s not true. I want to correct that right now. People in lots of other English-speaking environments don’t do this Canadian raising, and you noticed that you were stopping doing it. Anecdotally, I also notice people that move to Canada do start doing more Canadian raising, so this seems to be one of the ones that’s flexible in people’s speech.

Jacq: Yeah, I think that’s true. It’s funny because it’s so stereotyped in Canada. I don’t think it’s as strong as the stereotype, but it’s definitely sticky in a weird way. I did lose it. But probably, in this interview, it’s back.

Gretchen: It clicks back in.

Jacq: Yeah.

Gretchen: Any other things that you’ve noticed?

Jacq: I remember when I first landed in New Zealand – so New Zealand is non-rhotic. There’s no R. Words that are spelt E-A-R, like “ear,” and words that are spelt A-I-R, like “air,” have merged, so they’re pronounced the same. I was sitting on the airplane waiting to disembark, and the announcer came on, and they said, “Could everyone exit via the /ɹiəɹ stiəɹz/?”

Gretchen: Oh. [Laughs]

Jacq: I had this moment of, like, cows stacked up at the back of a plane. Like, and it’s sat with me, and I think it’s because the context wasn’t quite enough for me to get – but I was like, “Rear steers? Rear steers. What?”

Gretchen: Well, it’s what you exit the “ear-plane” by, obviously.

Jacq: “When you exit the ear-plane by the rear steers, or alternatively, exit the airplane by the rare stairs,” which are the stairs that they don’t bring out that often.

Gretchen: We have to save the rare stairs and the fine china for guests.

Jacq: Exactly.

Gretchen: That’s exactly the kind of thing that, especially, when you’re hitting something out of context, and they seem to be more fond of using that, so if you weren’t used to that particular phrase, either, it would catch.

Jacq: Yeah, and I mean, you’re also in a new place and all of this, and you’re trying to pay attention because you have to do what the airplane people tell you because that’s the rules. I have one more anecdote that is very deeply only Canadian and New Zealand overlap.

Gretchen: Please, I wanna hear it.

Jacq: Maybe this is only western Canada. We’ll see. So, Gretchen, what do you call the front row of seats in the classroom?

Gretchen: Oh, that’s where the “keeners” sit.

Jacq: That’s where the “keeners” sit, right, that’s the “keener” seats, right?

Gretchen: I dunno if I have “keener seats” specifically as a phrase, but like, absolutely, totally understand you when you say this.

Jacq: So, if somebody’s a “keener,” that’s the person at the front of the class, yeah.

Gretchen: Absolutely, yeah. I have told people about this Canadianism myself.

Jacq: Amazing! I’m glad it’s a super salient Canadianism.

Gretchen: I’ve introduced Lauren to it, in fact.

Jacq: So, it’s not a thing in New Zealand. They don’t have keeners, but New Zealanders say “keen” all the time.

Gretchen: Oh, but for something different.

Jacq: You’ll say – and apologies to any New Zealanders if I get these pragmatically a little bit wrong – but you’ll say, “Ah, I’m going for coffee. Is anyone keen?” Or you might say, “Ah, the movie’s coming out next week,” and someone else might say, “Keen,” like they’re keen to go.

Gretchen: Oh, okay, yeah, I think I could say, “I’m keen to go,” but not “keen” by itself in a phrase like that.

Jacq: No, and I think that my impression – my 8-year-old, 9-year-old Canadian impression – is that you don’t really use “keen” – because it has a little bit of that odd, negative – I mean, it’s a “keener” thing, so unless you’re really claiming –

Gretchen: That you’re a big fan of Star Wars, and you’re a Star Wars keener, and you definitely have to go see the new one.

Jacq: If you’re keen to go to Star Wars, you wanna be in the front row.

Gretchen: Of course! Yeah, okay, yeah, I sort of get that. It’s not as neutral. It’s like you’re really actively excited. You’re not just like, “Oh, yeah, I’d be good to go” or like “I’d be down to go.” “I’d be keen to go” is like, “I’d be so keen to go! That would be great!” not just like, “It’d be fine.”

Jacq: Yeah, but if you’re keen, you’re like, “Yeah, I could” – if you wanted to be extra, you could double up the New Zealandisms and you could be “keen as.”

Gretchen: Oh, yeah, I’ve heard the “as.”

Jacq: You could be “keen as,” but I don’t know – that’s where my knowledge of New Zealand lexical items stops is at “as.”

