For the sake of keeping this blog as accessible as possible, please no use of fonts or typing quirks. Particularly those that may replace some letters with others (e.g. swapping 's' and 'z') or replace letters with symbols.
This is not my main but I will not link or associate my main with this blog; this is meant to be anonymous for a reason.
You can call me Anon or AnonCrusader
I use she/they/he but I'm keeping my gender vague here. All you really need to know is that I'm not binary and neither transmasc or transfem.
I'm POC and alterhuman
I'm a minor (older than 13), please keep that in mind when interacting. I know I don't know everything or have everything figured out which is partially the point of this blog.
I've made this blog primarily to explore and ask questions about complex topics and try to understand certain world views.
My main goal is to find nuance and/or at least understanding in certain views and be able to form my own thoughts and opinions on certain things without worrying about harassment or judgement for getting anything wrong, getting confused, etc
I may also speak of my own pre-existing views though and make posts surrounding such.
Nothing I say or do here is out of malicious intent. It's out of mostly ignorance, curiosity and, ultimately, wanting to grow and learn as an individual. And, for pre-existing beliefs & also in general, to try and improve the world we live in =)
When presenting objective arguments or viewpoints, providing accurate and reliable sources is highly encouraged and appreciated. You are allowed to use anecdotes and testimonials that may hold value or be relevant (especially for more subjective points). But please note that having reliable sources where possible or needed is still important.
Anonymous asks and DMs are off to avoid harassment.
If you're to answer a question or questions and have a longer response, I'd appreciate reblogging to comment or sending an ask rather than replying directly as it'd be easier to navigate.
I have a tag system that can be found below my list of views.
No DNI as this blog is meant to be open-minded, but please keep my views in mind and understand that I block freely.
While this blog is meant to be for asking questions and learning. I do still already have 'basic'(??) views; most aren't likely to change, some may be influenced or questioned though. I'll be listing those below. (This may be updated as time goes on and this blog is used to ask questions)
-Anti-xenosatanist (you will never convince me that children should be able to have non-platonic/non-familial relationships with adults)
-Neutral on TransIDs I support some (e.g. transspecies), but not others (e.g. transethnicity, transabled), and for some it depends on circumstance (e.g. RCTA as an adoptive child)
-Pro-para though I don't associate with the term due to it also being used by radqueers and xenosatanists. I don't believe that having a praphilia makes someone inherently evil. However, for harmful paraphilias (pedophilia, zoophilia, etc), I do not support pro (harmful) contact individuals and I'm pro-recovery (not conversion therapy).
-Pro contradictory/good faith labels
-Profic/Proship critical. I do think that fiction can affect reality, but not inherently so and that it depends on the individual
-Darkship/dark content critical
-Anti-censorship (at this current stage, pro-censorship will always impact minorities)
-Transfeminism critical. Not of the concept itself but the community surrounding it. I want to be transfeminist but the ideas currently circulating in that space make me uncomfortable and also seek to invalidate certain identities. (I despise the 'birthday boy' and 'theyfab/theymab' crap)
-I believe in transandrophobia. But primarily, transunity
-Misandry critical(??). I believe it is a thing in the sense that, for example, black men experience oppression for being black, but also for being black men. I do also think that, in a sense, it exists as just another *tool of the patriarchy to keep men/male-perceived individuals in the preferred class or 'standard' of manhood or masculinity.
*The same thing is also enforced by misogyny though; it's complex
-Psych critical. Considering anti-psych but NOT pro-psych either
-Anti-harassment
-This isn't all. But this is some of the main ones. (I think.)
Tag System
#Crusading - Questions
#AnonFollowUps - Follow up questions (likely for responding to reblogs
#AnonReceives - Asks
#CrusadeStops - Reblogs
#JustPassingThrough - Standard text posts
Yeah I said something similar yesterday but we can NOT let what happened to Renee Good cloud what happened to everyone else at the hands of these SS Demons!!!
Because we can’t disregard one person if we’re for human rights!
"how could an anti-contact paraphile not support radqueers???🥺" gee i fucking wonder why
a fundamental part of radqueer ideology is to tolerate abusers, "cis-nazis," predators, etc. you literally have to play nice with rapists if you want to be a "real radqueer." there's no salvaging this community, pick a new label at this point because this is what radqueers are.
i don't care what people do with consent, but the moment you let active abusers into your space and look the other way when they hurt people, you make it an unsafe space for Everyone, especially victims and survivors.
(not censoring the usernames of the pro-contact apologists get fucked 😃 abusers do not deserve anonymity)
wait wtf i always knew radqueers were people to avoid but ??? i never thought they were like THIS ??? you HAVE to support rapists and abusers to even be ALLOWED at all ???????????? what the fuck ???????????
some radqueers claim to be "pre-radqueer" or whatever but yeah, the og ideaology states you have to include abusers/apologists into the community or you're "not really radqueer." which is also why it's such a dangerous pipeline into pro-c shit for paraphiles desperate for community.
I don't hate it, but I don't love it either.
I'm torn, really.
The colours, to me, aren't that bad. They are brighter and more warm-toned than those of the original flag. And it irks me.
But I attribute that more to me just being used to the darker/cooler toned colours than any actual distaste. So no real issues with the palette.
I do understand and appreciate the reason(s) it was changed. From what I know, the main reasons were because some had issues with the white stripe representing allies and partners, and to acknowledge nuance, intersectionality, and diversity. I like that =)
But, I have qualms with the pink stripe and what it represents.
I think it's a bit strange to have a stripe specifically centering(??) or focussing on love. This is not to say that I don't think asexuals experience love or that the love asexuals experience shouldn't be talked about. It'd be silly of me to say that as an asexual that does.
But, I've seen many aspec folk, particularly loveless folk, feel that it's centering love and not properly acknowledging them.
And, I have to say I feel the same. I've seen a post arguing that 'the flag isn't meant for you/your loveless experience.' I partially agree with the sentiment because, yes, the flag isn't supposed to be about loveless individuals or their experiences specifically. However, I feel like the flag should still be inclusive to them, because many loveless people are or consider themselves asexual.
They are part of the community and deserve to feel respected and included in our flag.
Now, I'm not saying I want the stripe removed or the new flag removed. I'm in no way asking for that.
But, I personally feel like it would've been better if the stripe had represented both the fact that some asexuals do feel love and others don't.
Perhaps with a meaning more like: "to signify the love that some of us feel. And the fact that some of us don't feel love" (This is terrible wording, apologies) or something like that.
Having a stripe that just talks about the love some of us experience feels like it can be exclusionary to aces that don't feel love, and I can understand how many feel like it's glossing over them and their asexual experiences.
But, I don't know. These are just my thoughts and opinions on it.
