#concealedconsiderations

i'm not here to define or diagnose therians as a group of delulu people who think they're animals for whatever reasons, but i did want to address the idea that being a therian is a tad... questionable, isn't it?

by no means is this to shut down or discourage those who identify as therian, if this is something you find personally valuable, by all means continue to do so

however, in an era where nobody feels like they really belong, is therian another symptom of that? is it a self made illusion built upon the grounds of wanting to justify our differences in order to then justify our existence?

it's possible. in fact it may be probable. however, i more so want to touch upon the distinctions that make someone a therian in the eyes of a general community

i don't know if everyone's seen the same thing, but there are art pieces that describe the therian experience that i find questionable. many depicting ideas that aren't even uniquely therian like preferring to be in nature or having animalistic traits

broad and vague as that is, it's true, in fact we as humans or beings inhabiting a human shell are not really in our natural world and we haven't been for a while. there's a reason nature calms us, and a reason we may prefer being around animals

we live in a society of flawed languages, imperfect communication, difficult with lives in a way we weren't designed to live and a lack of inner peace that requires we step outside of that life

in that respect, therian, at least from an outside perspective, seems like it's there to justify flaws we don't actually have for the purpose of finding our inner peace or community

the idea of phantom limbs also isn't an abstract concept, considering many transgender people also fall under this. however this begs the question... would that make therianism a realisation of self, or a desire?

that's not to say that's the same for trans people, make no mistake, only you can define who you are. however, the desire for alterations and a different body is a desire

so it begs the question if a phantom sensation of body is what is missing or what is desired

thinking about what animals do. one behaviour animals partake in commonly is called somatic shaking, this is something humans can do, however due to our modern day world, self perception and self awareness... we do not have the luxury of simply behaving ferally in public or nature

it would be cringe, embarrassing, worrisome, strange, and attract unwanted attention that suggests you conform or face consequences

in essence... perhaps there's a desire for functional freedom

freedom, and inner peace

and so what is my point with this?

well, in essence, i do think therians should take a long hard look in the mirror and also consider the falsehoods that are associated with therianism but are perfectly normal

but secondly, i believe that therianism could be a reflection of our modern day world and desire not to simply condition ourselves to behave according to a specific set of rules and societal norms that suggest what it means to be a human

because although therians may see themselves as animals, the truth is, that could be because many of us forget that humans are also animals and yet we're ashamed to act in our own unique ways with acceptance and open-mindedness

a return to nature and desire for a lack of binding rules and more freedoms like the value of a tail or enhanced sensory values may be a result moreso of our flawed system and society

thinking back to the whole discourse of people wanting Shiver from Splatoon to be enby but Nintendo deconfirming it... this happens a lot

people see a character that they want to be lgbtq+ and label them as such based on superficial aspects

shiver has some masculine aspects, her face is a little more defined and immediately people assume this means the character must be enby?

isn't that a tad sexist and assuming though?

women with more masculine aspects are allowed to exist in fiction, and to deny that in favor of misgendering a character because you want them to fit your notion of what they are isn't really a good look

not to mention, non-binary people are also expressed in a multitude of ways, it doesn't always have to be a matter of breaking conventions of established gender roles and situating somewhere in the middle

this goes beyond shiver as i see this happen with tons of characters, especially popular nintendo ones

is Noah from Xenoblade Chronicles 3 a trans-man because he expresses emotions and has tender moments or is that just a character having emotions. the suggestion becomes especially questionable when you consider that noah is practically near guaranteed cis in the story, however i won't spoil why in case that's a caution

the same holds true of Nia from Xenoblade Chronicles 2 and how she's labelled as trans by the community despite her identity never really being called into question, and the plot instead revolving around her grievance with misdeeds and fear of being forsaken for the crimes she committed, which I'll avoid spoiling once again

a final character i'd like to address is more on the grounds of a joke, but still important, Shuichi Saihara from Danganronpa V3, and how because he has a curly ahoge he must thereby be trans because it's a design focus of female characters in the game, and not just that he could have curly hair

granted that last one is played for laughs but it does show a focus of how quickly people are to label characters under a set umbrella

and it leads into my next question...

aren't those... low standards?

look at actually confirmed trans people in fiction, like Celeste from... Celeste, she has subtext, aspects of her character are well written, and it's easy to cap off with full on confirmation and her struggle with identity

yet compare this with the superficial desires people have out of popular and unmeaning characters by big name companies that don't care about you

listen if you have headcanons, you can enjoy those, but please be aware of when you're throwing money at those companies who could easily fund a trans charity for years and not leave an ant's scratch in their wallet

representation isn't just about sticking a label onto a character and calling it a day. representation is about helping people feel seen in a world that may not desire or directly value your existence

even if we said those aforementioned characters fit under their respective labels, what good would it actually do? none of them share the core experiences of what it means to be those labels, nor do they express anything largely meaningful outside of the established safety of what a company deems is acceptable, and would soon disregard these minority groups if it meant turning up a quick buck

sensitivity is praised, sensitivity is a sign of a good heart, sensitivity is the proof of our humanity... and yet it's also a barrier

today, you will be spat upon for suggesting sensitivity is a negative trait or using it as a pejorative term. why? the short answer is because people have shallow perceptions and can't think past their own first assumption

but the much longer answer is that sensitivity and subsequently inaction, weaknesses and anything that opposes aspects largely connected with masculinity today is often demonised and dismissed outright.

