yawwwndere

[yawwwndere]

To all the ventblogs:

Please take care. This community is not safe if I'm present in here. You can now take my torch if there is a lot willing to be ventblogs now, and I'm really proud of what a silly idea of mine evolved to.

I am sorry for leaving. I am sorry for cowardly leaving like this. But my mental health is now unstable. One bad step now and I dont know where I can end.

I'll be fine, but please, take care of yourselves. You are all amazing people!!!

-Mod Polly (i quit)

We love you forever mod Polly. Please stay safe 🫂

[yawwwndere]

I've been thinking about Catra post-finale.

Her and Adora would spend countless years healing and working to right Catra's wrongs. I think the initial getting back together would be the easy part- but then the rebuilding; the diplomacy dinners; the conversations with heads of government would start. Catra in clothes she isn't comfortable in discussing rebuild options for communities she personally oversaw the destruction of. Always having to stand at The Hero's hip during speeches and at parties. She would feel less-than in every conversation with Adora present.

Her past will follow her wherever she goes. Not only because you can't turn off mental illness with a switch, but kids still recoil at her touch when she visits previously Horde-occupied towns.

Yeah, they got a happy ending, but Catra will always have to live with what she did, both in her head and in the way people look at her.

[yawwwndere]

maybe im fuckin paranoid at this point but something rubs me wrong about the square spiral pattern used on eve's shirt. reminds me too much of the boylover/girllover symbols that pedos use. i wouldnt be shocked if it was somehow a special incest symbol she invented. figured id tell SOMEONE because its been irking since forever

I’ve been thinking this for a while too

[yawwwndere]

They r Lesbians your honour

[yawwwndere]

5x05 / 5x12

[yawwwndere]

the fact that, for years, kittycorn has said that she cut off jay, doesn't support chimera, has cut off oliver/ame, and then turns around and ends up having been friends with them the entire time? is so disgusting.

i know it's not the most important thing in all of this, but it's utterly disgusting to have lied to everyone like that for so long - including the other zcp members! the zcp were the ones telling people that those abusers weren't involved in sparklecare anymore and had been cut off because they genuinely believed and trusted kittycorn when she said she had! of course, i know all of the zcp members aren't innocent (emsody, and i think people have been talking about carmen lately, the one who made polly?), but it's still such a fucked up thing to do, since most of the zcp is innocent.

anyways. go block @/tinycatfriend and @/jayfortune if you haven't already. those are both jay.

[yawwwndere]

horde prime knows all. especially on the topic of complicated lesbian situationships

[yawwwndere]

Five Years Since Catradora Kissed.

Five years ago on this day, a certain ship from kids cartoon that I love named Catradora became canon and kissed and saved their whole goddamn universe. And I don't think anything in any peice of queer media has hit me the same way since then. It still fills me with warmth and happiness just as it did all those years ago.

Catradora isn't just two girls from this really well written show that got together at the end. It's a testament to what stories in our modern age can be capable of doing, the stories they are capable of telling.

Yes, that has come with some caveats, how the creators of these stories are treated like dogshit by the powers that be, as well as 'certain' parts of their audience, not to mention the corporations owning these stories force their queerness into their rainbow capitalisc assimilationist horsecrap. But even still... just seeing how Catradora makes other people feel, how other people have been able to discover themselves because of them tells me that they have a power that no corporate suit will ever understand.

Catra is literally my transition goals for instance and I see so many people identify themselves as an "Adora" or a "Catra" kinnie. Their stories have helped people feel seen and be okay with themselves in a way I haven't seen so openly possible for a long time.

As for myself... Catradora has been there for me for every rough spot I've had the last few years. That no matter what, they give me some comfort. I've seen a lot of drama and bs in the She-Ra fandom, the likes of which I know drove some people away... but I am still here, because my love for these two dorks will always be there. If everyone in the Catradora fandom was to just give up and go to another fandom somewhere else, I would still be here. I would literally be the only Catradora girl alive if that were possible.

I know that in my personal expereince that I've made a lot of mistakes in my time in the fandom. Since I've been off my main social media places a lot the last few months, it's given me a time to think on how toxic and cynical I could be at times, how sometimes I'd make terrible mistakes that would make some people uncomfortable or how toxic some She-Ra fandom spaces were. This is not a callout post by the way, I don't do that kind of thing.

