a collection of curious things

For several years, I thought I was a detransitioner. It turns out that I was just a plural system and didn't know about it (we'd had a switch in main fronters in my median system from a genderfluid person to a cis girl).

To me, it seemed like my identity had changed. All I knew was that I'd used to think I was trans and now thought I was a cis person.

It was really hard to have trans people tell me, over and over, that they believed everyone had the right to self identify, but I didn't. They believed everyone had the right to bodily autonomy, but I didn't. They believed everyone had the right not to be misgendered, but I didn't.

My partner and a few friends stood by me and I had to watch the rest of my friends leave. Any new trans people that I met during that time wanted nothing to do with me, leaving me extremely isolated and alone. Terfs knew this and reached out to me many times to try to get me on their side.

All this, and I *wasn't even detrans*. Most trans people think they're cis at some point in their lives. All other detrans people I met during this time were queer and were using that label for reasons like going from identifying as a binary trans person to identifying as non-binary.

visible gender nonconformity has Never been respected, full stop. there are some spaces where it's more common, because there are more trans and queer people in those spaces. but there has never been a reality where visibly feminine men or visibly masculine women are the norm.

and this only gets more complicated in trans spaces. because Yes, it IS a stereotype for trans people to be visibly gnc. this fact IS used to degrade, other, and fetishize us. it's Also true that many trans people Are gnc, and they embrace these traits While Knowing how they're seen because of them.

many gnc trans people find joy in their presentation Because they don't have access to transition. and many gnc trans people who DO transition are faced with open contempt and disgust because of it. their presentation not "passing," either by circumstance or choice or both, putting a target on their back.

and these trans people who can't conform or wouldn't be happy doing so have historically been scapegoated. treated with contempt even from within trans spaces because people are afraid of Being them. of being seen as lesser than, of being mocked or fetishized or othered out of association.

so often times when many young trans people latch on to characters with visibly gnc traits, men with hips or women with shoulders, it's not because of stereotypes they believe in but because they're TREATED like walking stereotypes.

people flock to these depictions of feminine trans mascs or masculine trans fems or trans neutral people who break boxes Because there IS so much negativity pointed at these presentations. because it IS difficult to find spaces that treat them with respect and dignity.

so ! when we have situations where visibly gnc characters are popularly depicted as trans, followed by the Backlash where it's insisted that that's bigoted because it's clearly a transphobic stereotype, it's Uncomfortable.

the underlying assumption is that it's only popular to depict viktor as trans, with visible hips or long hair or in dresses, because people don't Really see people with those traits as men. or don't see trans men as being "Real" men.

and this response is a defense mechanism, people who've experienced transphobia being (Understandably) hyper-vigilant. but it's still ultimately harmful towards gnc trans people.

there's Also a reason why people seek out trans characters who look like Them. to find euphoria and joy in Their traits being treated as desirable, being treated with respect, being depicted to be Loved, not mocked. and it's deeply disappointing that whenever gnc trans people Try to be visible, this backlash always follows.

gender nonconformity shouldn't be treated as a litmus test for bigotry and fetishization. All trans presentations Can be fetishized and demonized and mocked, because transphobes are transphobic. what matters is the Intent behind the depiction, and if you assume intent based on a trans character's presentation that Says Something about that presentation.

there Should be more (and more Varied) trans rep, more body types and more skin types and more presentations. but there shouldn't be LESS of any particular trans rep either. there shouldn't be LESS gender nonconformity.

bigots don't want trans people to be gender conforming Or gender nonconforming. they don't want trans people of Any body type or any presentation, because they don't want trans people to exist At All.

that's why All honest depictions of trans people are important. there is no version of trans people that are over represented, because there will always be trans people who feel seen and loved Because of that representation.

we need to Unclench and let trans characters be non-conforming, because non-conforming trans people deserve to be visible Period.

I want to close this off by sharing the story of another creator, who leaned into this kind of othering from within trans spaces and learned from it [Link]

pointing your disgust and insecurity and fear at other trans people will never make you safer, it just signals to the bigots around you that every insecurity you have is fair game. Every Single insult and caricature and stereotype passed around in the trans community has made it back to cis bigots and pointed at ALL of us

and trans people With these traits are only MORE vulnerable. the only thing that perpetuating this hatred and disgust and othering Within the trans community accomplishes is putting pressure on vulnerable people from every side.

Do you have any idea how much water you have to consume to cause clinically significant over hydration? The Cleveland clinic is telling me 3-4L over two hours for someone with healthy kidneys. I’m drinking one or two 750ml pots of tea over the whole night. She’s convinced it’s too much.