[Image ID, Tags reading "but why though, why do we have to use terms in a way that outs us a a group or not? and what am i supposed to say instead when i feel this captures my experience as a perisex trans person the best? dont get me wrong i am fully behind advocating for intersex rights and more conversations about intersex struggles, but this feels like bioessentialism again. Like i would'nt bat an eye at an intersex person calling "assigning themselves to any gender identity" transitioning either. End ID]
Just so, SO much to unpack in this, but I will try my best to educate for those that don't understand.
"AGAB" means Assigned Gender at Birth, it is not a noun, it is a verb, used to describe the process of being assigned a gender at birth, not the fact that you have one, everyone has one, the process of having a doctor pick it for you. This term was coined by intersex people to describe our experiences of doctors picking and choosing which gender we were assigned as based on often times no evidence, sometimes a baby's genitals match up with what they were assigned as, often times they don't. "AGAB" was intended as a way to describe how intersex people were put into a binary of biological male or biological female despite that not being the case.
The usage of "AGAB" by perisex transgender people changes this definition entirely, overwriting the voices of intersex people and our experiences and using our own terms in ways that make no sense given the actual original definitions. To Perisex transgender people, "AGAB" is a noun, you are an "AFAB" or an "AMAB" person, it means you were born a biological female or a biological male and implies you no longer identify with this term. I understand fully that people may feel comfortable using these terms under these definitions, but it doesn't change the fact that these are the incorrect uses of terms made by a different, smaller, community and bastardized of their original intents and meanings.
You are finding comfort in calling the skies green and the grass blue, and to intersex people who named them you look silly.
As to what you are supposed to use, the terms Müllerian and Wolffian have been coined as alternative terms to biological female and biological male, designed to be detached from gender entirely.
If you are "Fully behind advocating for intersex rights and more conversations about intersex struggles", please do not cast aside the intersex people speaking up against intersexism in favor of your own comfort in these misused terms. Being an intersex advocate, and any form of advocate in general, comes with listening to the people you are advocating for, especially when it discomforts you and calls into question your biases.
I am confused as to how this is bioessentialism, "AGAB" were coined specifically *against* bioessentialism, against the idea that intersex people, and people in general, being put into boxes at birth. It is used to describe genders being inflicted upon us without our consent, and is a term describing a harrowing experience. It is not bioessentialism to give bioessentialist tools a name. Especially when that name is used with hate. Intersex people hate "AGAB", we hate being put into boxes and being expected to conform to the idea of biological male and biological female. Calling this post bioessentialist is silly, please learn the meaning of words before you use them.
As for the thing about intersex people describing themselves as transitioning when describing their gender, this, unlike your earlier comments, is blatant intersexism rather than the covert accidental ignorance kind. Intersex trans people can use whatever terms they like to refer to their experiences thank you very much. If an intersex person describing their experience of identifying as the gender they feel comfortable with as transitioning makes you uncomfortable, you are not only intersexist but transphobic too.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, nobody knows things before they know them, nobody has already learned the things they are actively learning. I hope you can take this post to heart, both you and other readers who were questioning my post.
I'm trying to be patient but the amount of perisex people on this post asking what other terms they can use and insisting AMAB/AFAB works best for them is insane.
I will say this one final time, AGAB does not mean biological sex.
Anyone asking how they can describe their experience without saying their AGAB is missing the point entirely.
AFAB does not mean biological female, it does not mean müllerian, it does not mean someone who was born with a fully functioning vagina and a uterus and went through a estrogen puberty.
AMAB does not mean biological male, it does not mean wolffian, it does not mean someone who was born with a fully functioning penis and testes and went through a testosterone puberty.
Every time you use "AFAB" to refer to your experiences as a perisex müllerian person, you are using it wrong.
Every time you use "AMAB" to refer to your experiences as a perisex wolffian person, you are using it wrong.
If you are a person who was AFAB there are people who were AMAB or AXAB who went through the same puberty and transition you did.
If you are a person who was AMAB there are people who were AFAB or AXAB who went through the same puberty and transition you did.
Your experiences are not limited to people who were assigned the same gender at birth as you, so every time you use your AGAB as an example of how being transgender works, you look silly as you are ignoring intersex people's existence in your analogy, and using our words wrong to do so.
Using intersex terms when you wish to describe a fully perisex bodily development is using them wrong. There will always be an intersex sized hole in every analogy you use for perisex development and transition using intersex-made terms.
Just a few corrections, because unfortunately lots of this post is incorrect. Lots here is correct, but I'll tack onto what isn't, because this is long enough as is. I fully agree with the last two paragraphs and on it's own I think that's an excellent point. OP is also correct in that ASAB terminology doesn't actually describe you. But...
These terms were not coined by us. The erasure going on here is worse than this, by far. These terms were invented by perisex people, a very specific group of transphobic, intersexist, pedophilic child predators, to refer to the process of correcting our sexes. That is not hyperbole, I am speaking about child rapists who were (and often still are) highly respected in their field. Which is why it's so strange & hurtful to see it gain ground as a common parlance for "observed sex at birth." I much prefer OSAB or DSAB. DSAB (designated) is a little older, and both are not as well known (go figure lol)
I'm sorry in advance, but I'm old and I've done a lot of research. This particular tidbit I've known since I was ten, because I was subject to John Money's practices as a medically classified "true hermaphrodite". My familial abusers were also child psychologists with a full on practice (which they used to abuse children) and I'm well read in the department we're all suddenly in.
Please note that my post is written as General You to an assumed general perisex audience. I will come across as aggressive because I am talking about deeply upsetting subject matter. I am not trying to be combative to OP. I am not trying to be rude. I am being as honest as I can, given the circumstances. You're welcome in advance, because this is as polite as this herm gets.
As I said, a sex assignment isn't the same as an observed sex/designated sex. If you think this, then you are wrong, and you need to read up on what I am about to tell you, because it's YOUR history as well as MY HISTORY. All of us are impacted by this.
"The concept of “gender role” was coined in the early 1950s at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, MD. In a set of five publications, co-authored with psychiatrists Joan Hampson and her husband John Hampson and published between 1955 and 1956 in the Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, John Money developed a new theory of human sexual development. Money and the Hampsons compared contradicting biological variables of sex and the sex the child had been assigned at birth with its gender role. [...]
"Based on this hypothesis, the team developed a set of treatment recommendations, which advocated early surgery on genitals to adjust the body to the assigned sex. The Hopkins protocols (as the five publications came to be called) became the dominant guidelines in intersex case management (ICM). Over the past two decades, intersex patient activists and gender scholars have, quite rightly, severely criticized these treatment practices for creating a world of shame, secrecy, and unwanted genital surgeries."