I don't expect everyone to forgive me for some of the things I've done in the past or things I've said. As much as I would want nothing more than to make ammends for anything I've said or done that's warranted any reputation I might have, I realise I can't force people to change. Adora didn't force Catra to change after all, she did it of her own volition and Adora's freinds likewise accepted Catra because they wanted to, not because Catra forced them to.

But I will say this... I am genuinely sorry for everything. For any conversations or ideas I might have worded badly that made people uncomfortable, for going on giant long cynical rants and vents because I was in a bad place, for all of that. I am truly sorry and I hope that I can at least be friends with some of you again.

And while I was only an observer for a lot of the other She-Ra fandom drama, I am sorry to everyone who left the fandom because of that too. I am so goddamn sorry that a bunch of sometimes justified internet drama and arguements caused you to no longer enjoy a beautiful series like She-Ra. I am sorry people did racist shit to Catra that made POC in the fandom deeply uncomfortable, I am sorry that so many people rallied behind good ships like Glimmadora and Entrapdak to harass Catradora stans because of the internet media ilteracy that trained them to hate Catra. I am sorry that these last five years haven't exactly been the best for a lot of you and I know that I alone can't exactly do much to fix that.

But what am I going to do? I'm going to try and keep being postive and making things that I at least hope make someone happy, that put a smile on someone's face. I have over 200 fics about Catradora alone posted on AO3 and probably much, much more planned in the future. Heck, the day this goes up, I'll be FINALLY properly making a start on the big post-canon She-Ra series I've always wanted to write.

I want to try and be a beacon of hope and positivty for anyone who visits my pages. I was told by I think @catras-breakup-song and @witch-apologist that I have somewhat of a repuation for being a nice blog that shows up in people's feeds on here and I hope I can still be that for another five years.

Catradora are in a way... an inspiration to me. Creatively, by writing tons of stories about them. And for their happiness giving me such hope on the days I feel so dark.

So here's to the next five, hell, next TEN years, because hey, if Korrasami can keep people going for ten years, Catradora most certainly can!

May Catradora and everything about She-Ra keep you happy for a good long time, my friends. I hope to see some of you again soon.

[yawwwndere]

i understand no mental illnesses have been tied to any gene, but my understanding was that there is some evidence on heritability in some cases i.e. for ADHD “many genetic…risks…have a small effect” (doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.022); how are we to understand such findings through a antipsych lens?

okay I just want to be clear because I think a lot of you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what people mean when we self id as 'antipsych.' it's not that 'antipsych' is some sort of pie-in-the-sky theory that I pre-committed to and now have to reconcile with the medical literature—it's more like, I grew up as a very I Fucking Love Science Dot Com child, got interested in psychology among other things, started reading both popular and medical literature about it, started to notice that the things I was reading about psychology and mental diseases didn't really line up with the things I and people I knew experienced and heard when actually interacting with doctors and psychologists, and finally and only around about the age of 19 did I become aware that 'antipsych' is in fact a legitimate position that other people had come up with before me, and at that point I started to read things that you might be referring to here as being written 'through an antipsych lens.'

so, when I hear a question like this, ie one that presumes there is some contradiction between anti-psychiatric political commitments and the existing psychiatric literature, it suggests to me that you haven't really read the literature in question—where by 'read' I mean you need to actually look at the paper's methodology, and look at the process of knowledge-making that yields a sentence like "ADHD has genetic etiology." that's an empirical claim. evaluating whether it's true necessarily involves asking what evidence the person making the claim is offering. there are specific skills and strategies for doing this when you are a layperson dealing with specialised scientific literature; there is also a fundamental critical attitude you should adopt with regards to literally any claim, argument, discourse, article, etc.

it is always a good thing to recognise when you're in over your head and need help or further reading to understand a statistical method, piece of jargon, etc. but you do kind of have to, like, approach the issue with a fundamental attitude that just because someone said something in a scientific journal doesn't make it beyond reproach! read the claims, read the evidence, ask yourself if it makes sense. this isn't some rhetorical game of "I'm going to prove antipsych right"—the 'antipsych' is the loose umbrella term you are called when you actually read the psychiatric literature and critique the discipline's fundamental epistemological failures and disciplinary raison d'être. the horse draws the cart!

