Not a coining post. I want to say I love you women & girls of mogai.
I love you cis women. I love you trans women. I love you intersex women. I love you perisex women. I love you women of color. I love you disabled women. I love you Black women. I love you Asian women. I love you indigenous women. I love you native women. I love you Hispanic women. I love you Arabic women. I love you mixed women.
I love you women who are unapologetically feminine. I love you women who are unapologetically masculine. I love you women who are unapologetically androgynous.
I love you women who feel alone and overlooked in our community. I love you women who speak up for those who can't. I love you "basic" women. I love you "complicated" women. I love you "loud" and "mean" women. I love you "shy" and "quiet" women. I love you feminist women.
I love you women who coin. I love you women who request. I love the women in this community. I love you if you listen to female coiners and members of the community. I love you if you go out of your way to support female coiners.
I love the women in this community. I am so beyond filled with emotion right now as one girl to all of the others who surround me in a space and a world that has never been designed for us. I love you, all of you, never stop being yourself in the truest and most authentic way possible
If you're a female/woman-aligned coiner please comment or reblog because I would absolutely love to support & follow you
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
āThe Advantages of Being Quietā- The Policing of Black Emotions
āā¦amongst the minor nuisances of a West India town, are whistling and singing⦠Negroes are very fond of these execrable accomplishment- execrable as practiced by them; for as they have stentorian organs of noise⦠A negro never seems to be happy but when he is yelling and bawling, whistling or singing, and he cannot understand the advantages of quiet.ā
-Five Years Residence in the West Indies, Volume II- Charles William Day
Have you heard these things before:
Everyone claims the Black Character is boring... But then suddenly, White Character that is both the fan favorite and canonically nothing like that, suddenly has some extremely familiar qualities...
There will be Black characters- often women- that are close to an MC, but those characters will be ignored for someone irrelevant who receives an entire plot line... Because somehow it wasnāt possible for the Black character to fill that role despite doing so...
Black people are in a public place, and they are laughing. People are uncomfortable because theyāre ātoo loudā⦠but have never once spoken up against loud white people, men in particular, taking up just as much space and sound.
A Black person says their perspective online, speaking from a place of emotion because they are directly affected⦠and no one listens or shares, worried that itās ātoo aggressiveā and will cause conflict. But a white person will share that same perspective, in ānice wordsā or maybe even really obnoxiously, and suddenly that perspective is shareable, understandable⦠safe.
This really ought not to have been a lesson, that somehow our feelings are not⦠understandable or acceptable. In a way, it feels extremely demeaning, to have to explain something that is so innately connected with the human experience. Everything that Iāve talked about before is going to apply here, because the truth is, it doesnāt matter how good the writing and characterization is if you arenāt willing or capable of comprehending the characters due to your own pre-existing bias for Black people and our emotions. So if you havenāt read my prior lessons, particularly the stereotype series⦠roll on back first.
"it's gonna be a long lesson?" Yes. It very much tis.
āThe Black character (person) just isnāt relatable!ā
People will often claim, with no sense of shame or forethought, that they donāt ārelateā to the Black characters āas muchā, and they donāt see that on the flip side of that, they do not offer grace or objective understanding for the Black characters āas muchā. I shouldnāt have to be the same type of person you are in order to understand you! To even want to understand you!
Not only will they not understand Black characters, but in a misguided effort to interact with Black characters, will project their own biases onto them: theyāll make the Black character something they are not in order to fit what they unconsciously believe Blackness should be. This happens with real Black people as well- the biases donāt come from nowhere!
This includes but is not limited to emotions often associated with this antiblackness: anger, meanness, sneakiness, aggression, hypersexuality, arrogance.
Meanwhile, the emotions we are often really expressing are things we arenāt supposed to be: sad, scared, hurt, offended, threatened, anxious, confused, confident, happy.
Very often, our emotions are perceived as ādangerousā. How many times has a Black person dared to speak up against something and been accused of being a ābotā, a āpsyopā, of āpropagandaā? As if, by having an unfamiliar perspective that conflicts with your comfortable status quo, they must not be someone real- their emotions, their pain, must not be real. It must be a ploy to affect the emotions of the real people that matter, because surely the Black people THEY imagine would not seek to disturb their peace with their realityā¦
Itās odd, believing the only Black people that are real, are the ones that serve you, and the ones that donāt, arenāt real or are threats. Itās a form of antiblackness that has existed, at least in the US, since the abolition of slavery. A mindset that has been exported globally with the rest of the United Statesā hegemony- so yes, it is a common mentality with nonblack people of color globally, to think that Black people are speaking āout of their placeā.