(The Birth of Gender: Medicine and the Transformation of Sex in the 1950s)
The inception point of Assigned Sex came from a group of child abusers. The inception point of Assigned Sex was child abusers discussing how to mutilate, medically and psychologically experiment on intersex children, in order to broaden their understanding of sex vs. gender. Again, I am not being hyperbolic in calling them child abusers, because they did in fact rape and molest children (on top of the psychological torture that intersex specific treatments are!) This is fact. This is immutable. You can go look into that yourself. It's included in one of the links I provide, if you actually read through this. The appearance of Assigned Sex starts in the 1950s, and it starts here.
"Should Sex Ever Be Altered After Early Childhood?
Fortunately the sex which is assigned to hermaphrodites at birth often agrees with the predominant characteristics of the external genitalia. This decision is wise provided the necessary studies are made to exclude female psuedohermaphroditism. However, when the external genitalia are of a doubtful nature, the physician often refuses to make a definite decision [...]"
The Diagnosis and Treatment of Endocrine Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence 1950
So we are categorically talking about a group of people, (of which I am one,) who were subject to infant genital mutilation (IGM), nonconsensual HRT, and routinely taken into psychologists' offices to strip naked and be sexually assaulted repeatedly; in order to ensure we were sexually developing as the correct gender role, with the correct effects of HRT on our bodies. That's what they do. That is what these people do to us. This text saying "Fortunately our assignments line up later on!" is only something this author (Wilkins) knows because he was sexually abusing intersex children/teens/young adults.
You have no idea what a lifetime of being a sexually abused lab rat does to a person.
Previously to this new wave of child sexual abuse wrapped up as medical intervention, many intersex people were quietly assigned a sex by the doctor and there were no standards. There are now, roughly standards, but it's still up to the practitioner's personal beliefs on ICM + their interpretations of the specific intersex body in front of them. Lots of us were born and left alone, lots were cut up, lots of us were Foundlings. (We still are these things, and very often.) Prior to this form of medical abuse, we were defined by a legal system (Rome, Greece, Britain) or in Indigenous communities, by our self chosen paths as an equally valued member of community - but the history is all over the place here and I gotta stick to the topic. Did you know sex markers were introduced to punish intersex "androgynous" people? Look into that. This is a great piece but it's only the start on that rabbit hole.
“Gender” was invented within U.S. medicine in the mid-20th century. It transformed over the span of three decades, going from a pragmatic tool in the sex assignment of children with intersex traits in the 1950s, to an essential category in newly established gender identity clinics for transgender individuals in the 1960s, to a focal point of feminist debates about the sex/gender binary in the 1970s."
How the Clinic Made Gender: The Medical History of a Transformative Idea, 2022
If you are transgender, your struggles are built on our suffering. That's how intertwined this all is. The modern transphobia movement would not exist without intersexism. This is why it excessively hurts us that you use these words whilst simultaneously denying us a seat at the table. You are erasing us with the same violence that CAME from us and was put unto YOU.
"Observation or recognition of an infant's sex may be complicated in the case of intersex infants and children and in cases of early trauma. In such cases, the infant may be assigned male or female, and may receive intersex surgery to confirm that assignment. These medical interventions have increasingly been seen as a human rights violation due to their unnecessary nature and the potential for lifelong complications."
Wikipedia's page on this borders on the cusp on understanding here, but what I am saying to you all is: An observed sex is passively observed. An assigned sex is actively assigned. If you were not labeled as a sex and given intervention (HRT, surgery, therapy in the form of sex roleplay / gender dynamics roleplay, enforcement via your caretakers to ensure you're "normal" sex-wise) then you do not have an assigned sex. We came up with CASAB (coercively or correctively assigned sex) and that was taken too, but I'm not a nice herm that acquiesces ASAB in the first place, so my thoughts on that are irrelevant right now.
"More visible adoption of the terminology of sex assignment has led to public debate and criticism.
There is a consensus in the use of the term "sex assignment" for newborns with intersex conditions; observed chromosomal sex and assigned sex may intentionally differ for medical reasons (based upon predictions of psychosocial and psychosexual health in later life)." (Wikipedia)
So like intersex people have been saying, you don't actually have an assigned sex unless you were assigned a sex, and it can vary from your observed/designated sex, and lots of us have both.
"The terminology has evolved across various editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) maintained by the American Psychiatric Association. Initially, the third edition of the DSM referred to "anatomic sex". By the fourth edition in 1994, the term "assigned sex" was introduced, with subsequent editions also using "biological sex" and "natal gender". The latest revision in 2022 streamlined the language to consistently use "sex assignment"." (Wikipedia)
We're being effectively genocidally exterminated, by the way. This predates this statement about the UK by the Lemkin institute. The denial and prevention of identity is the first step in any genocide, and we are decades past that. The tomb felt like it sealed in 2022, Assigned Sex so mainstream that the DSM has added it to their ranks. You're contributing here, not knowing the history, flippantly using terminology intersex people have been fighting against for longer than you've lived.
If you're perisex, do not speak to me on this unless you have at least a basic grasp on John Money. If you know what ASAB is, it's thanks to him. He popularized the term assigned sex via his prolific work. He was doing that work to gain access to intersex children to sexually abuse. The additions to the DSM were due to his work bringing these terms over from the field he was in. He was a massive transphobe and a child rapist.
"In the 1970s, “biological sex” found its way into legal doctrine as a result of an outdated understanding of transgender identity as a mental illness caused by early childhood experiences, along with policy concerns about the need to distinguish the sexes for purposes such as avoiding same-sex marriage."
That was John Money.
"Assigned sex terminology also emerged at midcentury in medical research related to people with intersex variations. “Intersex” is “an umbrella term for differences in sex traits or reproductive anatomy,” such as “differences in genitalia, hormones, internal anatomy, or chromosomes, compared to the usual two ways that human bodies develop.” Transgender theorists borrowed this terminology in the 1990s to describe the process of assigning sexes to all infants, and it began to appear in legal contexts in the early 2000s. It now competes with the term “biological sex” in legal disputes over transgender rights."
John Money ALONE did so much harm to the trans community, and nobody knows who he is, what he did, or how impactful it was - despite living under the current impacts of that transphobia. Because he was first and foremost obsessed with intersex children. And it seems like we really just don't matter. You need to change this. You need to care about this. It impacts you. This is your fight too.