wrt 'genetic causes of psychiatric diseases' you also need to understand that many of you are tilting at windmills. I've never said genes don't have an effect on our affective and emotional lives. plainly, they do. this is not the same as "there is a distinct specific Pathology expressed in these genes; they are diseased and/or defective and this is why you feel miserable / cannot function / cannot go to work." like, we see these are two different statements, yes? if all we mean by ADHD is "a list of general behavioural dispositions" then yeah, of course those have genetic influences in addition to environmental ones. everything about us does. that does not mean that ADHD, the distinct and discrete clinical entity that psychiatrists presume exists (on the grounds of their patients having xyz problems), is indeed a 'genetic condition' or instantiates as a genetic mutation / malformation / differential expression / etc. this paragraph is foreshadowing.

having looked at the genetics section of this particular study for about 20 minutes (open-access here if you don't feel like searching by DOI), here are some things that immediately caught my attention:

this is just a meta-analysis of ADHD research. its claims are only as good as the underlying studies. a meta-analysis of shitty studies that had bad methodology will not 'even out' their respective badness, it will just produce a shitty meta-analysis that is intrinsically hampered by the bad underlying methodology. I've discussed this here.

the very first assertion under the genetics section cites three twin studies; I followed those links. first of all, these are written for other scientists, so they don't make a particularly clear (to lay people) distinction between the scientific notion of 'heritability' and what this term is typically interpreted to mean in popular discourses. so, to be clear, 'heritability' is an estimate of how much a given trait is caused by genetic factors at a population level. it does not tell you anything about how much an individual's expression of that trait is genetically caused, nor does heritability necessarily indicate the genetic cause is direct or dependent on one (or even a small number of) genes.

indeed, all three of these studies, and the overarching meta-analysis, assert that this genetic etiology is due to a very large number of very small genetic influences. this is not inherently scientifically unsound, but it does raise my eyebrows. how would we distinguish between a distinct pathology that is caused by a huge tangle of very low-impact genes, vs a whole bunch of behaviours that are socially stigmatised and grouped together on political grounds, and that also have some relationship to genetics, as does literally every physiological fact of human existence?

these cite twin studies, meaning basically they try to use comparisons between genetically identical twins and various other familial relationships to determine how much of a given characteristic is genetically caused. again, though, this is essentially boiling down to the observation that closely genetically related people have similar personality traits; also, twin studies in general have serious methodological problems with profound implications for the invocation of genetics in psychiatry.

in fact, the meta-analysis here also claims that ADHD can sometimes be due to "rare single gene defects" or chromosomal abnormalities. the study cited on the gene claim, for example, is also cited in the claim above, so I've already looked at it. the methodology here is to look at prevalence of ADHD among populations with certain known genetic conditions—that's it. now can we think of any other reasons why people diagnosed with one thing might also be diagnosed with another? for example, they're already in contact with the medical system. they have enough financial resources to seek diagnoses. symptoms of chronic pain & illness often manifest with attention disturbances. etc.

even if that were better founded, the claim they're making themselves here is that ADHD in fact has numerous genetic causes, all manifesting as the same behaviours and psychological disturbances. it's almost like those manifestations are not a single distinct pathology, but a group of 'signs' the clinician lumps together into a single diagnostic box regardless of whence they arise. hold that thought.

incidentally, that study also notes that initial heritability estimates for ADHD were much lower than what's cited now, and blames this on inaccurate self-assessment results, claiming the more recent studies using parent and teacher assessments of ADHD children are more accurate. of course, the actual diagnostic measure never became less 'subjective.' it's just that we trust it more if it's a parent reporting that their kids are all super ADHD than if it's the kid actually reporting their own experiences. because there certainly aren't any historical reasons why parents have felt the need to cling to the notion of a neurobiological, genetically determined distinct ADHD pathology!