āUppityā
If youāve ever been in a public comment section of literally any Black creator being happy, confident, charismatic, self-respecting, proud of themselves, or even just minding their own business with a smile⦠Youāll find a range of people who make it a point to be vocally uncomfortable about it. From overt racism to covert yet equally if not more infuriating accusations of ābraggingā and even ānarcissismā. As if I need permission to be happy, that my happiness means someone else is lacking. As if the only way to be appropriate is to have humility for online strangers, despite my successes having nothing to do with your failures.
This is not me saying that arrogance doesnāt happen! This is me saying that a lot of times, what yāall consider arrogance is not because it actually is arrogant, but because you are uncomfortable with our confidence, particularly when we donāt weigh it against your societal approval but against our own.
Think about the quote I posted earlier. West Indian Black people whistling and singing while doing all the labor that white bodies donāt wanna do, and Charles William Day has the audacity to say that their singing is āstentorianā (too loud) and āexecrableā (terrible). As if it is an inconvenience to him, to their society, to have to HEAR the Black people whose lives they have captured and enslaved for their own benefit!
An example of this is the āshut up and dribbleā situation. During the height of Black Lives Matter, Black athletes were speaking out about injustices towards Black Americans, and this pissed off a LOT of people who expected them to⦠well, shut the fuck up and dribble. As if their only value was in entertaining audiences, but not to consider their humanity. Because youāre not supposed to be heard!
Another example of this is when Black people arenāt sorry. This is one of my favorite and most commonly used tactics against racists and racism- and it always works. Iāve stopped apologizing for respecting myself, for pointing out when Iāve been mistreated and standing on that, for demanding that Iām the one who deserves respect.
You would not believe how angry that makes a lot of people! If a Black person is not willing to be demeaned or is nonplussed, it throws off the equilibrium. Socially weāve taught Black people to lower their heads and be non-intimidating for the sake of maintaining order- not peace, order. But at this point, if youāre already intimidated or insulted due to my Blackness, then thereās no point in lowering myself any further!
Consider Afromanās two trials:
To be clear: Afroman is Black MAGA š this is not to say he is a role model. HOWEVER! This court case showed that as much as he might want to dance for white conservatives, at the end of the day he is Still Black and Still Subject to what that means. Which means, he was supposed to bend the knee and submit here when the police raided his home. Instead, he was not sorry! They tried to LEGALLY- in a court of law- use the embarrassment and tears of the white woman cop who barged into his home illegally and threatened his and his childrenās life. And it didnāt work. Not only was he not sorry, but he mocked them- publicly! And won! Despite the on-stand display of white woman tears and white male insecurity⦠he still won! Thatās not the norm, but it goes to show that hurt feelings do not equal violation of rights.
Itās much harder to deal with when it comes to the professional world; unlike peopleās bad takes online, not bending your head to microaggressions at work may cost you a job. Once again, itās why racism is more than hurt feelings- as demeaned as I may feel, when I am in a room where Whiteness is the prevailing mindset, I cannot always risk respect over loss of livelihood.
As an extreme example of this: weāve discussed the Mammy and the Uncle Tom in prior lessons, so I wonāt repeat myself with definitions. But the core part of why these archetypes were so palatable to white people as the standard of Good Blacks is because they were āselflessā. They never questioned authority, they always placed the needs of others over their own, their role was to coddle and comfort Whiteness, to act as though being a slave was the most natural thing they could be to prioritize their owners. Consider what the alternative of not obeying a slave master/mistress was!
āIāve never seen this beforeā Yes, you have. If you have never seen it called out, itās because you havenāt spent a lot of time around Black people that trust you. It reminds me of the time someone said āthat parents demand respect, but what they mean is authorityā. The world expects to have authority over Black expression, and is appalled when we reject that.
āIsnāt That a Stereotype?ā
I admit, I am getting a bit exhausted of this question. Not even because I donāt want to encourage curiosity or understanding- I am glad that weāre trying to avoid being racist! But it is tiring to realize that people believe stereotypes are āBlack people not behavingā, essentially. Of Black people being ābadā and people seeing it. As if antiblack stereotypes are because of Black people and not the racists that came up with them, as if that mindset is not equally as racist.
Black people shouldnāt have to be āgoodā for you to not treat them as inhuman. When I think of all that villainous and antagonistic white characters in media- why canāt it be like that? Why is it that white people donāt have to defend their entire race every time one of them is violent on screen? Especially when- being honest- people of color have a lot more reason to believe that that white violence is more likely in real life? Why do I have to explain why a Black person doing things on screen is not a reflection of ALL of us?