If you are not actively seeking education on this, don't bother engaging with me. I'm well educated enough in this arena to look at someone being argumentative and recognize that they don't even know what they're arguing against or for or about. I can also tell if you pop up to argue and haven't read any of the material provided, because I've read it dozens of times in order to format my arguments over the years. I have to be well educated so that perisex people will listen to me. But this means I expect the same of you: I will not listen to your argument if it's just "But I like these terms and I'm autistic so I hate change so you're being ableist to a neuro-divergent minor!!!" You need an actual argument here, and there really isn't one. So if this pisses you off and you want to tantrum about it, consider doing so in private, because I am a (NOT NICE!) intersex person. I will not hold your hand or cheerfully educate you! Because you cannot imagine the physical torture I've endured, the intersex-specific / intersex-exclusive experience of abuses I have had over my many years! So unfortunately, when it comes to this,
And I'm not gentle about it either.
Read, educate yourself, listen to intersex people. You will never have trans liberation without the liberation of the intersex people. Your fight will always fall flat if you cut us out of it, because we have been fighting this fight just as long, arguably longer; and you are kneecapping yourselves by culling your movement's allies and founders. Thank you for reading.
This will probably be my most controversial post by far, but it needs to be said.
Gendered socialization is unequivocally real. Boys and girls are treated and socialized differently before they're even born.
Female babies are disappearing en masse, because male babies are more valued.
From an extremely early age, parents respond to their childrens' emotions differently based on gender. Mothers over-estimate the crawling abilities of their infant sons compared to infant daughters.
Mothers speak to their infant daughters more and talk them more about emotions than they do their sons.
By the age of 2, boys already show an avoidance to the color pink and other items traditionally seen as feminine, laying the ground work for early demonstrations of misogyny in childhood.
When children enter pre-school, there is no difference in math abilities between boys and girls. But such gaps begin to appear as children grow older.
The vast majority of girls report feeling unsafe going outside, and at least 2/3 of girls have reported experiencing sexual harassment at school by the time they 16.
Further on in education, women will understimate their scores, while men will overestimate their scores. Women will perform worse on tests when first told that women, on average, perform worse.
Researchers argue that the prevalence of sexual assault against women is so high specifically because of early gendered socialization. The men who commit sexual violence consistently demonstrate specific ideals about gender and perform hostile masculinity.
The patterns reach well into adulthood, influencing occupational choices.
I could literally go on and on and on. There are countless studies and entire fields of academia dedicated to researching this. The fact that children are socialized differently paced on assigned or percieved gender is really not debatable.
I am sympathetic to the fact that transphobes have warped the concept of socialization to insinuate that trans women are destined to be violent or predatory, or that trans men are destined to be submissive and helpless. However, people weaponizing these frameworks does not mean that the phenomenon does not exist.
Furthermore, individual people's nuanced experiences with gendered socialization does not mean that these patterns don't exist on a large scale. Any interaction with society will confer the influence of gender biases, especially upon children to are extremely vulnerable to both subtle and overt social cues.
Again - gendered socialization is real. This is a core aspect of feminist analysis. I am not going to pretend otherwise.
I'm sure I remember a time when it was a big part of trans theory that missing out on typical gendered socialisation was a big part of the abuse of trans people by a cisnormative society.
Thinking of it as like a language, where so much stuff is taught by exposure, all the "gendered manners" that are taught in single-sex situations (the proverbial thing of "girls act differently when there are no boys present/boys act differently when there are no girls present") which are the situations where a kid is taught how to perform "their" gender in the most nuanced and complicated ways that signal to other people of the same-gender that "we are the same type of person" - and, trans people are often cut off from that until they come out, meaning that they have to learn the "basics" as adults.
Likewise I see so many trans people say "Bold of you to assume I was socialised! I was treated as a weird thing." And I don't know how to point out that the things that get a child treated as a "weird thing" and put outside of the bounds of propriety are themselves different for children being raised-to-boyhood or raised-to-girlhood. Thinking about England because I don't want to extrapolate outside of where I personally know, a "girl" might get treated as a tomboy-outsider-weirdo for wanting to play toy soldiers or play in the woods, but a "boy" would probably be seen as normal for that. Likewise, a "boy" might be punished really badly for liking makeup and dresses, but a "girl" wouldn't be. Seeing "You can't say I was socialised as a boy, I was constantly getting in trouble for putting on my sister's clothes, and treated like I was disgusting for crying and being emotional!" And just... Yes! Because people that the patriarchy wants to turn into "boys" will be punished for showing femininity, that is how male socialisation works! Likewise "I was treated as a tomboy and put in a third gender category because I was sporty and outdoorsy, and punished and called monstrous and sent to see a psychiatrist for not playing with dollies" - That's female socialisation, because a "boy" who was sporty wouldn't be put into into third gender category for it, and wouldn't be called monstrous for having no interest in dolls.
Obviously the exact things that are gendered change from culture to culture, but that applies to everything, everything is culturally bound and affects different people in different ways and to different degrees, but we still try to talk about the broad trends which carry through cross-culturally (which has been a big part of feminist consciousness- Recognising that although the ways that women are treated worldwide aren't the same, that there are repeating themes...)
I don't know, it feels like we shouldn't have to ignore that gendered socialisation exists and is often a horrible locus of abuse (for both cis and trans kids, even before getting into how it's often SO MUCH WORSE for intersex kids regardless of whether they're cis or trans!) just because terfs also want to use it.
Yeah. I think it's important to keep in mind that not everyone who believes in (the observable and measurable phenomenon of) gendered socialization believes that socialization is somehow an INDELIBLE MARK ON YOUR SOUL, or that being PERCEIVED as a given gender by your parents/society when you were younger means you ever WERE that gender.
The whole point of modern feminism is that gendered socialization CAN and in many ways SHOULD be unlearned.
I think people also gotta keep in mind that everything with gender is going to be a bimodal distribution. It's not "boy result" and "girl result", it's "range of boy results" and "range of girl results". And they almost always overlap.
The other thing I think is useful to keep in mind is that socialization is different for children perceived as intersex or insufficiently gender conforming: adults will treat children intermediately if they are labeled with an intermediate level, and gender policing also begins very early and can shape a child's relationship with the whole schema of gender itself. I think this is often missed for people who were identified as gender non conforming at an early age hitting the concept of gender socialization: when one's nascent gender has been identified as a potential problem by the people around you in a way that is different from the gender conforming children, socialization studies that largely focus on gender conforming case examples land in a way that doesn't always align with one's lived experience.
This is one reason that paying attention to intersex theory and experiences is really important for trans liberation and gender liberation both: I don't think you can really understand gender socialization without paying attention to case studies of children whose gender has been problematized at an early age as well as those who are perceived and socialized as "normally" gendered children. Obviously trans adults can come from children from both normatized and problematized childhood gender experiences, and individual caretakers of a gender or sex divergent child may respond to that child in a range of ways. But it's really worth noting that socialization theory does have room for socialization experiences that differ from the presumed-cis, presumed-perisex norm, and I think that talking about those examples can resolve some of the rejection of gendered socialization among trans communities.
