XD

new intro!!

name: not telling age: not telling dni: not telling chronoage: not telling paras: not telling transids: not telling cisids: not telling trisids: not telling nullids: not telling contant stance: not telling

A term for beings who believe they should be nocturnal.

Transcrepuscular - ¤

A term for being who believe they should be crepuscular.

Transdiurnal - ○

A term for beings who believe they should be diurnal.

Any of these flags can be used for the respective cis and tris versions of the identity.

If these terms have already been coined, consider these flags to be an alternative.

Requests open!

~ ☆ ~

Radnormals are beings who want to help normalize radical identities outside of blankqueer spaces!

Radnormals want to help normalize:

Paraphiles and paraphilias regardless of contact stances

ALL transIDs and genders

MUDs

Non-Traumagenic Systems

Blankqueers

Youth Liberation

MAD Pride

And anything else deemed as radical! (leaving this open ended because I can't think of anything else and anyone can add this to whatever stances they already have)

Whether this be online spaces or IRL (please do this safely and anonymously), they will help normalize us. ^_^

"Oh, no! This child doesn't believe in harassment! I sure hope they get beaten thoroughly by their parents!"

this is a dumbass comment for two (2) reasons, which i will now tell you.

1: no one is arguing that fiction doesn't affect reality. no one. in fact, the only people i've seen argue that "fiction doesn't affect reality" are proship bait blogs (blogs made by antis to "bait" proship people), so maybe you want to redirect this energy towards your fellow antis.

fiction does affect reality, but not to the extent that most antis argue. fiction can make you happy, sad, angry, etc. if you're not careful with what you're consuming, it can potentially trigger you, but it can also help you heal from trauma(s). what fiction cannot do is make you abuse or assault someone on a whim. if you have a good grasp on fiction and reality, if you know the difference between the two (which most people do), you don't have to worry about fiction turning you into an abuser. if fiction somehow makes you do things you'd never consider doing, then clearly your moral backbone is comprised entirely of wet spaghetti, which is a problem with you, not the fiction you're consuming.

2: if you're aware that certain things in fiction may have a negative impact on you (such as causing psychosis, as the comment claims), then it is your responsibility to safely manage what you consume in fiction to avoid being negatively affected. no one else's. you being stupid enough to consume fictional content that you know negatively affects you (multiple times, apparently!) does not suddenly make fiction bad and dangerous, it just makes you irresponsible.

"fiction caused x negative affect on me" will never mean "fiction is inherently harmful".