Anywho, I chose movies that were emotionally charged as low branch examples. All of our stories deserve to be told, but if you can only stomach the easy ones, of course youāll never realize just how much of the bad youāve internalized. Can you watch a movie with us (and UNDERSTAND it) in a nuanced light? The way you would expect your own story to be treated and understood?
Moonlight
Yāall want to know about how it might be for a closeted gay Black boy in the hood growing into a closeted young gay Black man, this is certainly an option. For taking us through the journey of a dark-skinned queer Black boy?? And how he grows big and strong but is still quiet and unsure, the way society acts like he cannot be?? Because heās from the hood?? As if those experiences are mutually exclusive? Masterclass in writing and acting. Beautiful movie all around, all Black cast. It deserved film of the year.
Moonlight is a story that, for all intents and purposes, Tumblr should have loved. Angst, gay, bad parenting and seeking forgiveness, found family and mentorship, discovering sexuality while being in love with the straight best friend, compulsory heterosexuality, the homoeroticism of the trials of boyhood, vengeance on the childhood bully, reconciliation, touch starvation and yearning... Tumblr LOVES these concepts. So why is Moonlight not held as a top standard of this sort of storytelling? How many of you- at least if you're in the United States- have even watched it?
All the moments Little Chiron (pronounced SHY-roan) had with Juan and Teresa, the way he suffered deeply with his own drug-addicted, tormented mother and his peers, his confusion for his sexuality with Kevin. It warms my heart to see Chiron had SOMEBODY willing to show him kindness, in a world that felt like it had none for him. So often little Black children are abandoned to deal with their own emotions because God forbid they have any. It can fester into anger. But the moment he felt safe, he began to open up.
I loved to see how YES, his mentor Juan (Afro-Cuban!!!) is a drug dealer. However, that does not make him a stereotype- you see how he helps the community around him, how he was willing to pick a severely depressed and scared child from inside an abandoned drug den, feed him, and take him in, teach him how to swim, and began teaching him how to self-actualize. They even sat down and had an open, honest conversation about his sexuality when someone called Chiron a f****t. This was all in the first thirty minutes! The movie is two hours!
So⦠why doesnāt Tumblr love and adore this movie? Why doesnāt anyone see their queer experience in Chiron? Why doesnāt anyone write endless meta? Why donāt Chiron and Kevin have endless coffee AUs and fantasy worlds and canon fix-its (not that I would want any of that)? I can give you a hint, but Iām sure you figured it out.
Precious
TW: incest, sexual assault, parental abuse, ableism
Hard watch. Monique truly portrayed the villain of the year. The novel, Push, was hard too. I didnāt fully understand it as a middle schooler when I read it, but walking in as an adult, I realized quickly it was going to be HARD. Anybody who has had traumatic experience with incest or sexual abuse, this movie probably isnāt for you.
Precious is from the perspective of Claireece, a dark-skinned, fat Black teenager who struggles with writing, spelling, multiple forms of abuse and PTSD, trying to better her life despite the odds. You want to know how to write this kind of story without being stereotypical? Because hereās the thing- a lot of people within the story at the beginning treat Precious like a stereotype, like a statistic. But Precious herself is the voice of her diary! You understand how her reality and mentality is warped due to the life sheās lived! She is the victim! Hers is the voice that is centered! She is not the statistic that they belittle her to be- sheās human!
Within the first ten minutes of the movie, the principal threatens to suspend Claireece for being pregnant with her second child at 16. āIs there something going on at homeā- there is OBVIOUSLY something going on at home for this to be a reoccurring situation. Nonetheless, society consistently punishes Claireece for her circumstances. There is always SOMETHING standing in the way- bullies, bills, standardized testing, the social workers, her own parents. Because who would love a fat, dark-skinned, Black girl that canāt read? It must be her fault!
And that is not just something that the story tells us to feel- that is something that people genuinely feel already, reflected by the story! Society consistently lets down its most marginalized, blaming them for ābadnessā, āunworthinessā. Does that mean that these stories donāt deserve to be told? Because they are judged as ābadā?
Or Preciousā abuse- some Black children have abusive parents!Ā But her mother is not a bad mother because sheās Black, and thatās the part that we have to be able to separate. We see that there are good Black people throughout this story who are trying, in varying levels, to reach her. Claireece herself wants to be a good mother to her children, no matter how they came about.
To be clear: her mother is a terrible person! Anyone that forces their child to eat, blames them for their own sexual abuse and weight gain, calls the child with Down Syndrome born of that abuse āMongoloidā, doesnāt even know her own childās birthday, and even more Truly Unspeakable things- horrible person!! No question!