(I'm on my phone at the moment, but if people want I can get into the literature and source some additional examples for folks who are interested.)
I also find the self-socialization model really useful when thinking about gendered socialization in a trans context. The idea of self socialization is that most children develop an internal concept of gender at fairly young age, and that they tend to pay more attention to same-gender role models, and actively emulate the stereotypical behaviors of their gender (rather than just being passively pushed into it). Basically, you internalize the gender norms of the gender you identify with. There are still external forces of socialization that are based on how one is perceived by others, but the idea that trans people are only socialized as their agab just isn't true.
I can't seem to find the original poster of this image, but I figured it'd be a helpful thing to have around. Remember this, everyone!
(The text of the image is copied into the alt text, and the tags are for communities I'm in that this could be related to though hopefully everyone knows this already)
Hate when I'm trying to advocate for anti-contact/non-offending (harmful) paraphilias/paraphiles,
saying that their intrusive thoughts/urges don't make them inherently evil,
and that they should be allowed to find helpful methods or outlets to manage their paraphilias without harming themselves or others.
And then a bunch of xenosatanists and those with adjacent views start talking about how they think minors and theriform animals should be able to consent, and other terrible things.
It's worse because I know most users (who I also know are acting in good faith) are going to see that more and start saying that all harmful paraphiles are inherently evil...
hii!!
this isn't meant to be mean or anything, but do you have sources for the fact endos started as a hate group?
HELLO ANON!!! It's not mean at all and I'm very happy you're asking for sources! This is gonna be a bit long as its a timeline and its sources.
Word Count; 3,984
Character Count: 26,839
Estimated Reading Time: 25 minutes
1989–1994: Early CDD Newsletters, Forums, and Online Communities
1989: Many Voices
Many Voices was established in 1989 as the first newsletter created specifically for people with complex dissociative disorders (pwCDDs). Although it remains available online today, it is no longer actively updated.
1991: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery (ASAR)
The Usenet group alt.sexual.abuse.recovery was created in 1991. It became home to a large community of CDD systems.
1994: ASARian Incorporated
In 1994, alt.sexual.abuse.recovery evolved into ASARian Incorporated. ASARian provided peer support, web hosting, unix shell accounts, and resources for people with DID/MPD
1994: alt.support.dissociation
Also in 1994, the Usenet group alt.support.dissociation was created. It would go on to become the longest-running support group for people with dissociative disorders. The website remains active, but the last post was made in 2024 as Usenet had declined in its own usage.
1995–1997: Astraea's Web and the Emergence of Non-Disordered Plurality
Astraea's Website
In 1995, Astraea launched what is considered the first website dedicated to discussing non-disordered plurality. This was the first known website to explicitly address plurality outside of a clinical or disorder-based framework.
Coining of Natural Multiplicity
Around 1996, Astraea introduced the term natural multiplicity. The concept proposed that having multiple personalities was not inherently disordered. Instead, it was framed as a naturally occurring phenomenon that could arise spontaneously, rather than solely through trauma or dissociation. You can find the archive here.
Criticism of Astraea's Web
While initially appealing to some, Astraea's work has been heavily criticized. Critics argue that its sources and rhetoric reflect of extreme ableism, saneism, and dangerous ideological positions that have caused lasting harm There have also been highly credible claims of plagiarism, misattribution, and strong anti-psychiatry bias.
Every source is here, here, here, and here
Astraea's Web is widely regarded as the starting point of what would later become the endogenic community.
1996–1999: The Development of Mid-Continuum
Sometime in 1996, an early internet plural named Vickis coined the term mid-continuum. The label quickly gained popularity among both dissociative and non-dissociative plural people.
Mid-continuum was rooted in the dissociative continuum model developed by Braun in 1988. Braun's model conceptualized dissociation as existing on a spectrum ranging from: normal experiences (such as daydreaming or zoning out) to polyfragmented DID at the far end. By 1997 and earlier, many DID-focused websites—including Astraea's Web—were sharing and discussing this model.
Archive of article by Joan A. Turkus, M.D. (1997)
Proof that this article was shared on Astraea’s Web.
What Mid-Continuum Meant
1. It Was Based on a Psychological Model
Many people in the dissociative community identified with Braun's dissociative continuum. Vickis created the term for individuals who felt they fell somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. The label was referred to as 'mid-continuum dissociation' or simply mid-continuum for short. People using the label were often called mid-continuum dissociatives. Vickis later created a webpage devoted to the concept called The Wonderful World of the MidContinuum.
2. It Was Created for Dissociative People
In 1997, Vickis announced the new website on alt.support.dissociation. In that announcement, mid-continuum was explicitly described as a label for dissociative people who did not meet all criteria for DID. On the website, Vickis explained that mid-continuum applied to people who experienced dissociated parts, fell somewhere in the middle of Braun's dissociative continuum—This included experiences ranging from different roles in different situations, inner children, ego states, parts or fragments that did not feel like whole people, and having some, but not all, diagnostic criteria for DID.
A quote from the homepage:
“Everyone dissociates. At one end of the dissociative continuum is ‘normal’ or ‘common’ dissociation that nearly everyone engages in[…] At the other end are the behaviors that characterize ‘classical’ multiples, who may have large numbers of very distinct insiders with little internal communication, serious difficulties with time loss, amnesia, and so on.
Between these two extremes, there is a lot of gray. Ranging from having different ‘roles’ that you live out in different situations, to having an ‘inner child’ or ‘inner children’ with varying degrees of separateness, to having ‘ego states,’ ‘parts’ or ‘fragments’ that don’t seem to be whole people, to having some but not all of the diagnostic criteria for what is now known as DID[…]”
Message Archive
Mid-Continuum Website Archive
3. It Was Created Out of Respect for People with DID
At the time, DID was still commonly referred to as MPD or simply multiplicity within online dissociative communities. Vickis and others believed it would be disrespectful to call themselves multiple if they did not have DID. They felt that doing so could minimize the struggles of people with DID. This was a major reason for creating the mid-continuum label. Vickis specifically noted that they did not experience time loss, had never experienced amnesia in that way, did not have communication barriers between parts, and did not face the same struggles as those further along the dissociative continuum Because of this, they did not want to equate their experiences with those of people living with DID.
From their essay on the subject (here):
“[…] someone elsewhere in this thread said something like ‘I don’t want to call myself multiple because I don’t want to minimize the sufferings of those who are really multiple’. And I can really relate to that. That’s why I say I’m not-quite-multiple usually. Because I don’t lose time and never have, I can’t possibly know what that’s like… I don’t have barriers that prevent communication between parts… I don’t have the struggles that people who are further down the continuum from me have, and I would never want to minimize their issues by claiming that my own are the same.”
