Not today Justin
Mike Driver
i don't do bad sauce passes

titsay
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

ellievsbear
Xuebing Du

Andulka

Discoholic 🪩
No title available
wallacepolsom

No title available
Cosimo Galluzzi
art blog(derogatory)
Cosmic Funnies
tumblr dot com

★
No title available
hello vonnie
Sade Olutola
seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from Indonesia

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Brazil
seen from Netherlands
seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Chile

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Ireland
seen from Türkiye
@askanautistic
Not a question, just a rant. I got fired during my very first day of work today at my local Walmart bc I started having a meltdown and left the orientation room. I disclosed that I have a disability and everything, and the hiring manager was just like "WeLl YoU fAiLeD tO cOmMuNiCaTe ThAt To mE!!!" Bitch, you failed to do your job by not asking if the disability I indicated having on my application was something I needed accommodations for?? And my disability causes me to go nonverbal, so I literally CAN'T COMMUNICATE IN THOSE MOMENTS. A disability is a disability whether you can see it or not. I truly hate people. Why do disabled people owe neurotypicals and able-bodied people fucking ANYTHING in a supposedly civilized society?? I shouldn't even HAVE to work with all the issues I have not even including autism, but I'm still trying because I can't affored to wait 8 months to find out if I got approved for disability or not, you motherfuckers!! Expecting disabled people to accommodate everyone around them is the unrealistic expectation, NOT disabled people expecting basic decency or understanding. I need to pay rent and eat too!! Don't work for walmart, or if you're good enough at masking not to need accommodations, don't tell them you're autistic. They only care about disabilities if you have a physical disability that they can show off to their customers to show how "inclusive" they are. Fuck the U.S., fuck Walmart, fuck ableism.
VALID TBH.
I tend to get really distracted by my own thoughts, to the point where I'll do stuff like go get a glass of milk and then go sit down without the glass of milk and I have to go back and get it.
I'll put a trashbag on the floor so I'll remember to take it outside but I'll be thinking about so many unrelated things that I step around it and go outside without it.
Or I do something at work and then a minute later I'll catch myself starting to do it again, even though I did it already. And it's usually not that I forget necessarily, it's more that I'm off in my head and it's like my body is on autopilot.
It's really embarissing and it happens all the time, it makes me feel so stupid.
My questions is, is this something someone with only autism could have trouble with? Or is this more an adhd thing?
Forgetfulness and distractibility or issues with organisation can be linked to all kinds of things in some way or another, to an extent. Going on autopilot and not being able to remember if you're already done something or skipping parts of a task can be an issue for lots of people, particularly if engaged in something repetitive or boring, regardless of neurotype. Or can be something that occurs in someone who didn't previously struggle in this way due to stress or menopause or burnout.
An autistic person might struggle to multi-task or struggle with transitions in a way that means it's harder to complete a task, or might be pre-occupied by a special interest, or might struggle with processing (like being unable to focus on the task properly because of someone else trying to talk to them or ask them questions, and forgetting steps or doing the wrong steps because of the distraction). Executive dysfunction means we can struggle with all the smaller parts of the task, having to kind of think of them separately, and although I also have ADHD I've sometimes wondered whether ONE of my issues with completing tasks without some kind of brain blip moment is that I am having to consciously focus on each part of the task, and some are more prominent in my mind (I think more in concepts but I might have the kind of idea of the kettle in my head and that I need to boil it, and that might mean I am struggling to 'grab'/'hold' the idea of the cup, teabag, sugar, spoon, or that I need to open the cupboard to get a cup out, or that I need to go to the fridge and get the milk. And whereas I do have a routine of how I LIKE to make tea, I can get distracted or feel a bit less focused and struggling to piece together all the steps means I might act on these things in the wrong order and confuse myself even more. Like coming back from the fridge with the milk and then feeling a bit lost because I can't actually do anything with it (because there's no cup there with the teabag and sugar in it, let alone the fact I still need to pour in hot water and stir it and take the teabag out so what do I even need the milk for yet?! That was a waste of time, now the kettle's boiled and there's nowhere to pour the water, and I'm standing here holding a bottle of milk.
But obviously for most people who don't have a more general issue with attention, these little issues are likely to be an unusual thing that can be laughed off and more readily/easily corrected. Most people walk into a room and forget what they're there for at some time or another. Whereas for others it can be a longterm thing, that causes significant problems (even if it is just the accumulation of lots of seemingly small errors compared to most other people) and embarrassment. Whilst this issue might be worse (and more common) when doing something that would be pretty much universally recognised as boring, you might find that you do it even if you're interested in something. For me, I notice that I tend to go off in my head even if I'm finding something interesting. I might have to skip back to watch the same part of a programme or to listen to the same part of a podcast 10 times because I am repeatedly zoning out and thinking about something else, but because I am genuinely interested in what's being shown/said, I can't just continue watching without 'getting' that bit, and I also can't just give up on it entirely because I do want to watch/listen to it. Sometimes I just need something else to be able to engage (like being able to do something with my body at the same time as listening). Being bored of something can be painful to me, so sitting through a meeting or work training that I find boring is excruciating and I'll often struggle to take it all in because my mind will wander, but my brain struggles to focus on listening and watching when I WANT to, as well, quite often. To figure out whether this is possibly ADHD-related for you, you could look into the diagnostic criteria to see whether there are other ADHD-related things you experience. Whilst there is some overlap, it is possible to be both, and can be harder to recognise if you present in one way more strongly than the other. Something I feel is a bit different for me most of the time is that my processing seems to be slower than a lot of ADHDers I know. This is purely anecdotal and perhaps it's just a perception I have. They might lose something and realise they've lost it and will often comment on it. They'd likely be quicker to switch tasks, so on getting the milk they might think, 'Oh silly me, I didn't even get the cup out!' Whereas my brain tends towards a more glitchy, confused, buffering mode when I'm muddled. Of course it could also just be that a lot of non-autistic ADHDers I know are more energetic and talkative than I am, and maybe the talking things through helps them process? Or maybe it's because my autistic need for logic and routine is too disrupted if something goes awry (the steps being out of order takes longer for my brain to deal with?).
Interested to know other people's thoughts on this/experiences with this!
Art for sensory seeking and self-regulation.
I've discovered that painting is an excellent way for me to self-regulate, and I think it works for me for a number of neurodivergence related reasons.
Because I am ultimately painting for fun, there's no pressure. I don't have to show anyone, I don't have to worry about an unhappy client, I don't have to be able to justify my technique or progress to a tutor.
Because I have aphantasia and can't picture what I want/hope/expect the picture to look like, I can't feel too stressed about not achieving it (I notice my partner, who has a first class degree in art, does tend to hate everything she creates for a while because she never feels it matches up to what she wanted to achieve, even though her work is beautiful, but for me even if things seem to be going kind of weird or rubbish, it usually turns out as something I quite like or like elements of).
It gives me something to hyperfocus on that distracts me from real world worries, especially if I paint things that are nothing to do with anything serious (I paint a lot of snails and have experimented with paint dropping and more abstract colourful pieces).
OR it gives me an outlet for some of the things I might want to express. Usually I write as a creative outlet, but that does feel more pressured to me because that's the pursuit I take more seriously, and writing can feel much more personal and vulnerable (for me). So painting has been a nice alternative.
Experimenting with visual elements, like colour, shape, movement, is great for both sensory seeking and for regulation.
I end up so absorbed I can spend hours painting, which keeps me off social media. No doom scrolling, no overstimulation from constant, fast input, no bad news or people being vile to each other.
I set up an account on instagram to post my arty pursuits on, and was mindful of the algorithm, so even when I am online I have a little space now where I can avoid problematic or heavy content. Which has been better for my mental health. I also tend to get shown a lot of little art videos that might have tips or techniques I'd like to try out, or reassuring and uplifting content about the creative process.
