A Crossroads of Words, Ideas, Youth and Sexuality

The profile picture is just a "c" on a green background.

the very basic sentiment of "don't misgender people" seems to go over even the heads of trans people and cis people alike when it comes to they/them pronouns.

not everyone wants to be called they/them. if someone strictly uses she/her or he/him or she/he or neopronouns etc. anything that is not they/them.... using they/them would still be misgendering. in the same way calling someone who doesn't use any other pronoun that pronoun would be misgendering.

You don't get a free pass to call people whatever pronouns you want to call them rather than the pronouns they use just because they them is a gender neutral pronoun.

also not all nonbinary people use strictly they/them pronouns or they/them pronouns at all.

However: If you do know somebody's gender, because they are a public figure, have it listed in their bio, or you know them, and they use pronouns other than they, then it is, at minimum, exceptionally impolite to continue using the hypothetical pronoun for said person. Especially if said person specifically asks that you use another pronoun.

There are really two "they"s. "They" as in I don't know this persons gender or I have to circumlocute to keep them from being outed, and "they" as in they use they/them pronouns.

The real inhumane thing is that the cost is born by the individuals needing the glasses and not maintained as a collective resource so that everybody can see.

Things that you SHOULD NOT deadname

Trans women

Trans men

Non binary people

Any other trans identity that doesn’t fit into those three

Cis people who changed their name

Anyone who goes by a different name then the one their parents gave them regardless of how “good” of a person they are, or your personal feeling towards them

Things that you SHOULD deadname

Also, "critiquing" taboo based erotica is almost always tied in with call for censorship, rather than constructive criticism about the social forces that shape why people find it compelling and the unexamined prejudices that might be worth examining, so people get very defensive very quickly. Because censorship has a way of spreading to nuanced portrayals that actually depict it as taboo, and people talking about lived experience and also to adjacent things, which is always queer people. Always.

and i just want to know what the cutoff is for what counts as "burying the ugly social context behind something". does incest not have an ugly social context? does it not have a history steeped in white supremacist sexual abuse?

(Side note: I misread your post, so the paragraph that went here is not actually relevant and I deleted it. Figured I should clarify that in case anyone saw that I had edited it.)

More to the point, people do not control what makes them horny, and a lot of kink is trauma response (though people should not be required to disclose said trauma to be "allowed" to enjoy certain things), so it really boils down to repression or finding safe, fictional outlets that don't hurt anyone.

and isn't it so convenient that the only victims you people care about are the ones who can sexualize their abuse. it's apparently impossible to consider one might be able to eventually go actually maybe that's not good for me, or even, gasp! not do it in the first place. everything is healthy and natural as long as you get off to it i guess!

Though I actually did offhandedly mention once about how I was mildly annoyed by people calling for the censorship of pedophilic stories in person once, and the other person actually agreed with me. Now one instance doesn't mean all the time, but I have a feeling that I could probably make people see my case.

You want to talk about the US government making things illegal to talk about? Because there are laws floating around on both federal and state levels about keeping "sexually explicit" material out of schools. You want to know what they meant by "sexually explicit material"? Self-help books about body changes during puberty and any story that has a queer character. So yeah, censorship is a thing that people in meatspace should be worried about. And thing about censorship, is that you can't just have a little. If you create broad categories of books to be censored, then people will find a way to make things they don't like for into those categories. Most queer people, at least those I've spoken with, can get on board with that (side note, yes I did forget to finish this paragraph and had to go back and fix it).

As for people who experienced incestuous sexual assault? That should not happen to anyone in real life. Every one of them deserved better. And they deserve to get a chance to understand and learn their own coping mechanisms. And if those don't include reading about sexualized versions of their own trauma, then they have the agency to not engage with that type of story.

These are real human people who have their own lives doing all sorts of other things to move past their trauma as best they can and I'm not going to patronize anyone by assuming that they do not have control over what kinds of things they read. The mere existence of these stories do not hurt anyone, and the assertion that they do becomes the bedrock of censorship.

Also, "critiquing" taboo based erotica is almost always tied in with call for censorship, rather than constructive criticism about the social forces that shape why people find it compelling and the unexamined prejudices that might be worth examining, so people get very defensive very quickly. Because censorship has a way of spreading to nuanced portrayals that actually depict it as taboo, and people talking about lived experience and also to adjacent things, which is always queer people. Always.

and i just want to know what the cutoff is for what counts as "burying the ugly social context behind something". does incest not have an ugly social context? does it not have a history steeped in white supremacist sexual abuse?

(Side note: I misread your post, so the paragraph that went here is not actually relevant and I deleted it. Figured I should clarify that in case anyone saw that I had edited it.)

More to the point, people do not control what makes them horny, and a lot of kink is trauma response (though people should not be required to disclose said trauma to be "allowed" to enjoy certain things), so it really boils down to repression or finding safe, fictional outlets that don't hurt anyone.

And that assumption is useful to transphobes because it means they can uncritically extend properties of the AGAB group to the subset who transitions. E.g. they will say AMAB kids are likely to have behaved like X or experienced Y in their youth, therefore trans women are likely to have behaved like X or experienced Y in their youth. And they can say this without ever checking if it's true about trans women, because if everyone knows it's true of cis boys, they will assume that extension to trans women.

But like, if you took down the details of every 30-year-old trans woman right now, then went back in time 20 years, and studied that group of 10-year-olds, you would find they already had properties that differed from the 10-year-old-AMAB average in 2006. Perhaps they would be a little quieter, perhaps they would have a couple more female friends, perhaps they'd have fewer friends in general, perhaps they would have more anxiety, perhaps they would have more depression. Perhaps none of these and something else, idk.

But, the point is, people don't just decide to transition *at random*, there is a whole history of life experience in each trans girl leading up to that realisation "I am trans" and that decision "I should do something about it", and that common history of all these kids would be reflected in some group average differences from the AGAB cohort even long before that realisation took place.

And this is what makes "male socialisation" rhetoric so frustrating. Because the very fact of having all the life history that led up to your realisation that you were trans, the life history that *caused* that realisation, that very history marks you as someone with an atypical social experience compared to your AGAB average.

Also, "critiquing" taboo based erotica is almost always tied in with call for censorship, rather than constructive criticism about the social forces that shape why people find it compelling and the unexamined prejudices that might be worth examining, so people get very defensive very quickly. Because censorship has a way of spreading to nuanced portrayals that actually depict it as taboo, and people talking about lived experience and also to adjacent things, which is always queer people. Always.

[Image ID note: It says "Silly Game Time: Describe what this inkblot looks like to you. Be as imaginative as you can!" The inkblot is...(and keep in mind, I am rather biased, but I want to offer at least a rough idea) left-right symmetrical with two unattached splots in the lower corners which are roughly kidney shaped on top with thin trails running down in a lighter grey, then completely while along the top and just below that, two long thin shapes each coming down from an inch down and half way along, which run along but don't quite touch the main shape in the middle, which starts just below and between the two long thin ones, and starts as two ovals fused into each other with a small hole in the middle, and then out of the bottom of each a trail that goes down for a little before intersecting with these bigger almost-rectangles that are not quite vertical and angled toward the top corners, with each having a short line from the bottom-most corner with a splotch at the bottom, and in the space between the two rectangles is a lighter gray shape that looks sort of like a butterfly or a human pelvic bone.

Phone with Six Ones' profile picture is of a femminine looking east-Asian person with long hair wearing a black boatneck top, with a blank background.