4. Mid-Continuum and OSDD
Much of Vickis' writing strongly resembles what is now recognized as OSDD (formerly DDNOS). However, OSDD/DDNOS was rarely mentioned directly in their earlier work. It might've been due to the lack of research surrounding OSDD then—as it only was properly researched in the 2000's and 2010's—and Vickis wanting to use a less clinical term.
In 1999, Vickis remarked that people identifying as mid-continuum often received an OSDD diagnosis if they pursued formal evaluation. This was only mentioned briefly.
Late 1990's: The Precursor to Median
Over several years, mid-continuum became increasingly popular across the internet. It attracted a broad range of people within plural communities. As the label grew, anti-DID/OSDD and anti-psychiatry communities began objecting to it. Their objections were largely tied to mid-continuum's origins in dissociative theory and psychology.
Dark Personalities listed many psychological terms as derogatory to empowered and natural multiples, including DID, alter, and host. Mid-continuum itself also became a target of criticism.
The Push for a Replacement Term
Dark Personalities stated: "Since many people feel the idea of a continuum to be inaccurate, many are seeking a new term instead of mid-continuum." This effort to replace mid-continuum would eventually lead, in the 2000s, to the rise of the term median.
2000s: Median Replaces Mid-Continuum
An anti-DID/OSDD organization later coined the term median as a replacement for mid-continuum. Median became significantly more popular. As a result, mid-continuum gradually fell out of common use.
On the Pavilion website, Astraea’s Web wrote an essay on the midcontinuum and why they came up with the median label to replace it.
“It’s important to allow the concept to be inclusive of everyone who fits, regardless of past abuse history or origins, much as is currently being done for ‘multiplicity.’ With its roots in the abuse-dissociation model, midcontinuum is too limiting; it is no longer useful to us. Median creates a certain measure of psychological distance and gives the concept a fresh start, without the dissociative baggage of the past, and embraces all who feel they are more than one.”
(X X X)
ARCHIVE , ALSO APPLIED TO BELOW TIMELINE;
Pavillion's Policies Archive — "MPD/DID vs. Multiple"
Pavillion's Library Archive — "A brief history of Midcontinuum"
The Lancers' Codex — "Addressing the MPD/DID Issue"
2002–2007: The Rise of Median, Natural Multiplicity Activism, and Organized Anti-DID Campaigns
2003: Median Replaces Mid-Continuum
In 2003, the natural multiplicity organizations The Lancers and Pavilion Hall decided that mid-continuum was too rooted in psychology and dissociation. They argued that it was overly limiting because it was based on the abuse-dissociation model and did not adequately include people whose plurality was understood as non-traumagenic or non-dissociative.
As a result, they coined the term median to replace mid-continuum. Unlike mid-continuum, which was grounded in Braun's dissociative continuum model, median was intentionally broader and more abstract. Pavilion described plurality not as a linear spectrum, but as a sphere with infinitely many possible points, emphasizing fluidity, diversity, and nonlinear identity. According to their framework, someone could identify as median if they experienced themselves as multiple selves, but did not perceive those selves as fully independent.
This shift represented a significant philosophical departure. Mid-continuum had originally been created by dissociative people for dissociative people. Median, by contrast, was created by non-dissociative natural multiplicity advocates who believed mid-continuum was too psychologically grounded and insufficiently inclusive of their experiences.
Median and the Exclusion of DID/OSDD Systems
The Lancers and Pavilion Hall did not intend for people with DID or OSDD to use the median label. Their philosophy held that people with dissociative disorders were not truly plural, multiple, or median unless they no longer met diagnostic criteria. In their view, only "functional" and "non-disordered" individuals could properly claim these identities. If someone with DID or OSDD functioned according to their standards, they were considered no longer disordered.
Because their definitions of plurality and medianhood were often broad and vague, many people with DID and OSDD nevertheless identified with the concept despite the organizations' intentions.
1998–2014: Empowered Multiplicity, MultiGardens, and the Natural Multiplicity Movement
Empowered Multiplicity and MultiGardens
Out of the natural multiplicity movement emerged the concept of empowered multiplicity, which placed a strong emphasis on functionality and distinguished itself from what proponents called "survivor multiples."
In 1999, MultiGardens was established, though it was short-lived. Not long afterward, the person who coined the term "empowered multiplicity" stated that it had never been intended to exclude trauma survivors and that they had not meant to create so much conflict. Despite this, they continued to criticize survivors, as well as those who sought fusion or therapeutic treatment.
Natural Multiplicity as a Movement
By the early 2000s, natural multiplicity had evolved into a full-fledged movement. Its central aim was to establish that plural experiences were not inherently pathological. Many participants insisted that childhood trauma or abuse could not cause plurality or multiplicity.
Even to this day, plurals insist that pwCDDs are looking to blame someone for something they already had—pushing the narrative that pwCDDs were multiple prior to abuse and would've been multiple if it hadn't happened—and that we have internalized pluralphobia because we 'hate ourselves'
Natural multiplicity was not simply about advocating for non-disordered plurality; it also positioned itself in opposition to people with complex dissociative disorders (pwCDDs). Astraea and associated groups actively sought to challenge the legitimacy of DID and MPD as diagnoses, including attempts to have DID removed from the DSM.
Even after the term natural multiple began to be replaced by endogenic around 2014—largely because "natural" implied that systems with CDDs were somehow unnatural—the underlying ideological framework remained much the same. The earliest documented use of the term endogenic dates to 2014.
2000–2010s: The DID Boycott and Anti-Psychiatry Campaigns
For a whole decade, activists associated with the natural multiplicity and anti-psychiatry movements campaigned to challenge, revise, or remove the DID diagnosis from the DSM. This movement was deeply intertwined with both anti-psychology rhetoric and natural multiplicity ideology.
Prominent essays from this campaign included:
“Astraea’s Multiple Personality FAQ” by Astraea’s Web, archived in 2000.
“No More…” by Astraea’s Web, archived in 2000.
“Removing Diagnostic Labels” by Astraea’s Web, archived in 2001.
“Why We Are Not MPD/DID” by Dark Personalities, archived in 2001.
“Some Thoughts on Verbiage” by a guest on Astraea’s Web, archived in 2001.
“We don’t have Multiple Personality Disorder” by The Shire, archived in 2001.
“Terminology” by Those That Walk, archived in 2002.
“The Politics of Language” by Bent Spoons, archived in 2002.
“Fixing The DSM” by a guest on Astraea’s Web, archived in 2003.
This boycott significantly harmed people with complex dissociative disorders. Boycotters frequently argued that pwCDDs were not real, or that their diagnoses should be removed from diagnostic manuals. Natural and empowered multiplicity communities often paired their advocacy with broader opposition to psychiatry and psychology.