and it makes sense

many of us lived in a world where growth was everything, it's all about the masculine ventures and everything that's factual and structurally cold and robotic. facts don't care about your feelings, and that your struggles and traumas are measurable

after all, you're only struggling in life if you have a set label of minority or disability attached to you, according to an older and outdated logic

when in reality, people have different experiences, traumas, hardships and aspects of them that cause them to have experiences unique with or without those labels

and this is not to downplay the struggles of those with those labels, it's merely a complicated matter

yet today as well, it's often encouraged to retain that sensitivity, to maintain the sense that actually, being sensitive is the right thing to do. reject discomfort, do not confront, let the emotions flow even to the point that it becomes a defining aspect of your day to day life

but i dare to ask... when is that not a good thing?

emotional maturity isn't about being stifled or pushing emotions down, it's about understanding the time and place to express. it's about not being controlled by our emotions and letting that rampant energy rule us.

personally, to digress, i hate the term "emotional maturity" as it implies that someone is less mature for their emotional state, ignoring traumas and situations that deny a person the time and essentials needed to cultivate room for that emotional state to be better understood

and yet many of us police this idea of grit, of strength, of pushing through hardships. many suggest that you shouldn't overdo it which has merit, and yet... no one praises the hard worker today. it's often met with disdain or the suggestion you're trying too hard.

but the truth is at the end of the day acting on emotion does not pay the bills

being sensitive, unless your field benefits from it, does not achieve

is the dangerous oil-rig worker capable by being sensitive about their situation? no, they set it aside when need be

does the dependable friend or therapist help someone by being overly emotional themselves? sometimes but not always, often times it requires a clear head and a clean perspective

does even the artist get their commissions done on time by being sensitive? partially, but not by itself given the measure of discipline that can be required

i think there's something to be said of the disdain for others rejecting sensitivity and the potential for it reflecting those disdainful, likely as an unintentional means of restricting those who seek to push past their limitations and seek greater heights that sensitivity does not allow

of course, we should absolutely retain a sense of empathy and sympathy for our fellow people, especially those who are sensitive. yet i feel we should be elevating them past their sensitivity and into a state of greater stability while maintaining their inner feelings and empathy

it's not about rejecting sensitivity or wholly becoming it, it's about moving past sensitivities that do not serve us and allowing the inevitable discomfort into our lives

in our modern world we're learning more and more about neurodivergence and the way the mind works as well as the circumstances that exist in our lives and much, much more

yet for many, the knowledge that's available isn't always known, especially in the case of neurodivergence

in fact there's a commonality where people, especially neurodivergent people are often the targets of what i will call criticism beyond control. instances in which a person who has a neurodivergent or invisible disorder and their "non-issues" are chastised, ridiculed, poked fun of and given deeper levels of trauma for not conforming to a society, not out of defiance, not out of rejection and certainly not out of laziness... but because they can't

"our lives are what we make it" "we can define our future" "we are responsible for our lives"

all common quotes that people thrust upon others either for inspiration or to sandbag another's issues. not to point fingers, yet often commonly pushed by older generations unto younger generations, who do not understand that both the world has changed or that the view of this has been obfuscated by those older generations into seeing everything as a choice to be made

yet what happens when those choices are ultimately made due to the effects of an outside force and an unfair system that doesn't respect people for being different

many people, for example, on the autism spectrum or who have ADHD find themselves in these positions where struggle is punished and not understood, and the lack of understanding itself is in itself, a form a torture

many people in this category rely on their parents and are unable to take care of themselves, and are called lazy for it

many find themselves trying to change their lives for the better and are ridiculed for their mistakes, distractability or the nameable teacher's failure to account for difference

many find themselves in a position where they are blamed for the traumas that afflict them. because after all, if you are responsible for everything that happens in your life, it is your fault for not being normal or successful

everything is treated as though it is intentional through the lens of neurotypicality

yet how much of life really can be attributed to an internal locus of control when you fall under not only a neurodivergent label, but also the circumstances that be

take the people who rely upon their parents, for example. those parents may be providers, yet they may not understand all their offspring's needs or wants or even be able to provide them

if the offspring is suffering at the hands of alcoholic abusive parents who disrupt their peace of mind is it fair to say they just need to work hard to escape their situation

some may say yes, after all, working hard would help them do so

yet how would you even develop the confidence to find a job if you lack the safety and security the carer is meant to provide within your own home, and why would a job hire a person lacking in confidence?