But if youāre watching this movie with the expectation that thatās how Black mothers are (evil welfare queens and bad mothers), or if you are not taking the time to recognize that itās she herself that is the problem, then that is all youāll perceive! Because I can find a long list of evil white mothers- does that mean we should never discuss those stories? That youāre all terrible?
There is still beauty in the story! Her trauma and her circumstances are not all she is- her multicultural friends at the alternative school get along, they show up for her pregnancy, they write stories! She has a good (lesbian!) Black teacher! Sheās learning! Her son is born healthy and surrounded with love! She gets her daughter back!
It is not that Claireece was guaranteed to live the life that she had because of who she is, itās just one story of an infinite amount. But that doesnāt mean it doesnāt deserve to be understood with dignity. Our stories shouldnāt have to be perfect to be told.
A āUniversalā Perspective
We read White Tears/Brown Scars in #CBC Book Club, so I wonāt go into deep details when you can find the quotes and even read it yourself. In short, it is about the insidiousness of White Womanhood and how it actively contributes to white supremacy throughout history while masquerading as a net benefit for all women. I have said before that I donāt like watching TV and movies with a white woman as the main character anymore. And I know saying that will have me accused of misogyny. However, it works for the example Iām about to explain.
The reality is, Iāve spent my entire life watching things from the perspective of white women. Iāve been told that this perspective is something I need to prioritize as much as my own, that this perspective is a sign of my own power and presence. And frankly, while I have been able to enjoy it, Iāve grown to realize that this perspective is often in conflict with what I have known to be... Well, white women. I have been told my entire life that yāall represent the underdog, the victim, the one that has to rise up above, girl boss girl power. And that makes sense... From a misogyny perspective!
But from a race perspective... the way I see white women portrayed is not the experience that I have had. They are not powerless, they are not the underdog, they are not the one that needs the come up, very often they have been the actual antagonists when it comes to women and people of color! You have not been forced to see my experience the way I have been forced to live through yours. And I donāt enjoy doing that as much anymore, especially when I also have to consider it in real life, the way mine... Wonāt be.
And yet, that experience hasnāt stopped me from objectively understanding a white female character when a story is told. I donāt see an image of one ābadā white woman on screen and assume āwell, this must be what the expectation for real life white women isā. Because Iāve interacted with real life white women and know they can do and be a whole of things. So why is that mentality not respected in kind? Why is that not something that white and nonblack people can do for us, and our stories?
Literally Policed Emotions
As I explained earlier, one of the most powerful tools in white supremacyās tool belt was treating our emotions as invalid, as dangerous, as threatening. By constantly making us question our voices, question even using them, it is bullying everyone into being silent about their systemic abuse.
So I asked my Black viewers these questions, and I found a couple interesting patterns amongst the responses. One of them was that a lot of people would claim that they werenāt being policed... Before proceeding to describe the obvious policing of their emotions. And itās sad, in a way, that itās so normalized to close oneself up in anticipation of poor treatment that we donāt see that!
āIf I donāt do something wrong, this person wonāt hit me.ā That is a quote of someone being abused, dear! The fear or concern to emote didnāt come from you naturally being afraid- if you were worried about experiencing what others are experiencing for emoting while Black, THAT is a part of being policed!
Just like policing in real life. The police presence isnāt just active, itās the threat of being harmed. The threat of their existence, of knowing what would happen if you went against āthe rulesā. Of what would happen if they were called. If you walked into a room and knew you wouldnāt be accepted for yourself without conflict and therefore did not try... If you hid who you were to avoid problems⦠I would call that policing!
For those who are nonblack reading this: knowing that Black people are often hiding their full range of emotions from you⦠how does that make you feel? Do you want them to show those emotions? Are you willing to accept the discomfort that may come with them expressing them openly? Are you safe?
Offering Grace
When we were playing South of Midnight, I noticed how frustrated with Hazel my husband got during one of the chapters. And to be fair, she was deeply incorrect and willfully blind, and it had devastating consequences! The chapter was meant to be that moment of failure for Hazel, of a deep miscalculation on her end! Every hero is meant to have one!
The thing is... She is a child. She is allowed to be wrong. We are allowed to be wrong in the narrative! Especially Black girls and women, God knows thereās a higher expectation for us to either always be right or let down the entirety of what is ārequiredā for us to be respected. We are expected to carry heavy weight and NEVER express upset with any of it- which, ironically enough, was a major part of Lacey and Laurentās- Hazelās mother and her ex- story! Emotions and dealing with them is a major theme of the game!