"You will not take my throne from me!" You cling to your grand chair so hard your knuckles turn white.

Your son sighs. "Dad. Dad it's lead-"

"Of course it's lead! It's a strong metal, signifying the strength of our country- this throne has been passed down the royal line for 300 years, 15 rulers before me-"

"That is not enough time for that many people!" Your son throws his hands up in the air. "Because it is lead! It is poisoning you! Didn't you wonder why grandpa died at 40?"

"Ah, pfoo! That's the ancestral curse."

the son, upon coronation, receives his own prophecy: “your daughter will tear your castle to the ground.”

now, this is a bit more of a cause for immediate concern, but unlike kings of old, he decides that the best way to avoid this surely gruesome future is to love his daughter the best he can, encourage her interests, and guide her with a steady hand - if she is to ruin his kingdom, after all, then let it be with iron will and care for the people.

his daughter is not violent at all, will only hunt if they promise the kitchens will cook what is killed and will give some to the people, and only takes a passing fancy in swordsmanship (which he thinks is more to do with the jawline of the instructor, not that he says anything). she loves to study and read, and when she asks to go for further education in a different corner of the kingdom, he allows it.

after one year, she returns, and spends the first week back acting shifty. she is always caught ducking out of corners and hidden passages, whispering with staff, and pouring over old maps of the castle layout in the library, hurriedly covering them up when anyone passes.

he privately gets his affairs in order.

two weeks after her return, the king’s daughter approaches her father with a steely look in her eye and a grim set to her jaw.

"AI is drinking all the water and it will never be more optimized or able to run without massive ecological harm" <- Panicky nonsense, already disproven extensively.

"Because AI is capable of doing a lot of things at a pretty okay level, it is being deployed in sectors it is ludicrously unsafe for, such as medical intake, a task that AI is not ready to address and may never be ready to address because AI lacks the complete suite of diagnostic sense-aids that trained professionals have, and diagnostic professionals lack the capacity to interface with AI in a way that produces useable training data." <- Normal and reasonable, highlights an actual flaw in the way AI is being handled.

Other than that he's basically had to make things up for himself based on trying not to get killed, by a pretty wide variety of opponents, mostly armed with blasters. His closest up-front experience with dueling comes from Darth Vader, who can't be doing with all those fancy flips and spins, being as how he's portrayed by a middle-aged man in a clunky plastic costume. (This works really well later on when we learn it's mostly prosthetic limbs but it originates from the simple physical limitations of the suit.)

First things to get out of the way, I have a lot of non normative aspects in my sexuality myself, and I support a fully accepting, anti medicalist look at these things.

But to get to the point, I feel like there's merit to finding "get more perverted" a hostile statement from the point of view of aspec identities. "Actually perversion isn't defined as sexual" is the same type of argument as "actually "pussy" comes from "pusillanimous"". In the sense that, regardless of whether it is true originally, people still use that word differently and there are implications to it.

There are people, lots of people, in the queer community, who do say similar sentences to mean it as "you personally need to be engaging in sex acts I view as sufficiently transformative". Because opposition to the sex negative environment of the general society created a view that sex is inherently good and can be used as a measure of how progressive you are.* And people who don't want sex/don't want currently trendy queer types of sex are lumped together with conservatives. So, if the op didn't mean it that way, it's just a coincidence.

What I think is the problem here is the idea that one needs to personally change to adjust to larger social changes. Nobody needs to personally get more perverted** (in any sense of that word) in order to push back against sex negativity. Because there are lots of perverts around you could be making connections with and supporting already. Say something supportive to a cg/l player who's getting harassed. Boost commission info of a feral furry artist. Have a serious conversation with your friend who always reblogs callouts. That sort of stuff. "Unapologetically welcoming perverts in your community" would be a better way to put things.

Once more, for emphasis: I'm aware that the op did not mean it as "personally go out and have sex". I'm aware that you can get labeled a pervert over anything. I'm just here to validate the tag author's reaction and to bring more nuance.

* there's also an opinion in the general society that correct types of sex are healing you spiritually, so all these people needed to do was to swap types of sex, but that's a bigger topic.

Insecurity is not a moral failure.

Lacking social skills is not a moral failure.

Having no friends is not a moral failure.

Depending on the size and amount of coral you eat, eating coral wouldn’t be bad for you. Are you swallowing large enough chunks to cause intestinal blockages? or grinding it up and using it as an additive? People use coral as a source of calcium in vitamins.