similarly, numerous of these linked studies say that 'sub-threshold ADHD' (read: the behaviours considered to be ADHD symptoms, but at lower severity than clinicians have considered diagnosable) show the same genetic causal links—heritability. now that's also curious, no? almost like ADHD is not a discrete distinct genetically caused pathology, but a bunch of traits and behaviours that, like literally every human characteristic, have some genetic as well as environmental influence, and that are artificially grouped together under psychiatric taxa and presumed to be due to an underlying physical (genetic) defect.

indeed, what I'm laying out here is just the basic circularity that underlies all psychiatric diagnosis: we know you are X because you do Y, which you do because you are X, which we know because you showed up to the clinic and told us you do Y. I unpacked this logic in more detail here.

finally, and this bears pulling out from the list because it's important, multiple of these studies are claiming that they have identified general genetic risk factors for a broad variety of psychopathologies (example here). in other words, the claim is not even really that ADHD has specific genetic causes, but that some as-yet-unspecified genetic factor/s are generally responsible for what are diagnosed as mental diseases. how do we know that unspecified higher-order genetic factor exists? well, we don't. but we assume it's there. the same way we did for the 'general intelligence factor,' g, which by the way is entirely racist nonsense.

you may notice that basically all I've said here amounts to accusing psychiatry of failing to meet basic standards of empirical proof generally considered to be load-bearing elements of the 'scientific method.' this is not even really an 'antipsych' argument—it's, at best, a critique of psychiatry as it currently exists, using (in a locally uncritical way!) established standards of scientific discourse. I'm pointing this out both because it's an extremely valuable habit to get into yourself, and because I once again would love it if more people understood that 'antipsych' isn't really a prior theoretical commitment most of us just stumble into. it's a position we actively have to seek out, and often, what prompts us to begin doing that is precisely the experience of noticing problems like the above, and the corresponding utter failure of the psychiatric discipline to rectify such problems without nullifying its own epistemological foundations.

[yawwwndere]

The entire concept of freakycare and secretcanon is romanticizing stockholm syndrome. Which is very very dangerous given that it was created and canon in Kittycorn’s works. She was desensitizing her audience. A form of abuse predators use. She has surrounded herself among committed predators.

-Getting abused in your past isn’t an excuse for being disrespectful towards other victims who suffer from these issues.

-Getting abused in your past doesn’t excuse you making a mockery out of the LGBTQ for your own sexual benefit.

-Getting abused in your past doesn’t excuse projecting your kink on to fanart made by minors.

-Getting abused in your past doesn’t excuse doing the bare minimum to have your content 18+.

If Kittycorn ever reads this all I have to say is that you’re a grown woman. You know this stuff is wrong because you made it private in the first place. It doesn’t matter that it got leaked because you doubled down. This situation is your own grave, the only advice I have for you is to get therapy and disconnect yourself from the people enabling you.

Those people don’t give a flying shit about you. They see you as an sex object producing content for their own personal gratification.

[yawwwndere]

sometimes you people will be calling things "Body Horror" when it's just how some people live

[yawwwndere]

vomit

[yawwwndere]

lol. Lmao even.

[yawwwndere]

[yawwwndere]

TBH with the amount of people online who I see saying that writers and fandoms are justifying a character's bad actions because of their trauma when someone they hurt forgives them, I feel like everyone is going to hate my story involving Cluster B characters, even though not everyone forgives the main character and the other person in the main couple explicitly says that she will take her time to get closer to the main character again as part of her character arc.

I agree that a lot of kid shows make every character forgive someone when that isn't a good message to send to kids, but once we talk about media intended for teens and adults, especially media that hasn't even finished the story yet and we don't know how or even if a character will be "redeemed", I almost feel like people want to see every single character cut off somebody as some moral message, even if that doesn't fit the piece of media at all.

It's one reason why I hate the concept of redemption arcs now and why I avoid labeling my own characters as going through that, because when it's a piece of media made for adults, I don't think I have to counteract every single criticism I could get when it does not fit the themes of the story and actively tell people what to do all the time instead of presenting both sides of a situation. I'm not writing moral lessons for a kid's show. I'm focusing on specific themes and character arcs.

[yawwwndere]

[yawwwndere]

hmm