Disconcerted, I discussed the bias with him. That we have to be willing to allow Black characters to be wrong, to go through the traumas, to lash out, to misunderstand, to go through the messiness of the human experience. We donāt have to like what they do, but we cannot expect them... To never do it.
We especially cannot judge them for doing so on a different level that we do their nonblack counterparts... And that happens a lot! I cannot stand the Precocious White Girl character, where she ends up hurting those she loves thinking sheās in the right, and the narrative, if not outright agreeing, offers her the grace to fix it. Not because she doesnāt deserve the chance, but because I envy the opportunity to do so.
Hazel gets the chance to redeem herself, to grow, to do better in the next chapter, and it was so nice.
But Iām always asking people to remember that the same way everyone else gets to have a moment of weakness, of wrong, of confusion... Allow Black characters, Black people, that grace! Our entire image should not fall apart just because you were- however consciously or not- looking for a reason not to care about us. Stories would be pretty boring if everyone was always happy and always correct all the time! If we only told stories where everyone did everything right, we wouldnāt have a lot of myths, legends, and fairy tales!
Treat People The Way You/They Wanna Be Treated
This first one is one we all learned in like... Second grade. āGolden ruleā. The goal was to teach us empathy. And I can tell that, in the Internet age, we are all deeply lacking in it. If you wouldnāt want someone to judge you at your lowest moment- especially when it isnāt a reflection of you, but of your stress in the circumstances- maybe you should take the time to consider that for others.
And no, Iām not saying that the response with every emotion is valid. Obviously not. However, thereās a difference between someone being a horrible person consistently through their actions, and someone having a horrible day and responding poorly, and you thinking this must mean that they are a horrible person. Remember what I said about the stereotypes- is your character an Angry Black Woman, or is she a Black woman that is angry? Because Black women are allowed to be angry! Is your character a Hypersexualized Mandingo, or is he a Black man with a high sexual libido? Because Black men are allowed to like having a lot of sex!
Sometimes theyāre not even horrible characters, the crowd just doesnāt like them š and it would be a lot easier if we just SAID that, instead of trying to apply some sort of āmoral failingā to them. Especially because that dislike, circling back around, often is held from a place of bias. Anyway, Iām asking you to practice empathy, but more importantly, Iām asking you to practice emotional intelligence towards Black people. Be able to identify your own emotions and recognize when youāre being less gracious towards us. This is a skillset that will benefit you in your life as a whole.
Move to Innocence/Right to Comfort
This section is going to upset a lot of you, and Iām asking you to sit with that discomfort. As a segue from the last section, consider this: how often do you find yourself going āBut maybe/but what if they-ā when someone mentions something is racist? Or āIāve never seen this before!ā
Why?
Why is your first reaction to counter, or deny, what is happening? Or to stand in awe as if this is so new? Why is it not empathy and an attempt to understand the situation from their perspective? Do you understand how that shows a lack of concern for the Black person, prioritizing your own feelings and that of the person who harmed them?
Move to Innocence: "The term white innocence in the critical race, critical whiteness, and Social Justice literature usually reflects the idea that white people, in that they experience the privilege of dominant racial status in a white-dominant society, are generally naive about the realities of race and racism, particularly in systemic and structural senses. In particular, they are afforded the luxury (deemed a privilege) of not having to engage with race or racism unless they choose to do so intentionally (see also, antiracism). As critical race educator Robin DiAngelo points out (above), white innocence reflects the idea that āracism is not a white problem.ā"
I am of the belief that this sort of response is a way to deflect harm from the self. It is not because you care about that person, but because if THEY are racist, it might mean that YOU are racist- if you do or have potentially done this behavior before. And rather than allow that to sit, and then respond with āI will work on changing my behaviorā, it is a self-defense mechanism to fight against it, because you are Good and would not do that, and would want someone to defend you if this happened.
The problem here, is that weāre finally showing empathy⦠for the wrong party! You are pulling out the very skills asked of you to listen to Black voices, to defend those that harm us! This isnāt me saying that Black people canāt be wrong. But if you find yourself fighting against our words far more often than you do standing with us⦠well, the pattern of actions is not avoidable.
Or sometimes, you get the more well-intentioned but sometimes still damaging āyeah this happened to me as a [some other marginalized identity]ā.
Right to Comfort: Essentially the idea that any conversation, particularly about racism, should be done in a way that never makes anyone uncomfortable. Which is not possible, because discussing race is always going to be uncomfortable for someone who doesnāt to discuss it. That white people are entitled to comfort at all times, that if something interferes with that comfort, it must be an attack on their rights. It is a core tenet of why Black emotions and perspective upset everyone.