I usually use acrylics because they dry fast which means I don't have to stop between layers. Usually I can either work on another part of the canvas until the bit I've just done is dry enough to continue with, or I can switch to a different piece for a little while, then switch back. This is really helpful as someone who's both autistic and has ADHD.
My way of painting means there's almost immediate gratification compared to how I write (which appeals to my ADHD). When writing I need to be ready to write, and once I've written something I know I need to do back and do the boring and less gratifying part - edit it. By that point I'm sick of the words, I'm unsure about making edits and potentially wanting to undo them or re-edit. I often need to step back and wait until I'm ready to look back at the piece with fresh eyes. I'm aware of the unfinished pieces that I should be editing, which creates pressure and sometimes shame or guilt. With painting, it's right there. I can sometimes decide to wait until the following day to decide on whether to do something, but it doesn't feel as pressing (it doesn't matter if it's never 'finished' in the same way it matters if my writing piece isn't finished because I'm not an artist).
Basically, the way my brain works means that my writing process is very different to my painting process, and painting has become a surprisingly therapeutic outlet for me in a much different way to writing.
Does anyone else use art for regulation or sensory seeking? If you have an arty insta, it'd be cool to connect with fellow neurodivergent people into arty stuff: mutantboybenny
hello, do you have any advice to reduce skin picking? (mostly the lips & around the nails) because every 'advices' I find are OCD centered and talk about managing their feelings & just -not- doing it but I feel my problem is more stimming related? I don't have any shame around it, I'm not obsessed & don't have time set for it. still I stuck my hand in soil semi-regularly & already got inflammation around my nails a few times & my lips are a bleeding mess sometimes. I have one stim toy that pass in adult settings but it's just not the same as something that's accessible on me at all time & that I started doing since young.
I chew rather than pick, but I might include tips for both in case it's helpful to other people with similar issues. I'll include deterrents in case there are times you need to be deterred, but also ways that you can continue to do it if you want to or can't help it, to reduce the likelihood of infection. I haven't tried all of these things myself, but have either seen them recommended, tried them myself, or accidentally found them useful:
Nail varnish that tastes bad. This is to deter chewing more than picking, of course, but I'll mention it in case it is useful to anyone. I have refused to try this to stop myself chewing but if someone is desperate to stop they might be willing to suffer the bad taste.
Nail varnish to pick off. You could try painting your nails (clear if you don't want to use a colour) so that you can pick off the varnish rather than picking at your skin. Some people also do things like put PVA glue on their skin/fingers so that they can peel it off when it's dry, but obviously that might not be ideal if you are out and about.
Make-up/vaseline. Putting on make-up or some lip balm or vaseline on the lips might make it less appealing to pick at the skin (especially if you hate getting your hands sticky or greasy/it feels too unpleasant to tolerate). Unless you dislike the feeling of anything like that on your skin/lips altogether.
Plasters as a deterrent. Putting plasters around your fingers prevents access, so means you can't pick (or chew). This has accidentally worked for me in that if I've made my fingers bleed and had to put a plaster on that finger, I can't chew that finger anymore!
Plasters (and other products) for cleanliness and hygiene. Maybe keep a mini First Aid kit to hand with some wipes and plasters so you can clean any open wounds and cover them up, or antiseptic creams, balms, or even mouthwash if you tend to get cuts inside your mouth/lips from biting or picking.
Gloves. Keeping gloves with you might also mean you can keep your hands cleaner and prevent infection (particularly if you are doing activities that will get your hands dirty).
Keep your hands busy. Typing, writing, reading, holding a cup or any item that means you would find it harder to pick, having something to fiddle with, using your phone (maybe download some games or apps that would keep your hands busy).
Keep your mouth busy: obviously chewing or sucking sugary sweets isn't great for your teeth, but if you chew or pick at your lips, you could maybe find some chewing gum or sugar free sweets or some kind of chewy sensory aid to keep your mouth too busy to chew on your skin or to make it harder to pick (if you are moving your mouth/lips because you're eating or drinking).
Caring for your skin. Some people find that looking after their skin somehow makes them also more likely to stop doing things that harm it. So someone might get a manicure, or use creams and lip balms to care for the skin on their hands and lips.
Managing the skin (keeping the skin as smooth as possible using other means). I tend to rub my fingers with my thumb (and vice versa) and if I feel a rough bit end up trying to chew it off. If I see a bit of nail that looks like it isn't trimmed as short as the rest, I'll chew at it. Sometimes it's better for me just to use a pair of nail clippers to clip away skin cleanly, instead of using my teeth and pulling (and potentially pulling the skin back and making the area bleed).
Followers, any other ideas?
If you find any of my content useful and would like to support me, here's my Ko-Fi.
My current special interest is ruining my life, it genuinely is. I'm used to my special interests being fictional characters or tv shows but this one is a celebrity. Which is all well and good, I love their music, find their interviews super entertaining, blah blah, and I'm not obsessed any further than a normal big fan would be or anything, but I've come to the point where I worry about them all the time, if they do something I don't like I feel so down and depressed like it's REALLY bad???
It might help to really think through the parasocial aspect of fandom. Remember that you don't really know this person. You see what they present. And that's not negative; lots of people have a professional persona. It's often necessary to be able to remain employed, and they can also help people to separate themselves from their job a bit (which might be necessary for mental health). It might also protect someone's privacy to keep colleagues/clients/customers (and fans, who are basically customers) at a safe distance (because everyone is entitled to their privacy, and people who are in the public eye can still, understandably, want to cling on to as much privacy as possible). It's probably also worth always bearing in mind that no one can live up to a purity test, because no one is perfect and pure. People are complex, multifaceted beings. Everyone has different experiences, different frames of reference, different sources of influence. People can learn and grow over time, change their minds, regret past behaviours. People can have bad days as well (so might not be at their best if they're unwell, going through a difficult time, are worried or upset about something). So sometimes people can disappoint us and it's tolerable and something that can be moved past (if we accept that person in their entirety, flaws and all). And sometimes they do something or believe something that we cannot tolerate or forgive. The thing with celebrities is that there are limits to what we see, and we don't get the same opportunity to talk it out as we might with people we are close to. We can't find out why they said what they said, did what they did, whether they truly believe x, and we can't offer a different perspective in the same way we can if it's someone we know and are close to. Celebrities are indifferent to us because they don't know we exist. Even if we admire them, think we have a lot in common and would share a common understanding if they did get to know us, or if we have a huge crush on them, they have literally no idea who we are. They don't like us, admire us, or really have any feelings towards us whatsoever. Odds are that even if we meet them, they'll soon forget about us because we're one amongst many fans, and nothing special to them. If you tend to go to a lot of events where they do meet and greets or sign things, even if the recognise you, it's not like you're their friend or someone they want to hang out with as an equal. And, as negative as that might sound (that we are, as individual strangers, as insignificant to them as any stranger is to any person, even if a celebrity does greatly appreciate their fans), I think it can help to think of it in those terms, to also maintain a bit more distance on your side.
It might also help to limit your exposure to this person. Continue to listen to their music, but perhaps avoid watching interviews, and/or avoid reading news articles about them or following them on social media, especially if they tend to post more personal things that further enhances the illusion that you know them personally. This might help you keep a bit more distanced and eventually stop worrying about them.
one thing I've been noticing is that when the weather is really hot my senses tend to get more overstimulated, and sometimes leads to sensory overload. I'm really sensitive to heat, I'm usually feeling more warm than other people as well. I don't know if there's a correlation between those or if it's just a weird coincidence. Does anyone experience something similar?