Gretchen: I love “keener” as a Canadianism because my prof friends will be like, “Oh, one of my keeners came to my office hours today,” and they’ll mean that student who’s always asking really good questions and is really excited to be there and stuff like that. It’s very positive when my prof friends who were all themselves keeners back in the day use it. Maybe some people use it negatively, but I sure don’t know any of them.

Jacq: If you are a keener, then “keener” is quite positive, but maybe less so if you're not.

Gretchen: Maybe less so. So, you finished your PhD, and you’re teaching now. I have been told that you make students stab themselves with toothpicks for science. Can you tell us about that?

Jacq: I would love to tell you about that, with a caveat: I tell students to very carefully try not to stab themselves with toothpicks, but it doesn’t quite translate. I teach phonetics, which involves learning about all of the sounds and how we make them. If you’re a speaker of English, you might be familiar with this little sound called “R.”

Gretchen: R is a sound, yes, that I’m familiar with.

Jacq: The alveolar approximate, the /ɹ/ noise. The R sound, the /ɹ/, can be made about 16 million different ways. There’s something like eight or nine different things that you can do with your mouth that will get you close enough to /ɹ/ for people to understand you.

Gretchen: Oh, wow. When I was learning phonetics, they told us there were two different ways, and there’s actually six or eight of them.

Jacq: There’s two different tongue positions, and that’s where the toothpick comes in. But you can also do – there’s different stuff with the back of your mouth. Some people have lip rounding, and some people don’t. Some people raise this and that – yeah, there’s different ways to do it. But you were right when you were learning phonetics.

Gretchen: But because it all produces approximately the same sound, kids just hear adults making the sound, and they experiment with their mouths to produce The Sound, and because the meat suit part of our throats is kind of squishy, you can manipulate it in different ways and end up with the same thing that comes out.

Jacq: You get close enough. In English, we don’t have a lot of other stuff in that area, too. When you think about it, if you’re a kid, if you think about something like a /p/, if you’re a baby looking at a caregiver going /p/, you can really see that, right, but a /ɹ/, you get a face, and you don’t really know what’s going on.

Gretchen: You just get a blank face. You can’t see what they’re doing. With something like a /k/, you can’t necessarily see what they’re doing, but the sound is very distinct that they’re making. /ɹ/ is this approximate sound, which is why it’s called an “approximant” in the International Phonetic Alphabet because it’s just sort of like, “Eh, I dunno.”

Jacq: Close enough, yeah. What you get is you have this sound where there’s a bunch of different ways to make it, and also a bunch of speakers that don’t really know how they make it. When you say something like a /k/, you make that sound, and you’re like, “Oh, my tongue goes here.” But when you’re making a /ɹ/, it changes – depending on where it is in the word – all this stuff. As you learned in your phonetic class, there are two ways that your tongue can be shaped when you’re making a /ɹ/ sound. This may blow some people’s minds because they never thought about it before and didn’t realise that the other way is possible. The two big ways are – they have a million different names because of course they do – but one is called the “bunched R,” usually.

Gretchen: This is when your R, like the back part of your tongue sort of crunches up or gloms up into a bit of a shape at the back that doesn’t actually touch the roof of your mouth.

Jacq: The back of your tongue is all crunched up, and the front of it is down at the bottom of your mouth. The other way to do it is often called the “retroflex R,” or the “curly R,” so you have bunch-y R and curly R. The curly R – the retroflex R – the front of your tongue is curled up and back a little bit.

Gretchen: It’s almost like the tip of the bottom of your tongue is touching, or almost touching, the roof of your mouth.

Jacq: Yes. Which one do you make? It’s hard to –

Gretchen: I know which one I make!

Jacq: Awesome! One of the important points of science is confirmatory analysis. You should replicate this finding and see if it still holds true. If you wanna know which R you make, there’s a way that you can do this with just a toothpick. It’s really easy. All you do is you take a toothpick, a clean one – and make sure you wash your hands – and then you take your toothpick, and you make an R sound – /ɹ/ – or you can pretend you’re a dog and go [imitates dog growl], something like that, just make your /ɹ/ noise. Then you take your toothpick, and you rest it on your bottom teeth or however you wanna – kind of have it centrally into your mouth – and as you go /ɹ/, slowly and carefully, and not stab-ily, put the toothpick into your mouth, and then go, “bleh,” stick your tongue out. The toothpick will either be touching the top of your tongue or the bottom of your tongue.

Gretchen: Whoa! And this tells you which R you have?

Jacq: Yes. And if it’s touching the bottom of your tongue, you’re making a retroflex – you’re making a curly R. And if it’s touching the top of your tongue, you’re making a bunched R.