The response itself is not always a bad thing, and yes, it is done as a way to empathize. But again, I often feel like this is an unconscious tactic to maintain oneās own comfort and place in the conversation that they were not involved in. In order to not feel uncomfortable, to sit with the idea that someone like me harmed you, that I need to make sure that I do not do these things to you and others⦠it centers that āoh, Iāve gone through this similar thing, so I am safe and understand completelyā when that is just⦠not true. It is not some automatic guarantee of your allyship.
It is so hard to find space to express yourself and your disappointments when it comes to Blackness. Sometimes what we need is the space to be heard, to vent, to be the center of care for once. Itās not a reflection of YOU, or that YOUR experiences donāt matter; itās just what THEY need. Treat us the way WE want to be treated.
BTW, I know what Iāve cited here is from the perspective of white supremacy, but keep in mind that one doesnāt have to be white to participate in white supremacy. We ALL gotta work on these things! Purposely stopping yourself from making their experience about you and how you feel about it is an action you can take, to practice being a better ally. Sometimes, I would like to be the one that receives care without having to give it back!
Conclusion
Everything you feel, I FEEL! In addition to that, I have to deal with everything else affecting why I am and am not āallowedā to feel! Why would that be hard to understand? Why would that be hard to sympathize with? You might not understand it from a āBlackā perspective, but you can understand feelings. You can understand why things would cause joy, cause pain. Do you actually want to, is the question. Do you actually want to understand Black emotions and the Black perspective, at the risk of it conflicting with your own?
If nothing else, this one lesson is the one that guarantees bettering your relationship with Black peers. It is the easiest and most palpable action you can take to make us feel safe around you... To actually CARE and allow us to feel. Because itās the thought that counts, but the action that delivers.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Hey so you know how people always talk about transmasc erasure? Coming across that paper on Tumblr discourse on transandrophobia reminded me of something.
When I was doing my criminology degree, I went to several professors with several thesis ideas, and all of them were denied. These were all ideas based on transmasculine crime and victimology stats. Every professor shot down every thesis I had on ideas related to transmasc victims of various crimes.
Their reasoning? There's no need for this. This is useless. Nobody is interested in reading about trans men and transmascs being victims of crimes. They wouldn't even let me do my thesis on estimating more accurate stats on transmasculine victims of homicide. Which is an INCREDIBLY important thing!
So yeah. Next time someone talks about how trans men and transmascs aren't victims as much, remember this. Researchers don't want to research this. They won't allow people who want to do so, to do so. I couldn't get anyone to advise me on these papers.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
People hate transrace beings until itās transwhite. Actually non-radqueers donāt acknowledge transwhite at all on second thought. Transwhite folks interact yāall are just as valid as any other transrace being
boiling hot take but being n.i.n for the aesthetics is literally insane. Over 6 million people have died from that event. and you want to use it for some sort of aesthetic. You know what happened at the event and you know how people were treated and you go and say oh I'm just using an aesthetic. That's literally fucked up. - evan buckley
thoughts?
agree
disagree
its complex
Voting ended onJul 6
Leave your nuances, thoughts, opinions and etc in the comments, reblogs or ask box with the post linked
I also feel it should be noted that the Radnormals' constant variations of telling someone to get a job when the person in question is on disability is low key ableist.
But... we should also remember that the creator of radnormal reblogged a post that called radqueer people "radtards" which is actually very HIGH KEY ableist.
Shout out to all the kids who always picked shape-shifting as their hypothetical power growing up and assumed it was for gender affirmation but now realize it was also a plurality thing.
Syscourse is so ridiculous because people act like itās two bad sides when itās actually just people who want to be left alone and exist vs bigots.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Go ahead then... Name the medical professionals to whom you refer...
Come on...
I'm waiting...
See, I have no problem naming medical professionals who have either acknowledged the existence of plurality outside of dissociative disorders or at least acknowledged it as a possibility that would warrant further research. Eric Yarbrough, Colin Ross, Samuel Veissier, Michael Lifshitz, Richard Kluft, Ellert Nijenhuis.
These are just names off the top of my head.
So it shouldn't be hard for you to be able to cite a single doctor who has said that you need trauma and a dissociative disorder to be plural. One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders.
But of course, you aren't going to be able to do that are you?
I've been doing this for 4 years now and in all this time, no sysmed has actually been able to provide a source to back up this position.
The truth is that the belief the plurality is exclusive to mental disorders and trauma isn't based in science. It is not backed up by any medical professionals. If it was, sysmeds would have been able to find them by now.
Even antivaxxers have disgraced doctors they can rely on for citations. But sysmeds don't even have that.