Autistic people can have more difficulty with temperature regulation, which can make us either more or less sensitive to temperature or temperature change than is typical. If someone is more sensitive they might struggle with being too hot and/or too cold more than is typical. This could cause problems with things like getting changed (taking off clothes that have warmed to your body temperature for clothes that are colder), showering or bathing (going from warm water to feeling cold in the air), being less likely to leave the house if it's cold out or too hot, even though most other people around you seem perfectly willing to (or even eager to). Lots of autistic people are also under-sensitive to temperature. They might continue to wear jumpers and even winter coats when the weather is far too warm for most people to be able to tolerate that. They might wear shorts and t-shirts even when it's turning noticeably cold and most people can't tolerate being underdressed. Some sensory seekers might want to splash in freezing water when it's already cold out. For some people the issues might not be due to sensory issues with the actual sensation of hot or cold, or someone who does have difficulty regulating temperature might still dress inappropriately for other reasons. Someone might continue to wear hoodies even as it gets too warm because it's part of their routine, or because sensory issues around clothing and fabric prevent them from wearing clothes that would keep them better regulated temperature-wise. Some people have difficulties transitioning from winter clothes to summer, so might struggle even more with temperature regulation because of this (not being able to wear the clothes that would keem them comfortable temperature-wise because they're not ready for the change in sensation fabric/cover-wise. Someone might even struggle with both temperature related sensory issues and non-temperature related sensory issues that exacerbate each other! (I struggle a lot with being too hot but also struggle to stop wearing hoodies when the weather gets warmer.) Of course this isn't autism exclusive. Other neurodivergent people might have some of the same issues. And some people might have issues that aren't related to autism, neurodivergence, or sensory issues at all. Someone with body image issues, or certain medical conditions, might wear clothes that they feel hide or complement their body. Someone with severe eczema or psoriasis might wear trousers and long sleeves year round. People who are going through the menopause might need to more actively manage the temperature of their environment to cope with things like hot flushes. People who are used to living in one climate might struggle with another climate, so might feel the hot or the cold more than their peers who are used to it (people on holiday in hot countries might be in shorts and t-shirts while people who live there are comfortably wearing trousers). But struggling with temperature more so/differently is definitely something we get a lot of asks about and that a lot of autistic people seem to experience. Here is my Ko-Fi for anyone who finds my content useful and wants to support me.
My partner is autistic and sometimes has violent meltdowns - throwing plates, smashing furniture, recently for the first time they pushed me over. I know their behavior isn't *at* me, I'm often not even in the house and they don't, like, target my stuff to smash. They're always very upset and ashamed afterwards and I comfort them and we talk about the cause of the meltdown and try to develop strategies for the future, but it's still hard living with the chance of violence all the time (though it can be months between instances). I'm always just a little bit scared. Any advice on living with this and responding with grace but looking out for myself too?
Often physically hugging them during a meltdown is the absolute best way to help but obviously I don't want to put myself within pushing range anymore. The outside of their head can be a scary place to be... but I know that the inside of their head during a meltdown is pretty scary for them too, and they can't ever get away.
It would probably be a good idea to discuss this when you are both feeling calm and regulated to try to troubleshoot.
It might also be a good idea to look into whether there is any professional help available. Even if he's not generally an angry person and it doesn't seem like he needs anger management, some kind of therapy might help him to identify what causes these reactions and what might work for him to cope.
Also consider whether you need someone to talk to (possibly someone who doesn't know either of you if you are concerned about the stigma of friends or family knowing that he did become physical during a meltdown).
Find the cause/s It sounds like this is something you both already try to do, which is great. Knowing what's causing them can sometimes make it easier to avoid them happening, or to prevent overload or distress from escalating to the point of violence. Being able to pre-empt that certain situations or problems might cause a meltdown means you can also put coping mechanisms in place. You might need to break down the cause/s, as well (for example, if your partner tends to meltdown after going out, think about what kind of outings tend to be too much and why that might be - length of time, the specific place/s he's been, the travel method). Then you can think of things that might mitigate those difficulties, or be prepared for the fact he is likely to have a meltdown at some point if he's unable to regulate/calm down.
Examine both of your behaviour during meltdowns Does he tend to isolate himself or act not-towards you, or when he gets very angry does he seek you out? It sounds like it's probably the former because you mentioned that he doesn't target you or your things. However, if it is ever the latter, then that might suggest you do need to make sure you are away from him and safe, to prevent him being able to approach you if he might become violent.
Do you tend to try to help? Talk to him, calm him down, ask what's wrong? If so, this would be perfectly natural - it's normal and kind to worry about the people we love when they're distressed, and to want to find out what's causing it and to try to help. But sometimes having someone talking to, touching, or reacting to a meltdown can make things worse. Think of it as a state where you aren't able to properly process and act rationally, so people trying to ask questions or reassure us can be overwhelming in itself, might cause more confusion or frustration (if we aren't in a fit state to be able to reply properly or to act on what we're being encouraged to do).
This does not mean that you are to blame for any violence enacted upon you, so please do not feel bad or blame yourself. But it might help you to react in a more helpful way if you are doing anything that exacerbates things.
Figure out the early signs It's not always possible for an autistic person (or the people around them) to recognise that certain behaviours might be signs of overload or distress, and sometimes the switch from appearing perfectly fine to being in a state of shutdown or meltdown can be so rapid and sharp it seems like it's come out of nowhere. But by paying attention to little changes in behaviour or mood it might be possible to start to recognise hints that something is going on. If either of you start to recognise that he starts to become less able to articulate, or starts to huff or sigh or roll his eyes when he's becoming overwhelmed or agitated, it might mean that he knows to make an active decision to self-regulate, or that might be a good time to offer a hug if that helps him. Being able to identify when I'm struggling, or having someone who loves me kindly point out that they're noticing that I'm getting antsy and checking if I'm dehydrated or want to go off and sit in the quiet and do something that helps me to re-regulate can be hugely helpful. It might also enable you to quietly remove any valuables that might get broken, and yourself if need be, or to implement a strategy before he reaches the point of losing control (like getting out a box of things he can throw safely or something he can hit like cusions or a punchbag).
Have a strategy in place for the meltdown It might not be possible to pre-empt, and once a meltdown has started it can be hard to think and act rationally, so it's not always going to work, but, as mentioned above, you could try to come up with a box of things that it is safe for him to throw or to hit. These things can either be always somewhere visible where he might hopefully use them if it's been pre-discussed and he's aware of what they're for, or you can get them out when he starts to meltdown and leave them where he can see them if it's safe for you to do so.
Part of the plan might also mean you removing yourself from the area he's melting down in if it is potentially going to result in you coming to harm. You don't have to risk any injury to yourself. Meltdowns can be exacerbated or drawn out if things occur while they're happening that cause additional distress, so lashing out and hurting you or you being frightened by him throwing things is potentially going to make it harder for him to calm down anyway - your priority should be your own safety anyway, but it might help to think of it as something that benefits both of you. Discuss this in advance to make it clear that you are leaving the area for safety and not because you are upset or angry with him and leaving in a negative way, but ultimately your safety comes before his feelings so if it is a bit upsetting to him to be left while he's melting down, that's something you can both address afterwards when he's calm.
Meltdown/Shutdown Resource You could both have a look at this resource to see if there is anything that resonates behaviourwise, or that sparks ideas for things that you experience that aren't included, and whether any suggestions for things that help/don't help are useful (or spark other ideas for things that would work for you both).
It's quite generalised (so for example, too much socialisation is broad, and it might be more useful to someone who recognises that is an issue to try to narrow down the things that make it more or less tolerable - the specific people being socialised with, the amount of people, the amount of conversation/interaction involved (cinema trips might be better than a chat in the pub), the venue, the amount of time spent socialising, accrued socialisation over an extended period of time (five hours one evening might be tolerable if there is some time to regulate beforehand and time to recuperate the next day, but 1.5 hours per evening over the course of three evenings might be too much).