Gretchen: So, you’re either a curler or a buncher, and you can tell this based on which side you are. I actually went looking for toothpicks so that I could try this and ended up finding a cotton swab, like a Q-Tip, before I saw my toothpicks, and so I tried this with a cotton swab and did not stab myself. This is the safety conscious version you can do if you like because it also works.

Jacq: As long as it’s clean and your hands are clean, that’s a good, safe way to do it.

Gretchen: I’m a buncher, which I thought I was, and I have just confirmed that.

Jacq: Anecdotally, in Canada, it was usually about 50/50 when we go through classes, or we try it. This is in Alberta.

Gretchen: And in New Zealand is it also 50/50, or is it different?

Jacq: In New Zealand, there are a lot more bunchers. I think this might have to do with New Zealand being non-rhotic. I don’t have a paper on this. I don’t know anything. But there’s also a lot less lip rounding. In Canada, lip rounding is almost universal, like it’s on Rs a lot.

Gretchen: Yeah, I lip round.

Jacq: But in New Zealand, that’s not the case. Most people don’t round their lips.

Gretchen: Jacq, thank you so much for joining us on the podcast. As we ask at the end of every interview, “If you could leave people knowing one thing about linguistics, what would it be?”

Jacq: It would be that you’re the boss of your language. How you communicate with people – it’s all on you. People can tell you how they think you should talk. Even linguists can say, “Well, this is how people talk.” But if you’re not feeling it, do something different. You can change it. You can do whatever you want, communicate however you wanna communicate. Don’t let anyone tell you what to do.

[Music]

Gretchen: For more Lingthusiasm and links to all the things mentioned in this episode, go to lingthusiasm.com. You can listen to us on all of the podcast platforms or at lingthusiasm.com. You can get transcripts of every episode on lingthusiasm.com/transcripts. You can follow @lingthusiasm on all the social media sites. You can get scarves with lots of linguistics patterns on them including the IPA, branching tree diagrams, bouba and kiki, and our favourite esoteric Unicode symbols, plus other Lingthusiasm merch – like our “Etymology isn’t Destiny” t-shirts and aesthetic IPA posters – at lingthusiasm.com/merch. You can find our co-host, Lauren Gawne, on social media, and her blog is Superlinguo. Links to my social media can be found at gretchenmcculloch.com. My blog is AllThingsLinguistic.com. My book about internet language is called Because Internet. You can find our guest, Jacq Jones, on their website at jacq.land – that’s J-A-C-Q-dot-L-A-N-D. Lingthusiasm is able to keep existing thanks to the support of our patrons. If you wanna get an extra Lingthusiasm episode to listen to every month, our entire archive of bonus episodes to listen to right now, or if you just wanna help keep the show running ad-free, go to patreon.com/lingthusiasm or follow the links from our website. Patrons can also get access to our Discord chatroom to talk with other linguistics fans and be the first to find out about new merch and other announcements. Recent bonus episodes include spoonerisms, mondegreens, and eggcorns; secret codes and the joys of cryptic word puzzles; and inner voice, mental pictures, and other shapes for our thoughts. Can’t afford to pledge? That’s okay, too. We also really appreciate it if you can recommend Lingthusiasm to anyone in your life who’s curious about language. Lingthusiasm is created and produced by Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne. Our Senior Producer is Claire Gawne, our Editorial Producer is Sarah Dopierala, our Production Assistant is Martha Tsutsui-Billins, and our Editorial Assistant is Jon Kruk. Our music is “Ancient City” by The Triangles.

Jacq: Stay lingthusiastic!

[Music]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

[moonshine-dan]

Personal Headcanons:

Sakusa Kiyoomi

This is mostly to provide context for fics I write with him and how I interpret his character. I might add to this at random! NSFW below cut.

He's not an asshole for fun- he's brusque with people because he respects their time and wants them to respect his.

Similar to above- he's not an OCD germaphobe, he's just tidy and dislikes unnecessary mess where it's avoidable. He's got standards. And he doesn't like being sick! Is basic hygiene such a high bar???

It's really just high anxiety but he'd never admit to it

Not a 'dry' texter but he's not writing more than he needs to.

Was told once as a teenager that he was a shitty boyfriend and he took that personally. He spent a month reading magazines and internet articles on how to be a better partner & now has a brain lobe dedicated to Cosmo and Buzzfeed advice that comes in varying degrees of handy at random times

He has hypermobile wrists; I think he does get the associated body and joint pain associated with them. He's not in agony, but he's dealing with low to midgrade pain almost constantly.

Part of why he's got a reputation for being short with people is that he's often kind of tired or in pain and is band at recognizing or expressing it. He wants to go HOME.