But yeah, it all goes back to "seems easier to just use regular ol' marble dust.

...related important question: are we sure that coral is considered alive, and an animal of any kind, like, halakhically speaking?

I mean:

Coral doesn't bleed (which is the important part about eating a still living animal)

They don't have lungs or gills

They generally don't move? (I guess corallimorphs can...kinda crawl? But otherwise no they don't move).

How is coral really different from like, fungi above water? Sure it can be a collective mass (mushrooms and their mycellium colonies!), but it's not capable of bleeding, and it doesn't have lungs or gills, and it doesn't really move. It just kinda...spreads.

No because fungi are bottom feeders of the ground and yet mushrooms are kosher.

The issue is whether or not these are creatures according to Torah. From Leviticus 11:

These you may eat of all that live in water: anything in water, whether in the seas or in the streams, that has fins and scales—these you may eat.

But anything in the seas or in the streams that has no fins and scales, among all the swarming things of the water and among all the other living creatures that are in the water—they are an abomination for you

and an abomination for you they shall remain: you shall not eat of their flesh and you shall abominate their carcasses.

Everything in water that has no fins and scales shall be an abomination for you.

Now, I am going to reference Bible hub here mostly because they have a nice Strong's Hebrew concordance feature that sefaria doesn't have that is easy to copy and paste from.

But basically I would argue that the important words we have to distinguish here are:

the teeming

שֶׁ֣רֶץ (še·reṣ)

Noun - masculine singular construct

Strong's 8318: A swarm, active mass of minute animals

life

הַחַיָּ֖ה (ha·ḥay·yāh)

Article | Adjective - feminine singular

Strong's 2416: Alive, raw, fresh, strong, life

and creatures

נֶ֥פֶשׁ (ne·p̄eš)

Noun - feminine singular

Strong's 5315: A soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion

So. Is coral an active (teeming) mass of minute animals? Well. It is a living colony in the same way that mushrooms are colonies of living things. But other things that swarm or teem are like... krill. shrimp. Locusts. Flies. Ants.

Y'know, stuff that moves. Swarms. Coral doesn't teem or swarm. It's static.

Which leaves us with living and creatures.

I would argue again that "living" implies regular movement — for example, you can have living waters. (Same root word for mayyim chayyim).

But also the other terms which appear beside the root word for life/living over and over again are basically:

Creeping, moving (Strong's 7430 רָמַשׂ ramas)

Flesh (Strong's 1320 בָּשָׂר basar)

Flying or soaring (5774 עוּף)

Having a soul (or literal breath) (5315, נֶפֶשׁ)

And nefesh is of course, also the last one in that list!

So is coral alive in the way Torah usually means things are living beings? Well, coral doesn't creep or move. It also doesn't have blood (which, arguably, means it can't have a carcass. It sort of has bones! But no carcass). It...MIGHT have flesh? I'm sort of unclear about this.

It can't fly or soar.

Which leaves us with:

Do corals have flesh? and,

do corals have souls? And if not metaphorically souls, do they have breath?

Well, coral do respirate. But so do plants. And neither of them have lungs. Also according to @montereybayaquarium's website coral get oxygen from algae? (Don't worry Monterey bay aquarium no one is actually going to eat the coral, this is all hypothetical)

Coral reefs get their bright colors from the algae — called zooxanthellae — living in their tissues. The zooanthellae provide the coral polyps with oxygen and nutrients produced from photosynthesis. In return, the coral polyps provide zooanthellae with carbon dioxide (a byproduct of the polyps’ “breathing” oxygen) and shelter.

Coral polyps can have mouths, but they don't really breathe with lungs. So I'm not sure they have that kind of nefesh (breath of life). And corals are like, a bunch of skeletal base material with living polyps on the top. But are they fleshy? But all their color comes from the algae living in them.

For this I go back to the presence of blood being a big factor, because again, mushrooms have flesh but don't have blood, and so halakhically...that fungi is a plant.

Also apparently Octocorals don't have those exoskeletons? So at that point how would we know something is an octocoral versus like...a seaweed?

I think either seaweed isn't meant to be kosher, or actually corals are kosher because seaweed is. Oysters have gills and hearts. Scallops have a gajillion eyes. Really easy to see those aren't plants.

Basically if you look at a coral does it have a breath and soul, does it fly or creep, does it bleed, does it have flesh, does it move around in general? Could it possibly be a plant, halakhically speaking? (Not by scientific taxonomy!) Would bronze age folks look at it and go "yeah, that's a plant."? Also important: what IS a plant? Halakhically?