For some people, it might be that there is no major thing that causes a meltdown, but a build up of tiny things, and avoiding meltdowns is more about being aware of how many little things are happening. Those things might not actually seem like much of an issue by themselves, so sometimes it can even be about trying to figure out what could be contibuting rather than having to identify something is definitely contributing (if that makes sense?); if in one day I got up and had no milk left to have my routine breakfast but managed to get over it fairly quickly, then went to a shop and got something I was excited to get, then went to an event that I enjoyed, then came home on the tube still in a good mood, then ordered something to eat and it was delayed, then my t-shirt got caught on a handle as I walked past it and I had a huge, disproportionate meltdown, none of the things that happened were necessarily to blame, but all might have contributed - disappointment, sensory overload and crowds, more crowds and having to use public transport, gradually getting kind of overstimulated but doing things I enjoy and that making it bearable and making it harder to recognise, and eventually something tips me over the edge. So perhaps the next time I might need to plan to only do one thing in the day that requires going to a crowded place, or I need to remember my earplugs on the tube, or I need to make sure I eat earlier in the day or order food a bit earlier to allow for delays. And recognising it's a build up of lots of little things that by themselves I was able to cope with helps it seem less shameful than believing that I flipped out over my t-shirt catching on a door handle.
And being aware that this can be the case can help with being more aware and mindful about the fact that the little things add up, it might be better to limit activities (take some things out of your bucket), or that you might need to actively make sure that you're regulated, hydrated, have eaten, etc. to avoid your bucket overflowing.
Trans Rights in the UK
There is a bit of an alarming thing happening in the UK right now. Recently, five judges in the Supreme Court ruled that the word 'woman' when used in the Equality Act 2010 applies to 'biological sex'.
This led to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (!!!) very quickly releasing some interim guidance that basically excluded trans people from using any single-sex facilities! There was no guidance on how this would be enforced, which was also concerning.
Basically, the UK has introduced a segregation law!
From what I can gather, there are glaring issues with this ruling and the subsequent guidance, both legally and morally. There are lots of law breaches, contradictions, and fairly weak arguments for the judge's ruling.
No trans people, trans organisations, or even specialists from the trans-related medical field or were consulted with. Almost solely anti-trans organisations were represented in court.
In practise, this ruling breaches the Human Rights Act 1998.
In practise, this ruling actually beaches the Equality Act! (The ruling states that for the purposes of the EA, trans people are to be considered their 'biological'/assigned at birth sex. However, possibly owing to the obvious absurdity of having trans men forced to used women's toilets and trans women forced to use men's toilets, the EHRC have said that trans people cannot use toilets either in line with their legal/acquired sex, or with their 'biological'/assigned at birth sex.)
It's in breach of the Law of Goodwin.
It's in breach of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
The word 'woman' in the Equality Act did include trans women - it was specified that the word 'woman' included trans women who have a Gender Recognition Certificate. So it's unclear why this is being ignored and the word (within the Act) being redefined.
The word 'biological' when used in the ruling is not a scientific or legal term. There are only two legally recognised sexes/genders, yet there was also no regard for the fact intersex people exist (or how this might impact on them).
Many of the reasons they gave for why a trans woman can't be discriminated against for being a woman are things that also apply to many cis women (not all cis woman are able to conceive, for example).
The fact trans people have gender reassignment as a protected characteristic was used to support the idea that trans women don't also need to be protected from sex-based discrimination. However, people can have multiple protected characteristics.
The Good Law Project has decided to challenge this decision, but they need help funding the legal costs.
Removing rights from a marginalised group that has such a devastating and quite disgusting impact is wrong. It's also terrifying. If they get away with this, whose rights will they remove next?
The Good Law Project states:
We believe that the Supreme Court – which disgracefully refused to hear from trans people before handing down a decision with the profoundest possible consequences for trans lives – has placed or revealed the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act. In a 2002 case called “Goodwin”, the European Court of Human Rights said: “A conflict between social reality and the law arises which places [a trans person] in an anomalous position, in which he or she may experience feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety” and found the UK in breach. Following that case, the UK introduced the Gender Recognition Act to make us compliant. The Minister introducing the Act said it was intended to alter the definition of man and woman in equalities legislation but the Supreme Court, because it refused to hear from any trans people, appears to have been oblivious to this critical fact and decided references to men and women were to “biological” sex. [...] The Nazis forced the LGBT+ community to identity themselves as “degenerates” by wearing pink triangles. Labour’s policy means that for trans people to move through the public sphere they will need, similarly, to identify themselves as trans in an increasingly violent and transphobic world. We believe the UK is now in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention of Human Rights and we plan to ask the High Court for a declaration of incompatibility. We believe the legal arguments are strong – but we must also point out that the Supreme Court has revealed a readiness on the part of our courts to disapply, in the case of trans people, normal legal and procedural safeguards. We have put together a legal team involving several KCs and at least one trans barrister. The legal team will be supported by heavyweight policy specialists in equalities law and will be informed by the lived experiences of trans people. We will publish the legal documents in the case as they become available and as the law permits. This is no small undertaking – but, for the trans community in Britain, it is literally existential. We would be grateful for your help.
This might not be directly related to what this blog is about, but I'm aware that there are a lot of trans Autistics. I'm also aware that many cisgender Autistic people might present as gender non-conforming in some way, and therefore might also be at increased risk of prejudice from the transphobes empowered by this ruling.
Besides, regardless of whether this might also impact the Autistic community, if we don't stand up for other minorities now, it will just bolster bigots to continue trying to take us back in time. Marginalised communities deserve to have rights, and to be properly protected instead of having to rely on the benevolence of service providers, educators, employers, society.
Please, please, let's not let Britain become the kind of country that demonises minorities and legalises their segregation, exclusion, and abuse of their rights.
If you can't donate towards the legal fund, please do support them in whatever way you can (share their articles, videos, posts etc.) and take whatever direct action you can:
Write to your local MP.
Write to the PM.
Complain to the Supreme Court.
Complain to the EHRC.
Join any protests or sign any petitions that you can to make it clear that this isn't acceptable.
Always fight for your rights and fight for other people's. Let's not make it easy for the bigots. If people try to dictate what toilet you/someone else can use, insist that they are violating your/their human rights. If your employer has a segregated toilet they expect trans people to use, insist that they are violating your/their human rights. If you're in hospital and you are, see or hear a trans person having personal info disclosed or being segregated or made to use the incorrect facilities, insist that they are violating your/their human rights. Make a fuss, be a nuisance, make this difficult for them to enforce. Make formal complaints whenever these things occur. Take up their time and resources with paperwork and investigations. Take legal action whenever possible. Don't make it easy for them by complying.
Extra info on this situation, and it continues to be deeply concerning; our legal system is either incompetent or corrupt, and either way it is dangerous and terrifying.
As was clear by how quickly the EHRC published its initail interim guidance, they seem to be trying to rush anti-trans legislation through.
The EHRC later released updated interim guidance, possibly due to criticism and realising that much of what it stated would, in practise, be unlawful. This guidance doesn't actually rectify much of that. The new guidance stressed that the law must be enforced and seemed to amount to: you must not let trans people in single sex spaces, but also you have to be careful that, when trying to pry into a person's 'biological' sex/gender reassignment status, that you aren't harassing them or invading their privacy.