He's a goofball but in Strange and Offputting ways, not fun and endearing ways. Has his own sense of humor.

If he's being silly with you, he trusts you. If he's putting your stuff in his bag 'on accident' or pulling 'too slow' high five shit with you, you've fucking made it into his heart.

I don't think he's very experienced in sexual relations! He takes dating seriously & doesn't rush. Not many have stayed with him long enough for him to feel like sex is on the table.

Does not have a very high sex drive and is not super curious about exploring much about himself on his own- but he's more than happy to indulge your sexual fantasies if you ask.

Not huge on PDA but not shy at all about telling people you are together. Arm holder, not hand holder.

He runs warm and is always in shorts and short sleeves if he can help it.

Moles all over. Got a mole next to his dick. Self conscious about it even though it's irrational bc he's very pale and they stick out :(

Addicted to tiger balm and camphor spray. Huffs it like glue when putting them on.

Secretly thinks laundry soap and dishwashing powder smell good. Sniffs them every time he uses them.

While not a fan of PDA, he's on more than one occasion shown up to a date with a gift unprompted. He'd buy you one of those embarrassing and Huge stuffed animals and carry it for you.

He has very strong opinions on the use of sesame oil as a condiment. "It's overused. And it smells so strong. And they always put so much in."

He's not a hard top only dom. He's actually very happy to be the sub- he CAN switch, but he enjoys following the lead and reacting to your wants.

Bro is ALWAYS OUT ON A RUN. Morning? Running before breakfast. Lunch? Has a circuit by the river. At night? On a jog before dinner. He WILL ask you to join him once a week.

He knows how to cook but only the blandest meals known to man. He cannot handle spice at all and gets bright fucking red, it's lame as hell and he hates it

Average sensitivity in general, except for his sides and waist. He gets jumpy if you touch them. it's cute :)

He's also very tenderheaded. poor thang :(

There is nothing in the WORLD more erotic to him than a massage. Work the knots out of his shoulder and he'll fuck you till you pass tf OUT

Does not like used condom smell. at all. He's genuinely considered a vasectomy so he can hit it raw without consequence

[kickingtheladder]

I think Niko should come back from her trip to the snowy spirit realm or wherever she is with the ability to turn into a polar bear because of the bear luck charm (And then she helps Tragic Mick turn into a walrus again because you never know when the good you do comes around)

But mostly I just think it would be very good for everyone to get into trouble and Niko to be dressed in her amazing adorable outfits and underestimated by everybody and then suddenly there's a fuck off big giant bear there instead

[spywhitney]

How I sleep knowing I'll never trust anyone that hates Sydney but worships Richie:

[pine-arten]

i spent all yesterday making a semi-realistic slugcat base. i used sphinx cats as a reference, so they’re pretty cat like here

 i imagine they hold themselves different than an actual cat though, plus more robust shoulders for bipedal-ism

this is the survivor btw :) i think i’ll do monk next

[j-esbian]

(one of) the most frustrating parts about the portrayal of drow society is that it wants to create Reverse Sexism without uncoupling itself from some. pretty foundational patriarchal ideas. it ascribes to the (tired, essentialist) notion that men are inherently good at certain things, and women are inherently suited for different things

but rather than the basic subversion of “women are warriors and men are the homemakers” or even early feminist thought experiments like “traditionally ‘women’s priorities’ are given importance over ‘men’s’ (ie things are governed by council, importance is placed on childrearing, etc)”, menzoberranzan is “this society still holds to patriarchal values and women are not as good at these things which is why it’s demonstrably worse”.

the biggest tell is that they have to control the male population to maintain female dominance, the implication being that in a fair fight, men would easily overpower them. it assumes the misogynist ideas as fact that “women are inherently weaker” and also “women are duplicitous” so the drow fighting style is based on stealth and sabotage rather than “”honorable”” face- to-face combat (letting lie also the assumption that the only avenue for ambition is through military violence, and therefore still making it so that they are reliant on men, even as disposable shock troops, for their success).

the only things that keep women in charge are by stacking the numbers on a systematic level, and through sexual domination on the individual level (because clearly the only real power a woman can have over men is her sexuality).

it is a society where “men act like men” but women don’t act like women; it is evil because an act of god created an aberration against the “natural order” of things, and there is no one to tend the hearth (because if the women won’t do it, no one will)

[lurking-latinist]

⛵

[toytulini]

i made an oc thats at least nicknamed "Stupid" and im constantly thinking about what a power move that is tbh

[itspileofgoodthings]

in the most concrete way yet I feel like I’m getting a handle on what my flaws and weaknesses actually are lol.