It's sort of the opposite, where a lot of the filter posts are things I deem too triggering for main, or things that... skirt the edges of Tumblr's community guidelines. I don't think the Filter posts necessarily cross the line, but I don't want to risk my main over drama.
So I did provide two sources that were run by medical professionals. Since youāre basically thirty and a whole adult you may need to look into getting a job instead of harassing minors in a community that you clearly hate. Donāt shoot the messenger but medical and scientific facts are facts. (sophieinwonderland is THIRTY so let me list some accomplishments that people have at her age while sheās harassing little kids on social media.)
1. Gone to college
2. Have a stable job(I know you saw that LinkedIn link I sent over)
Those sure technically are... sources... for something...
First, I'm not sure if I'd classify Katherine Reuben, who was still a student, as a "medical professional."
But that's really beside the point.
Because the source is about DID and doesn't address non-DID plurality.
Remember the criteria above: "One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders."
This doesn't do that. It wouldn't do that even if she was a doctor and not just a student.
Here's the link for anyone interested.
When people are not supported in processing trauma, they may struggle to integrate the trauma into their narrative and acknowledge its effec
There is something I find interesting about this summary of the structural dissociation model though.
It's based on an idea that people are:
Born without a single integrated personality and are instead a bunch of ego states;
These states integrate with time as the system gets older.
While trauma is mentioned as a possible cause for these states not integrating, it's not presented as the only possible cause.
Something I find lacking here is evidence for a mechanism that causes these states to integrate into one personality in the first place.
Is this a natural biological process, or is it a psychological one resulting from societal pressures? Is being a singlet sociogenic? There is no attempt at explaining this mechanism for integration. We're only told that trauma is a thing that can interrupt it.
If it's environmental, could some cultures have, rather than developing a single integrated self, developed different selves that could have been interpreted as different entities like gods, muses, ancestor spirits, etc. which could be supported by, say, Julian James's findings on the Bicameral Mind?
I would argue the structural dissociation model as presented here, without any evidence for what causes the states to integrate into a single self, actually casts more doubt on plurality being inherently traumagenic, presenting a world where no one is born a singlet while not explaining what makes people become singlets.
Putting that aside, there is an even bigger issue with using the theory of structural dissociation as your source...
Even the creators of the structural dissociation model have acknowledged there may be other forms of plurality!
Yeah, let's look at the source for the DID-research page.
You might recognize the highlighted name as one I mentioned in the OP.
This is because he, and Onno van der Hart too, authored a paper half a decade after publishing The Haunted Self that described their definition of dissociation in trauma.
In this paper, they specifically acknowledge that their definition of dissociation only applies to trauma and that it may be possible for people to have multiple "dissociative parts of the personality" without trauma, and for these parts formed for reasons other than trauma to possess their own self-consciousness.
While their stance seems neutral rather than definitively saying these are for certain self-conscious dissociative parts, that neutrality does show that citing the structural dissociation model as proof against non-disordered plurality is misusing their theory.
The Structural Dissociation model was never intended to disprove other forms of plurality. It wasn't intended to prove that all self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality were from trauma. It was only ever meant to explain mechanisms for how trauma could cause dissociative disorders.
Onto Source 2:
Fact Sheet IV ā What are the Dissociative Disorders? Most mental health professionals consider that Dissociative Disorders are caused by sev
Once again, this is not relevant.
The discussion is about plurality. Not dissociative disorders.
Here is how plurality is defined on Pluralpedia:
This is what we're discussing.
If some of the plural-language is tripping you up, we can break it down further to define plurality as "having multiple agents, each with their own autonomy and distinct sense of self, sharing a body."
The topic is about whether this experience is something that can exist without dissociative disorders and trauma. Simply saying that dissociative disorders are caused by trauma does nothing to address it.
Since you cite the ISSTD though, I'd like to bring up this email correspondence between Colin Ross and a former anti-endo.
Dr. Colin Ross is an influential member of the ISSTD, and at one point served as the president of the ISSTD.
So yeah... get back to me when you actually have a doctor saying you need trauma to be plural.
1) you say āKatherine is a doctoral student sheās not reliable or a professionalā may I ask what you do for work that gives you the upper hand in information in this topic? Sheās studying and researching this topic at a good university something youāre not so sure youāre definitely smarter.
2) You canāt say Iām not using reliable sources and then go and use āpluralpediaā as a source. Girl no.
3) Iām using sources that also involve DID and other dissociative disorders because they discuss systems as a whole.
4) still havenāt seen you set up a LinkedIn profile maybe you need to make a paper copy of your job resume. (Seriously youāre thirty years old so Iāve been told and you need to get your life together because being on tumblr all day and harassing kids in their own community is very sad)
5) again Sophie the LinkedIn profile I sent over a link to help you with that.