There was a consultation on the guidance, however initially there was only a two week window (which was then lengthened after backlash), and the Good Law Project alleges that the EHRC would only actually consider 50% of the 50,000 responses. Instead of reviewing all the submissions and taking all feedback into consideration, the EHRC apparently intended to have AI determine which responses would be analysed. This information was apparently gleaned via leaked internal messages, sent by EHRC staff on Microsoft Teams:
“Just wanted to let you know that EHRC is only analysing 50% of code consultation responses from organisations because it is overwhelmed by volume and board wants redraft by 18 August.” “This approach may mean we do not capture insightful but singly /infrequently made points but there is no way that we could action 50,000 individual points in any case (it’s simply impractical and the Code would end up being enormously long if we tried to).”
So, yet another rush job on an incredibly complex and important issue that impacts on the rights and safety of human beings. Without knowing how AI would be instructed to narrow down the responses, there's further cause for concern - the possibility that it would select a disproportionate amount of anti-trans responses, which would render the consultation almost pointless, and would yet again prevent the trans community from having a say (after the Supreme Court already denied all trans individuals and organisations their voices).
The Chair of the EHRC, Baroness (Kishwer) Falkner, with regards to whether asking someone about their gender identity breaches their right to privacy, said in Parliament:
'We don't think Article 8 rights apply, and neither does the Supreme Court, and neither has previous advice we've taken.'
Let's not forget that EHRC stands for Equality and Human Rights Commission. If the Chair of that organisation isn't concerned with trans people's right to privacy (a human right), the organisation is not fit for purpose.
Luckily she is coming to the end of her term in November. Unfortunately her replacement is Mary-Ann Stephenson, who is very actively anti-trans! Someone who donates money towards court cases and attempts to strip trans people of their identities and their rights should not be in this position, as there is clear and strong prejudice that makes her unfit for that role.
Again, I would suggest that people kick up a fuss.
Spread information to make more people aware of what's going on and why it matters. I only realised there was a Supreme Court case once the ruling was already made. I also only stumbled across Amendment NC21 today - it was a proposed addition to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that would have meant that public records would have to record everyone as their assigned sex at birth (a trans person with a GRC would be allowed to have their correct gender recorded... alongside their assigned sex). It was rejected. But when these things are happening quietly (at least quietly enough that outside of specific community groups it's going unnoticed, and unscrutinised) it makes it easier for bigots to push their agendas forward.
Learn, and find and spread knowledgable explanations - to explain the law, to explain sex and gender. Many people seem to be misinformed. Conspiracy theories and 'trans hysteria' are based on intuitive thinking, not logical thinking. They rely on emotional reactions rather than critical thinking. They also utilise the human tendency towards 'us vs them' dichotomies; a group that is misunderstood and distrusted becomes, in the mind of the conspiracy theorist, a threat. Find out more about natural variations in sex (how sex characteristics vary, the many kinds of intersex conditions there are, how the majority of trans atheletes are not actually performing at an especially impressive level, how anti-trans attitudes negatively impact cis people who present as gender non-conforming or have characteristics that are associated with the opposite sex.
Write to your local MP.
Write to the PM.
Complain to the Supreme Court.
Complain to the EHRC.
Join any protests or sign any petitions that you can to make it clear that this isn't acceptable.
Be prepared to challenge anyone who tries to challenge or harass anyone they perceive as potentially being trans.
People are entitled to their opinions, but there's a difference between having and voicing an opinion, and being a bully. Call out bullies.
Always fight for your rights and fight for other people's. Let's not make it easy for the bigots.
(Idk if this makes sense but) Do you have any suggestions for trying to look like a more mature adult sometimes? I don't mind the fact that I'm kinda seen as childish for my looks and interests most of the time, but sometimes I want to actually be seen as an adult and trying to do that is hard (especially with navigating sensory issues and my nonexistent social skills).
I can relate a bit to this. I am quite 'babyfaced', and even though I can come across as being very quiet and serious, I tend to be mistaken for being considerably younger than I am, and although it can be a nice thing, it can also be quite embarrrassing. It's also frustrating if that perception means that I'm taken less seriously than my peers (in the past it was common for colleagues to be automatically viewed as more competent based purely on them being perceived as 'real grownups' even if I was more experienced and knowledgable, and my perspectives being dismissed/being patronised).
Sometimes it can be a positive (even if people underestimate you); people can far more forgiving of neurodivergent traits when they believe you're younger than you are.
But sometimes it's nice to be taken seriously from the off, and not to have to work harder than everyone else to prove yourself.
Clothes
Clothes can make a huge difference, even if it's just in comparison to how you usually dress. If part of the issue is that you wear clothes that are comfortable but seem less professional/mature, I'd suggest looking for clothes that are different to the ones you already wear, but that have similar characteristics sensory-wise.
For example, I am a 'baggy clothes' autistic. I like soft clothes. I ended up, for a long time, wearing exclusively jogging bottoms in colder weather and baggy cargo shorts (that were actually cargo swim trunks, so very lightweight and loose) in hot weather. I found some 'loose fit' cargo trousers that were quite soft and had an elasticated waist, and was able to get a size that was loose enough to be comfortable but not so much they'd fall down. I could sit comfortably, walk comfortably, crouch and sit crossed legged on the floor in them. They're casual trousers, but when my partner saw me wearing them, the contrast was so stark that to her it looked like I was actually dressed 'smart'.
So over time I have managed to find some trousers that feel comfortable, are in keeping with my 'style', but that seem less childish or unprofessional than what I previously wore. I tend to stick to the same brand/s when I find things that I like.
It's also about figuring out what you can tolerate and in what situations. For me, looser clothes trump material (so I can tolerate a slightly stiffer/rougher material if it's lightweight and oversized more than I can tolerate soft material that's too clingy). It's basically about figuring out what your needs are, looking for clothes with similar characteristics to try, and experimenting until you find something that works for you.
If you don't dress to suit your personality (focusing more on purely comfort) then you could see whether toning things down helps (like wearing neutral colours and avoiding bright colours or loud patterns), or whether brightening things up does! Switching from wearing hoodies to wearing hoodless jumpers can somehow come across as a bit more mature stylewise and more professional. Maybe a stronger sense of style would be read as confidence rather than childishness. A lot of it probably depends on the clothes themselves, how you carry yourself, etc. (maybe finding the right clothes that are comfortable but also make you feel and act more confident).
If you dress in a way that suits your personality, and feel like you can't dress in a way that reads as less childish without compromising yourself, you might want to think about other ways you can assert yourself if people aren't treating you like a competent adult.
This can also apply to sensory aids like ear protection. If you find that people tend to associate ear defenders with children, then switching to headphones or ear plugs/ear phones might help with things like that (drawing less attention for example). Sensory-wise it can require some trial and error to find what works, or building up a cache if you need a range of options depending on the situation: still needing to be able to make out what people are saying, needing extra protection because of the level of noise, needing or preferring to listen to music, not being able or allowed or not wanting to also listen to music, not wanting something that goes in the ear, or not being able to tolerate tightness over the ears or having something in your ears for too long, etc.
Haircut
Different haircuts can also make a difference. They can make your face seem a different shape, hide or reveal signs of aging (someone who wants to appear younger might have a fringe to hide lines on their forehead, but maybe someone who wants to look older might brush their hair back to show those lines!).
I've noticed the difference a haircut can make, possibly more so because I dislike getting my hair cut, so tend to wait a long time between visits to the barber. A negative of this is that people notice the change more, so I'm more likely to get comments, but this also means that sometimes the comments basically amount to me looking a bit older (comments that amount to me looking like a 'real' adult, or being referred to as 'handsome' instead of 'cute' by the few people who are somewhat fond of my face). So it seems that iIf my hair is a bit longer and either has no style or the style has grown out I am perceived as younger and more childlike (context can exacerbate this, of course, because multiple things can add together to create an appearance; I once had a doctor assume that my girlfriend who is younger than me was my mother when I was in hospital, but there was a lot of context that created the perfect conditions for that drastic a mistake: I was on a ward full of elderly men which made me look younger by comparison, was obviously unwell and so had lost weight on top of wearing my oversized joggers and t-shirt (and so looked more 'slight' and apparently vulnerable on the big hospital bed), with my basically dark version of Bam-Bam Rubble hair). But if it's cut in a way that looks more styled and therefore 'groomed' it seems to read as more mature.