how could a neurodivergent person simply be expected to turn their life around or contribute to society if that very society puts them down and has instilled trauma upon them, while also telling them everything is under their control as though trauma were a choice or consequence and not a result of negligence

it even goes beyond neurodivergence, like how can a person with other underlying issues like being trans in a family that does not respect being trans spur them to action when they're now carrying the burden of their own blood betraying them and their peace of mind

it would be madness to tell a victim of murder, car accident. sexual assault or racial or sexual hate crime that their was the victim's fault, and yet many are content to say that is true for those with unseen struggles

an internal locus of control is, by itself, not a bad thing, yet it is not a choice, it is a skill and one that can't be expected to develop without other blockades and needs being met

a mentally well person is capable of anything, yet a mentally unwell person requires time, consideration, patience and even support, not disciplining or a bunch of labels applied to them from external sources trying to define someone by what they do or do not do in the immediate moment

the real irony in this type of behaviour is the locus of control that is removed by these ill-given labels

"you are not self-searching, you are just lazy" "you are not distracted, you're defiant" "you are not traumatized or depressed, you're making excuses"

and so these get internalised and through the act of demonising those in struggle, real defiance is born

i repeat, why would someone contribute to a society of awful people? why would someone contribute to society if all it views them as is a tool? why would someone work hard and push themselves beyond their limits for those who put them down and rank value based not on character, but on actions alone

purposelessness becomes a defeatist comfort

not having goals is the safest bet for those who originally dreamed big and were shot down time and time again

why start afresh in a world that clowns on you for enjoying what it put forth instead of immediately finding a magical motivation to simply conform

neurodivergence was never the problem, it was the problem of numerous people coming to their own conclusions about people they do not know and labeling them, urging them to instead take back control by labeling themselves, whether correctly or incorrectly based on what they hear online

is it strange to say that gaming has become an uglier medium with how overly advanced we've become? how genuinely we've lost sight of the artistic vision of games and instead devolved to match other mediums as best we possibly can. how those limitations were actually the greatest beauty of all

there was a charismatic charm about games pushing boundaries for what they could do. today there is only photorealism and not even just that. if a game doesn't meet the standards of the average gamer - realistic, high end, cinematic, maximalist, it's not even worth considering.

tragic that many people miss out on what have become ironically the most beautiful experiences gaming has crafted

there is no space for the minimalist outside of indies, there is no space for the experimental and imperfect visuals, only the core gameplay loops and functionalities of those games

yet they make bank, cause really games are about their trailers than they are about being games

some devs aim to recreate the look of the classics with low poly styles, but it'll never match an actual limitation imposed by weaker hardware and trying to push beyond it

we had fog in resident evil as a trick, we had areas that had no choice but to use colour theory and distance to create a sense of scale while maintaining good gameplay

now we need games to be bigger, so packed with content, so packed with repetitive landscapes and long times of travel so we can pretend we're happy with the final product and how many hours we sink into it rather than... an actual experience of quality in the short form or the limited flow

as the canvas expands, options grow narrow and with the rise of ai we're going to see more sloppy looking high end games that can't match the simple beauty of what came before, and gamers will be so closed off to the idea that anything limited, minimal or intentional could have any merits beyond being a stepping stone for this automated and corporate slop

if i'm honest, there are only a few things i don't like about woke culture

People constantly arguing over it. Is there too much in media or not enough, we need representation, or there's too much. We need political fiction, or there's too much. But art wasn't made for you, how people express is up to them. You can scream problematic or anti-woke at a lack of representation, you can scream woke at the existence of a minority in a fictional work, but it's not for you to decide what it is unless you're the artist.

2. The delulu and death of the author. This character is this. This plot is a large statement about this and that, or this is proof of such and such agenda. Death of the author occurs when we hone in on one unconfirmed perspective and firmly label it true. Delulu occurs when we start spreading and actively believing false information. It's fun how spiteful people are saying brand characters are representation even when they're deconfirmed. But problematic when this leads to people giving corrupt and bigoted companies their money because of a lie born from someone else's delusion and fantasizing. Take Shiver from Splatoon for example. She's not enby, but you'll spread lies and help Nintendo make their dough, won't you? Regardless of their ethics?

Society asks a lot of rhetorical questions in order to avoid an answer.

Are the ___ okay? A joke comment used to highlight and make light of struggles by illuminating a comical moment.

And yet, when it targets a real issue, rhetoric can sweep its importance under the rug.

Isn't that right? To avoid the confrontation of numerous people's issues, we drop dismissive rhetoric for the purpose of an easy exit stage right.

You'll survive, won't you? They'll be fine. Oh of course ___ wrote this.

Are the ___ okay? We've known the answer for years, but no one dares to stay it with such strong conviction enough for someone to stop treating others' issues and thoughts as a means of comedy.