6) Iām very curious as to how you think alters and systems formed if youāre stating they can form without trauma. Youāre basically saying someone can form a system at will just because.
7) Iām trying to find specific sources that focus on Endo systems however itās hard because all the terms youāre using for something that is roleplaying is used for actual disorders and mental health in general.
You were the one talking about believing medical professionals. You were the one who set the goal posts. It's not my fault the person you referenced isn't an actual medical professional. You are the one who falsely claimed that she was a medical professional when she was just a student. š¤·āāļø
Again, her credentials or lack thereof aren't that important because the post doesn't back up what you claim it does, just like all your other sources.
Although I do find it important to call out that this is not a professional because some of her posts have managed to spread misinformation in the system community, such as the misconception that OSDD-1A and OSDD-1B are actual diagnoses. The website should be treated as a blog of a student who is trying her best to summarize medical resources. As far as I can tell, she runs it alone and there is no review process for any of her posts.
I will also point out that there is a difference in validity of sources depending on the context. Pluralpedia is not a good source for scientific knowledge. It is a perfectly acceptable source for community terms and their definitions which is what I used it for.
People possessing critical thinking skills would understand this innately, although I realize I am not dealing with one of those at the moment.
It's important when discussing a topic in good faith to have a clear definition of that thing. Otherwise, some people might try to move the goalposts and redefine words as you go. There needs to be a clear reference point to be able to repeatedly say that this is plurality, this is what we are talking about, not dissociative identity disorder!
Despite what you claim, your sources do not actually talk about systems as a whole. They are very narrowly focused on dissociative disorders.
To be clear, endogenic systems are largely not claiming to have dissociative identity disorder. If you have heard this, you have likely been missinformed by sysmeds who are known to be a duplicitous hate group that spreads lies about the communities they victimize.
Additionally, the World Health Organization's ICD-11 clearly lays out that you can experience the characterizing feature of dissociative identity disorder without having a mental disorder.
If your sources are not going to address plurality outside of dissociative disorders, there's no point in me engaging with them at all.
They just aren't relevant to the topic.
And while you have trouble finding sources to support your argument, I've supplied mine!
You say you want to believe medical professional... well, here they are. Nijenhuis and van der Hart, two of the three creators of the structural dissociation model, have acknowledged the possibility of dissociative plurality for reasons other than trauma and disorders. You've seen what Dr. Ross said in the above email. I showed you excerpts from Dr. Yarbrough's book and linked directly to it so you could look at it yourself. And I will repeat again how that is a book which was reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association, the same group that publishes the DSM.
And you still haven't found a single doctor to contradict what they've said.
So why can't you do what you claim to and actually believe the medical professionals???
I would like to say more then half of sophie's sources have been debunked this includes the ICD-11 and mediumship. Sophie also is not a great person to support. She block evades people as long as they are against endos & has said she would abuse a 4 year old in great detail. She also supports ai.
so please stop supporting sophie and her lies and her "satire" accounts to ruin the anti endo accounts
in a slightly better world, i would be radqueer, and i would be so happily. i support all transids, i support paraphiles whether they choose to be in recovery or don't feel the need to, i generally align with all the principles of radqueerism on paper. but i can't shake the contact discourse.
contact discourse shouldn't exist because the answers are blatantly obvious. a chronological minor cannot consent to sexual advances from a chronological adult (with the obvious exception of teens who have like 2 years of age gap), a theriform animal cannot consent to sexual advances from a bodily human, and it's been proven that sexual contact actively harms them mentally, regardless of physical harm. seems like a reasonable point of view, and it's not a point of view i'm ever going to be open to changing.
radqueers disagree. not every radqueer, but the radqueer community as a whole discourages this position. they parade around acceptance of pro-contact paraphiles, they turn a blind eye to predators openly using their tags to find victims and those potential victims seeking predators because they've been taught it's ok, and if you try to set a firm boundary against this, you have people swarming you to say you're not radqueer - you can't be, unless you learn to accept nonconsensual abuse.
then when someone in their circles is exposed as an abuser, they wonder how this could have happened, to pretend that their community hasn't been carefully crafted for the past few years to be a safe space for that behavior. it's horrible for potential victims, it's horrible for paraphiles being encouraged to offend, it's horrible for everyone.
once again, this is not the opinion of every single radqueer that exists. and i don't believe the community has always been this way. but i cannot deny that this is the way it is now, and that there is a problem with it, and that i am uncomfortable associating with the community as a whole until this changes.