Again, this might vary depending on your hair and face shape. But you could always ask a barber or hairdresser what cut/style would suit you and help you to look more your age.
So there are things you can do that can alter how people perceive you a bit. But you could also focus on:
Confidence and (Relevant) Skills
Coming across as self-assured and confidence might also help people perceive you as more competent and mature/less childlike. And this doesn't have to be achieved through your image. It could be through looking into professional advice to help you better assert yourself or feel more confident, or through focusing on your strengths and how to show those to other people.
I could be through awareness of your body language. If you tend to slouch, standing up straighter. If you find it hard to make eye contact, either focusing on another part of the face or just being more positive and confident about not making eye contact. And/or being more open about the misperceptions people have. 'People sometimes think I lack confidence because I'm quiet and don't make eye contact, but that's just beacuse I'm autistic. I am very confident in my ability to do [whatever].' 'I know that my attire might seem a bit unfashionable/unprofessional, but it's just because I prioritise comfort over fashion/find I'm much better at performing my job role when I'm comfortable.'
That last one might even just be about being more honest instead of doubting yourself, and then if other people recognise that your choices are actually more self-assured or sensible than doubting yourself and trying to fit in, undersstanding your choices or needs might make them more respectful and mindful.
If people recognise strengths/skills and consider you knowledgable and experienced, if they value your perspective, then it doesn't really matter quite as much how else you present yourself a lot of the time. Sometimes you have to be prepared to assert yourself as knowledgable or your opinion as informed. If you can demonstrate your knowledge or skill, it makes it harder for the people who have underestimated you to continue to do so. And you don't need to be charismatic or sing your own praises or dominate a conversation in order to flaunt yourself.
You could also find some ways of interacting that level the playing field a bit. Zoom limits what people see (and you can limit that further by turning off your camera) so they can't pre-judge. Sending an email to express an idea or concern in the workplace rather than trying to address it face to face if you find i
Maybe our followers have ideas for things that work for them.
If you find any of my posts helpful and want to support me, here's my Ko-Fi.
Hi, I don't know if anyone else who's autistic goes through this, but I consider myself pretty low on empathy, but also really high too???
See, most of the time I don't really empathize with things, it's like I really couldn't give a flying fuck about them(although I obviously am compassionate)
Thing is, I ALSO literally CRY because of good/pretty things that happen not only to me, but with my friends too, so, sometimes they'll tell me something super silly that happened to them and i start crying out of joy for them??And i don't know, this also happens when I see something I'm super interested in, so, I'll cry when I see a cute drawing of something I like or when i see an actress i think is really pretty, especially if its gay representation???I always thought all of that was weird because, well, tearing up while two characters are making out is weird and, you know, I could never understand how most of the time my friends tell me stuff, especially bad, and I cant feel anything, but then I also do THAT
does anybody go through this???WHAT is this??? am I just bad at emotions???
Yes, I completely get this (although I don't experience things exactly the same as you - I don't get as emotional or cry over things, and rarely (if ever?) feel the things that someone else is feeling). But whilst I tend towards low empathy, I am definitely more empathetic/sensitive in some situations and very much not sensitive or empathetic in others. I think that a lot of people probably do experience being both sensitive in some respects and insensitive (or unsensitive) in others, but this might be more extreme in autistic people (or more 'odd' in how we experience and express it compared to our peers).
But even being 'insensitive' or 'unsensitive' in some situations doesn't mean that we are actually uncaring or cruel, however it might appear that way to some people. I think it can depend on the catalyst for the emotion, and what your brain can automatically connect emotion to.
What I mean by this is that if the catalyst is 'too big', or sudden, it's harder to process. So there might be less of an emotional reaction. Even to things that automatically seem to trigger strong emotion in other people.
It might also be a social/emotional imagination issue. Lots of people, without having directly experienced something similar to someone else, might have an automatic reaction. They can automatically fear that thing happening to them, or feel some kind of joy at the thought of experiencing something like that. But I tend to find it hard to react to something if I can't imagine it happening to me, and having to imagine something takes me more time because it's not an automatic process like it seems to be for lots of other people. So I'm unlikely to react 'correctly' in the moment.
And perhaps it can also be impacted by 'big picture' thinking vs 'focusing on the details'. Or bottom up/top down thinking. I tend to need to gather lots of details in order to build up an idea of the bigger picture, whereas most other people might have a general idea first before they focus on/worry about the details.
Perhaps for people with alexithymia it might also mean difficulty understanding how someone else feels or how you would feel in that situation (or how you do feel about something on hearing about it).
Autistic brains often process things differently. So I tend to think of it more as a processing issue, in which sometimes the processing is delayed or hindered because of various factors, and sometimes processing is quicker and perhaps even more intuitive. And one person might experience both kinds of processing, but in different circumstances (and in ways that might be at odds with their peers). And sometimes connections occur more naturally than others (some people connect more with children or with older people than their peers, some people connect more naturally with animals than with people).
As an example (mention of animal illness and death):
When my dog was diagnosed with an illness, the vet never specified that it was terminal. She was very regretful, trying to express how sorry she was to be giving us such terrible news, but she never explained the details about prognosis, life expectancy, potential treatments and success rates. My mum automatically reacted like it was the end of the line and that we were going to have to say goodbye imminently. Everyone else who was told also immediately reacted in the same regretful, sorrowful way, as if it was just a given that it was terminal and untreatable. Whereas I felt nothing at all towards the initial news, and didn't react at all negatively towards it. My dog was my best friend and meant the absolute world to me. And I think that, for me, the news wasn't really meaningful, because the diagnosis was a very broad illness - there are lots of types, with different treatment options and survival rates, so the news itself didn't mean anything. I needed details to be able to really process the news and to be able to make decisions about how to proceed.
I suppose it's like in Inside Out with Riley's core memory island things. Everyone else seemed to automatically connect his diagnosis to an island - they already had a fully formed 'big picture' notion of what it meant. Whereas I couldn't connect it to anything, because that 'island' was under construction in my mind. I couldn't just immediately connect to this generalised idea that everyone else seemed able to automatically form, there were too many unknowns that I needed very specific information for. I needed to collect all the information to be able to construct my island and then to be able to feel/react accordingly.
Whereas, there are other situations where we are given more information to help us connect emotionally. In films, TV shows, even adverts, there'll be music to help evoke emotion, and it will focus on the things it needs us to know in order to understand the story. In books we might be given some back story or shown something important about the character, so that we connect with them and care about what happens to them. Even if it's only a short amount of time, we're given some time or information to help develop our understanding of what's happening, our connection to the people involved, and to process. So someone might cry at a film but be less emotional in real life, or be emotionally invested in the relationship between two characters and not have that same investment in their friend's relationship.
Or there might be some situations we might already have enough pieces of the puzzle to have constructed the 'island' that we need to connect to in order to have an emotional reaction that's supposedly appropriate to the situation. So if something someone has experienced that was significant to them happens to someone else (or something similar) they might be better able to connect and empathise based on their own experience.
I think there's often this idea that having too much empathy is better than having low empathy, but having low empathy doesn't mean lacking compassion or being unkind or cruel. Or that low empathy means you lack any empathy at all. And there can be positives. For me: I'm less likely to react to rage bait or be manipulated by fake charities because I am unlikely to have an automatic emotional reaction to things I see or am told. Needing time to process and understand how I feel means that I'm also more likely to verify information before reacting to it. It also means I'm less likely to be emotionally manipulated, because I need to 'build the island' and because that takes time I'm more likely to gather additional information and have thought enough about it to recognise if something seems 'off' or questionable.