At a time when DID research was already sparse, controversial, and often inaccurate, these campaigns further complicated public and clinical understanding of dissociative disorders.
2002–2003: "Fixing The DSM"
"Fixing The DSM" was an essay written by The Jinkies in 2002 and published on Astraea's Web in 2003. It had previously appeared on Pavilion Hall's LiveJournal forum and in Pavilion's library. (X X X)
The essay argued that the DID and OSDD diagnoses should either be revised to better represent non-dissociative plural experiences or removed from the DSM entirely.
Jinkies contended that people without DID or OSDD might feel excluded from plural identity because they did not meet diagnostic criteria. They criticized the DSM for defining DID and OSDD in terms of dissociation, arguing that this invalidated non-dissociative plural experiences.
The essay ultimately proposed replacing DID with the term Ego-Dystonic Plurality, a phrase coined by the creator of Astraea's Web. Modeled after the historical diagnosis of Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality, this proposed label would have stripped DID and OSDD of their established clinical frameworks.
Jinkies concluded by asserting that non-disordered experiences do not belong in the DSM. While that statement is true in itself, DID and OSDD are inherently disordered conditions, making the proposal fundamentally incompatible with the realities of those diagnoses.
2002: The Formation of The Lancers and Pavilion Hall
In June 2002, two sister organizations were formed: The Lancers and Pavilion Hall. Both were self-described natural multiplicity activist groups. Though inactive today, their influence remains substantial. Their last known activity appears to have been in 2015.
These organizations were responsible for coining the term median system, creating the Layman's Guide to Multiplicity, and popularizing the idea of plurality as an umbrella term. Their impact on modern plural terminology and discourse remains significant.
The Lancers
Formation and Purpose;
The Lancers were founded to "resolve the conflict between plural and non-plural types" and to foster understanding between singlets, medians, and multiples. Despite this stated goal, they did not support DID or what they disparagingly referred to as "survivorwhine sites."
Membership Requirements;
Membership was restricted to natural multiples. People with DID or OSDD were explicitly excluded.
Applicants were required to sign the In Essence Pledge—viewed here and here—affirming that they were functioning and sane. They were also expected to publicly display this pledge on their websites and follow the organization's codex. Failure to comply could result in removal.
The organization strongly emphasized appearing non-disordered. Prospective members who were not yet functioning well enough to present themselves as "strong, sane, and responsible" were discouraged from joining.
They stated that if your system “cannot yet work functionally together in daily life, do not ask to join. If you wish to help the Lancers but haven't got things sufficiently together to be able to present to the world as strong, sane, and responsible, look elsewhere for help -- Astraea's is a good place to begin [...]” (X)
The Codex;
The Lancers developed a body of internal theory known as the Codex, which outlined their views on natural multiplicity. Among its concepts were "paths," later renamed "fires," though these terms did not gain widespread use. Their most enduring contribution was the term median, which replaced mid-continuum.
Pavilion Hall
Formation and Purpose;
Pavilion Hall was founded around the same time as The Lancers by the same group of people. Like The Lancers, Pavilion excluded people with DID and OSDD.
Pavilion described itself as an activist organization dedicated to promoting positive views of healthy multiplicity. Its goals included challenging the classification of multiplicity as a mental disorder, establishing common ground among plurals, and promoting natural multiplicity theories in both academic and non-academic settings. [X]
Membership;
Members were expected to live as healthy multiples so as not to undermine their mission of ending the idea that multiplicity was a disorder. While signing the In Essence Pledge was encouraged, it was not mandatory. [X]
Hierarchy;
You can read a more in-depth explanation of these positions on their page here
Pavilion had a five-tier organizational hierarchy:
Frontliners: The Frontliners’ main job was to seek out places where they could spread the word of natural multiplicity. This mainly included any space specifically centering around DID/OSDD—forums (discussed more below), websites (X), and articles (X), as well as mental health clinics (X), and even dissociative specialists such as from the ISSTD (X). They also occasionally sought out spiritual or unorthodox spaces to “convert,” such as a soulbonding forum. (X)They usually referred to this job as responding to “action alerts.” This part of Pavilion was surprisingly coordinated. You can find an action alerts page on their website here. You can also find an action alerts tag on their forums here.Another job for Frontliners was to “monitor” DID/OSDD forums, find people who they suspected didn’t actually have DID/OSDD, and bring them into the natural multiplicity community. (X X X) Here is a page they wrote on their justification behind this.
The Pavilion website also had an entire section called The Armory, which was dedicated to hosting resources specifically for Frontliners to do this sort of work. (X)
Scholars: These were the members of Pavilion who wrote the essays that the Frontliners could use in their arguments or discourse. They also supported the organization through other means such as researching counterarguments against psychology, or creating new websites for Pavilion to spread their purpose.
Knights/Coordinators: This was a temporary position. Members became Coordinators for the duration that they were running a project for Pavilion. One example of a Pavilion project would be Project Bananarama (later renamed Paperchase), in which they mailed out over 200 Pavilion brochures to psychologists and dissociative specialists. (X)
Diplomats: These were the members who spread Pavilion’s purpose offline in real life areas. One example of Pavilion’s offline activism would be slipping notes about natural multiplicity inside of DID/OSDD books. (X)
Castles/Directors: This appeared to be the highest level of the hierarchy. Directors were the leaders of Pavilion who kept an eye on every other members’ activity and projects.
One notable Pavilion project, originally called Project Bananarama and later renamed Paperchase, involved mailing more than 200 brochures promoting natural multiplicity to psychologists and dissociative specialists.
MEMBERS;
An archived list of The Lancer’s members can be found here.
An archived list of Pavilion’s members can be found here.
Another archived list of Pavilion’s members can be found here.
Concerning Activities of The Lancers and Pavilion
Documented behaviors included:
Mailing hundreds of natural multiplicity brochures to dissociative specialists
Editing and vandalizing the DID Wikipedia page (SEE BELOW)
Arguing that people with DID could not truly be multiple until they were no longer "dysfunctional" (X X)
Ridiculing PTSD- and DID-focused events, writings, and individuals (X X)
Joking about disrupting DID/OSDD conventions (X)
Monitoring DID/OSDD forums for potential recruits (SEE HIERARCHY ABOVE)
Coordinating "action alerts" to target specific spaces or publications (SEE HIERARCHY ABOVE)
Joking about "converting" others to natural multiplicity (X)
Drawing inspiration from anti-DID groups such as the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) (X)
Openly advocating for the removal of DID and OSDD from diagnostic manuals (X)
ARCHIVES
The Lancers’ Website Archive
The Lancers’ Public LiveJournal Forum
The Lancers’ Codex Archive
Pavilion’s Website Archive
Pavilions’ Public LiveJournal Forum
The Layman’s Guide to Multiplicity
Lancers/Pavilions’ Multiplicity Brochure
2003–2006: Pavilion and the DID Wikipedia Article
In February 2003, Pavilion members coordinated an effort to edit the Wikipedia article on Dissociative Identity Disorder.