Here is my Ko-fi for anyone who finds my posts helpful and wants to support me.
Hey, I'm trying to give my partner tips/resources on how to handle dating me as an autistic person and I don't want to overwhelm them or something and basically just need a starting point so they can research by themselves and/or ask specific questions
HI, I would like to know what I can do and ways I can help to make my autistic partner comfortable in our relationship Communication Communi
(1/2) Hey, I recently started dating this guy who happens to be on the autistic spectrum. I've never been in a relationship before and I've
Here are a couple of posts that might be useful, and you could also browse through our relationships tag.
Our followers might have some additional resources that they find useful.
hey! I know you have some ADHD mods on here; I was wondering if I could ask a question about RSD? after any kind of meaningful negative interaction, I always feel like crying/resentment/anger towards the person who said these things to me, even if they aren't trying to be cruel/unfair. I really struggle seeing things in proportion or even acknowledging people might be right (my common sense knows this, but my feelings struggle to get over themselves!). Can RSD feel like this? Thanks so much <3
Of course, it is normal to feel some level of negativity (and potentially even some distress) when experiencing rejection or criticism, but for people who experience RSD (Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria) those feelings will basically be very disproportionate - extreme distress to perceived rejection/criticism that aren't that significant and that other people are largely better able to cope with.
This can occur even if it's fairly minor issue being mentioned (and when it's not even direct criticism), like someone reminding you to pick up your clothes after showering or asking if you left the light or fan on all day (because that is then perceived as a 'failing' and causes shame and anger).
And yes, it can feel like that (some people might cry or feel like they want to, or might feel angry and resentful towards the person who is criticising them or who has caused them to feel rejected).
Often RSD means that people will avoid situations that might result in rejection or criticism. Like not asking someone for a simple favour because if they say no it will make you feel inordinately embarrassed, anxious and rejected, or even actively trying to avoid any comments that might elicit that same shame/negative feeling. [As an example, I often experience a lot of quite intense shame if my girlfriend makes a jokey comment about a delivery - like, 'Let me guess, another book?' as she hands me the package, or recently I couldn't decide what kind of ice pack to buy when she mentioned we needed a couple extra, so ended up buying two kinds and then hid one set to avoid any comments until both sets had arrived and I could explain it in my own time and on my own terms. My girlfriend is understanding, she's never cruel or mean, but I still got very anxious and needed some time before I could 'admit' what I'd done. As if buying ice packs for us both to use (with my own money) was something terrible! Similarly, if she reminds me about something like picking up my clothes after I shower, or asks if the fan in the bedroom was left on all day while we were both at work (if I forgot to turn it off before leaving the room) I feel intense shame and can get quite angry and snappy, and often need a bit of time to process and rationalise that I am reacting because of RSD rather than because of criticism, that we both forget to do things sometimes, and it's not shameful or terrible.]
Regardless of whether someone does experience RSD or not, if the person is being cruel or unfair, even if they don't intend to be, it might be reasonable to feel extremely upset after a negative interaction. I feel it's worth mentioning this because it can sometimes be easy to blame or pathologise ourselves instead of holding other people accountable where criticism or rejection might actually be unfair, might have been delivered in a cruel, thoughtless or even inappropriate way, or might have been 'overdelivered'. For example, being told that you got something wrong might be tolerable, but having someone go on about it for 20 minutes might not (and might not be necessary to make the point), or where it might be appropriate in a workplace for a line manager to offer some constructive criticism in private, it might not be appropriate (or tolerable) if they criticise you in public.
It is also possible to learn ways to cope. Both parties in a discussion being aware of RSD and mindful of that can help ease it somewhat (because you can at least understand what's happening and reassure yourself/each other). Having structured time to listen and time to respond can also help (giving yourself time to process the information and, where necessary, respond). For example, if someone has to say something critical or make a suggestion that you find difficult to cope with, being able to go away and consider what's been said, discuss it with a trusted person, and construct a reasonable response can be preferable to feeling very on the spot and reacting emotionally (or going away and ruminating). Where criticism is constructive, it might feel bad sometimes to receive it, but it can feel positive later if you have been able to utilise it and recognise an improvement and focusing on that can also help (or alleviate some of the negative feeling later). Being in situations where you've received constructive criticism well or have trusted people who you can have discussions with and receive feedback from in mindful, kind ways, and can actually utilise it to improve things can also feel good afterwards, and can help with developing some resilience/more reliable coping mechanisms.
For people who struggle to ask for favours or for help, it can help to ask via a method there's less pressure (so instead of asking face to face and having to cope with being told no in real time (and having to potentially respond whilst having an emotional reaction) texting or emailing to ask, instead. Or even having someone else ask on your behalf (if I know I will struggle with being told no, I might ask my partner to ask someone for me). It might also help to try to reframe requests as being from or for someone else (I sometimes find it easier to ask someone to do something if it feels like it's on someone else's behalf - so asking my brother to help with something that is actually for both myself and my partner feels less pressure and I feel less like I'm being rejected if I've mentally reframed it as something she wants help with, so I am asking solely or mostly on my partner's behalf; for example, we needed help moving some furniture around which is for both of us because the furniture belongs to both of us and it was in our (shared) bedroom, but by focusing on the fact she was the driving force behind wanting to get new furniture and thus needing to move things around, and because I have physical limitations at the moment due to nerve damage in my spine and it would mostly be them having to do the physical stuff, I could ask for the help on her behalf and avoid feeling I was directly risking rejection).
My Ko-fi for anyone who finds my content useful and wants to support me.
Is it werid to have a really person as a comfort character ?
What do you mean by 'comfort character'?
My first thought was that if it's a real person then they wouldn't be a comfort character, but perhaps I'm being too literal?
Perhaps you mean a real life person who you either don't know in real life, or don't actually interact with on a meaningful level (and so by 'character' you mean your idea of them is based on the characters they play, a stage persona, a professional persona, or you imagine how you'd like them to be, or have idealised them based on seeing them in certain situations, perhaps?).
I actually think that regardless of which the case it, this is probably pretty common, though. Most people have characters they relate to or find comforting and might wish that this person really existed and that they could have a relationship with them (whether that's a romantic relationship, a parental one, or a friendship). And it's extremely common for people to ascribe traits to real life people they don't actually know personally (actors, band members, etc) and to either iamgine that that person is the character they play (so actors who play villains might get abused in the street, the weatherman might get angry emails because people blame the weather on them instead of recognising they just report the conditions), or people imagine that person how they want them to be. Whether it's someone famous, or someone who works in a local shop, or a teacher or colleague or manager you've idealised and fictionalised in some way.
So no, it's not really weird.
But it's worth being careful, and being aware of the fact that you've fictionalised a real person, and have ultimately created a character with their face (and name, presumably) rather than that this person is actually someone you relate to or that has the traits you admire in them. You can't expect them to always live up to your expectations if you've made up your expectations (even if you've based your ideal on seeing them in interviews or reading other people's descriptions of them).
It's probably also worth being careful that you don't engage in behaviours that might make someone uncomfortable. For example, writing your own fiction that includes someone you know in real life without their permission and without differentiating the character from them enough - if they came across it and it was obviously them. it might be quite uncomfortable for them, and might embarrass them if other people come across it. Or becoming overly personal with that person because you feel like you know them (when you don't).