Using Pavilion's "action alert" system, Astraea Household encouraged members to revise the article. Pavilion member Amorpha drafted and implemented substantial edits. You can read their rough draft here.
These changes shifted the article's focus toward controversy and introduced extensive material about "healthy multiplicity" (also called natural multiplicity). The revised article suggested that many multiples were not diagnosed, did not need therapy, did not have histories of childhood trauma, and did not wish to integrate
It also proposed that DID should be revised or removed from the DSM to accommodate natural multiples.
“Because such multiples do not experience their condition as disordered or sick in any way, some have proposed that the diagnosis of DID be removed from the DSM entirely, or revised to classify multiples who have difficulty communicating and sharing memories and/or wish to integrate.”
These additions remained in the article until 2006, when they were removed for lacking relevance to DID. Shortly afterward, the broader controversy section was also removed.
Archive of natural/healthy multiplicity removal & reasoning.
Archive of controversy removal & reasoning.
archive of the edit Amorpha made to the Wikipedia article
2005–2007: The Natural/Healthy Multiplicity Wikipedia Article
A separate Wikipedia article on natural or healthy multiplicity was later created. This article blended concepts of natural multiplicity with the clinical treatment goal of healthy multiplicity (also called resolution). Here is an archive of the edit Amorpha made to the Wikipedia article.
It also reflected Pavilion's belief that people with DID or OSDD who cooperated well internally no longer truly had those disorders.
The article relied heavily on sources created by Pavilion members, including:
Astraea's Web
Collective Phenomenon
Their shared LiveJournal community
The Layman's Guide to Multiplicity
Pavilion Hall
The Lancers
In 2007, the article was nominated for deletion due to its reliance on blogs, forums, and original research rather than reliable secondary sources. The nomination was successful, and the article was deleted.
This deletion highlighted a central problem for natural multiplicity advocates: despite extensive searching, they were unable to find substantial professional or academic support for the concept as an innate, non-pathological state. You can read the thread about it here.
Amorpha expressed frustration towards the reasons for deletion, specifically regarding 'reliable' sources. They explained that no matter how much they searched the Internet for proof, they could not find any professionals discussing natural multiplicity. The only thing they could find on healthy multiplicity was, obviously, related to CDD treatment.
“We helped to work on that article. It was deleted for containing ‘too much original research’ and ‘not enough acceptable sources.’ The sources thing was the real problem-- we've really tried combing the Internet for that, but they're looking for ‘secondary sources’, aka articles by doctors or journalists or someone working in some ‘professional’ capacity. And there honestly just isn't much. Most of the professionally-written material we've come across that mentions healthy multiplicity in any way approached it from the standpoint that it's all MPD/DID, and proposing the ‘radical’ idea that multiples don't have to integrate (though, of course, it's always suggested that they're only supposed to be capable of living independently and non-integrated after being in therapy for years).
I don't object to using those as sources, as I think a big point to be emphasized in the whole concept of healthy multiplicity is that a system can start out disordered and come to be healthy and stable in time, but what we needed and couldn't find were sources talking about it as a natural state of being-- not necessarily in terms of a pathological deviation from the norm[...]”
Holy shit someone actually found the old information about Sybil and darkpersonalities.net. I was convinced it had been buried or lost after I attempted to comb the internet for MONTHS looking for this information. We’ve been around a long time, older than most tumblr users now so to see that people have archived this information so it isn’t lost to the indoctrination misinformation propaganda is amazing.
The family of the 19-year-old atmospheric and earth sciences major released a statement on Thursday.
Headline: Slain Trans UW Student Identified as Juniper Blessing: “The Most Amazing Human Being”
Publisher: Them
Date published: 14th May 2026
Selected text from article:
The 19-year-old transgender student who was fatally stabbed in the laundry room of an off-campus housing complex near the University of Washington on Sunday night has been identified by the medical examiner’s office as Juniper Blessing.
Blessing was a recent graduate of the New Mexico School for the Arts in Santa Fe, according to the Santa Fe New Mexican, who obtained a statement from Blessing’s family.
“Juniper was simply the most amazing human being we have ever known — highly intelligent, extremely talented, and deeply sensitive to the needs of others,” the family wrote via the Santa Fe Human Rights Alliance. “Juniper’s loss not only devastates us but diminishes the world.”
[...]
Blessing was a major in the school’s Department of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences. Alongside the Gender Justice League nonprofit, the Trans Collective at UW has planned an on-campus event for those who wish to grieve Blessing. The groups have asked media not to attend, and for no filming or photography to take place.
I think a lot of transmisogyny stems from this idea that people are really scared to see a dick. The reason bathrooms and locker rooms and hot springs keep being flash points is because these are all places where if a trans woman is using them, it's possible you might see her dick. A lot of transmisogynistic humor revolves around being traumatized because the subject saw a woman with a penis. And look, to a certain extent I sympathize. I'm not a fan of dick; I dont want this thing either. But if you want to be an ally to trans women, I think a big important step you can take personally is to examine your own reaction to the scenarios I described above, and recognize that a dick is just a body part a girl has sometimes. Seeing it as inherently sexual and/or traumatizing is a major wedge conservatives use to justify their rhetoric
i very much understand and support the "trans women are seen by the patriarchy as a separate, third thing worse than both cis women and cis men" part of transfeminist arguments on this website. i think that is something that does genuinely need to be said and aligns with reality. the part i get lost at is "therefore, conversely, trans men are seen as both cis women and cis men and have access to male AND female privilege. they singlehandedly created and maintain the patriarchy and also hitler was a trans man"
Here’s what’s really perverse: prisoners, who cannot vote, still get counted in the U.S. Census. The more prisoners a county has, the more representation it gets, even though the prisoners cannot vote. See how that works? The more black and brown people they lock up, the more government resources and political representation they get. Even though those prisoners have no say and cannot vote.
If county-A has a population of 50 voters but no prisons, and county-B has a population of 50 voters and 50 prisoners, the county with the prisoners gets more government funding and more political represention. This is sometimes called “prison gerrymandering” and it is used in redistrictring.
Not so fun Fact: Southern states that reliably vote for Republicans also have the highest prison population in the United States. (source). So mass incarceration is a double whammy. It’s both a form of voter suppression and a tool to strengthen white people’s political power.