If you mean that you find genuine comfort from people you are close to, based on who they genuinely are, then that might be more akin to a 'safe person'. Which is also, of course, very common and not weird - people often have favourite people, people who they feel most comfortable around, most comforted or reassured by. Whether that's a constant and based on a very close relationship (like a partner, close family member, or best friend) or whether it's something a little more distant/situation specific (like someone having a 'work wife/husband' or 'work bestie', who they rely on for support when at work, or knowing someone who, in a stressful situation, you think of as being good at problem solving and keeping things calm and so you'd turn to them if you had an issue, or who might have a specific skill that you find comforting (like for someone with a phobia of insects, knowing that someone is calm and able to remove them from your space might be very comforting, even if that person is otherwise not really that special to you). Followers, any thoughts, experiences, or suggestions?
The fastest way to shut down my "freelance life means I have to constantly be working" thoughts is to remind myself that if I was a boss holding a worker to the standards I hold myself to, their union would hunt me for sport and nobody would blame them.
Not me immediately screenshotting this and posting it to the OPP freelance writers chat I'm in
I tell myself: "I'm the owner of the company. But more importantly, I'm also the head of Scriveners Local 23, and I have some demands."
So what that means is that I have a four day work week. I work monday-tuesday and then Thursday-Friday. Fuck the boss if they don't like it.
I have a workplace wellness program that means I can take breaks for yoga, meditation, exercise, and naps.
I have unlimited paid personal days thanks to my project oriented work structure--I get to decide what's the best balance between production and restoration. Fuck the boss if they don't like it.
I have five days each quarter for vacation. attending a convention, conference, expo, bookstore event tour, or a writing workshop *is not a vacation.* that's business-related travel. taking a day or two for a weekend jaunt *is not a vacation.* that's unlimited paid personal days. Five working days. Each Quarter. Vacation. and since I always have wednesdays off, it doesn't count.
I know there's a piece of your brain saying "I have to hustle, I have to hustle"
I know
My brain does that too
And without the union boss in my head, I'll just work until I drop. That's what I did for years. And then I burnt out so bad that this is the first time I have actually made real, noticable progress(1.) similar to my pre-burnout rates in years.
Because the union boss went on strike, and the boss' bottom line was *destroyed.* If I have to crunch now, the union boss enforces recovery time. that's all overtime. but since I don't get paid a wage, I get all that back in time.
The boss never wants to see a strike like that again.
There is power in a union, even if it's only the union in your head.
(1.) only it's not similar. it's half the "speed" of pre-burnout. It's probably my actual true real speed and not my sweatshop labour hustle culture speed. FUCK THE BOSS IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT.
This is outstanding advice for all forms of freelancing.
I was thinking about my last few asks, and I realize I'm more concerned with what some hypothetical average person needs or doesn't need rather than what I need. I'm not sure how to stop doing that, and I always think that sort of thing keeps me motivated to improve.
Does it, though?
It still comes down to the issue of whether your needs are being met, surely? Does having this imaginary average person to consider all the time actually help you to overcome your difficulties? Or does it just put you off feeling like you should have support? Because, sure, to an extent someone might learn to cope with an aspect of their disability. Someone might be able to push through some things, or sometimes. Someone might be able to find ways to mitigate a difficulty to avoid asking for external support. And some people can mask various difficulties enough that they can at least seem to be coping.
But the fact you seem to want/need to stop trying to live up to an imagined 'average' suggests it isn't working.
(Striving to be neurotypical won't make an autistic person neurotypical. And although resilience and challenging yourself can be positive things... unmet needs when it's things that really do require support/accommodating can cause burnout, which can cause damage and make difficulties worse.)
If you are recognising that you need to be able to access support (because you aren't this hypothetical 'average' person), and your struggling to challenge this enough to overcome it yourself, then it might even be worthwhile looking into options for therapy to have some professional support in dealing with your internalised ableism?
If that's not an option, you might need to try actively correcting yourself when you start to think like this or try to guess what someone should be able to cope with. Maybe even try asking for some support despite your discomfort, and remind yourself that your thought processes are based on internalised ableism and not on your actual worth as a person or how deserving you are of support.
And/or try to imagine (or use real life examples, if you have any) a range of individuals with different needs. Or a range of disabilities to see whether you apply the same thinking to their needs as your own. Should they all try to match your hypothetical average person? Keep practising challenging your thinking in this way.
If your hypothetical average person had an accident and became temporarily or permanently disabled, should they have the same level of support you currently imagine them to need, or would it be okay for them to have more? What if they developed your difficulties? Or other difficulties associated with autism? If they received some kind of ear injury and became sensitive to sound, would it be okay for them to ask for reasonable adjustments to cope with noisy environments? If they had a brain injury and struggled to communicate as they previously had, should they go without communication support in hopes they'll be motivated to improve?
I expect that if you imagine this imaginary person experiencing some injury or illness, you'd probably be quite kind towards them, and recognise that they now have different needs to before and that they deserve to have support.
And you already have different needs to your original NT, non-disabled hypothetical person, as well. So why don't you deserve the same kindness from yourself? Keep questioning yourself and challenging yourself.
Indoctrination: avoiding the undue influence of high control groups.
Anyone can be indoctrinated into a high control group. No one is immune to propaganda or manipulation, and in the right circumstances, targeted by the right person/people, and fed the right info, anyone can be indoctrinated. Being intelligent or strong minded doesn't prevent this manipulation from taking hold. Lots of highly intelligent and very strong-minded people become very enthusiastic cult members, possibly even bolstered by their own self-perception.
Intelligent people are prime targets - cults need people who are useful to them: people with qualifications, job roles and titles, people who are knowledgeable in their field. They make good spokespeople, they inspire trust from outsiders, prospective recruits, and current members. Sometimes they can also be useful in very practical ways (scientists backing your claims, or having lawyers advising on or fighting legal battles). People who have been indoctrinated are victims, even if they then go on to victimise people themselves.
So it’s important to be aware of what high control groups are, how they control people, and what to look out for.
What is a high control group? Most groups will exert some kind of influence over members. There are rules, hierarchies, and a popular viewpoint in most organisations. High control groups tend to have a range of behaviours that mean their control over members is fairly extreme (even if it’s not always obvious to the members or to outsiders that that’s the case – after all, part of the point of mind control is that the victims are unaware just how much they’re being manipulated and controlled).
We usually think of high control groups as being the more stereotypical religious cults and extremist groups (like the Moonies, or ISIS), but it’s also possible for this manipulation and control to happen on less extreme or obvious levels and in less rigidly controlled ways. The internet makes it easier to get a wider reach and maintain control over long distances and without having to meet in person. There are cultish groups that operate almost exclusively via long distance, using extremely long video chats and phone calls to keep members exhausted, busy, and under the influence of the group. There are others that gain followers via vlogging, and then gradually move towards in person meetings, and setting up living spaces for members where they can exert more control over them. There are spaces on the internet where people are radicalised and propaganda spreads rapidly, with ease – nowadays the internet means that high control groups can bypass a lot of the physical aspects of control commonly employed by cult groups. For example, incel culture often spreads online.
Again, not all of this necessarily means that a high control group is obviously involved or people are being recruited into a cult. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a long debunked antisemitic hoax) was being spread around fairly recently on Tiktok as if it’s a genuine thing, and that didn’t involve viewers of those videos joining a group or doing anything other than viewing, believing and sharing. But it’s very easy for high control groups to use the internet, and to update how they recruit or how they spread their doctrine. So it’s important to be able to recognise these issues, and protect yourself (and people you know).
What might be the added risk factors for an autistic person? There are various traits associated with autism/neurodivergence that would make it seem that we’d be less likely to be unduly influenced. We often perceive ourselves as being strong-willed/stubborn, not following the crowd, having a strong sense of justice, being 'sensitive', or being hyper-empathetic. Whether or not these self-perceptions are accurate, they create a false sense of security and also allows people to excuse their behaviour based on how they perceive themselves.
'This mistreatment of someone we consider 'the other' must be justice, because I am big on justice.' 'I cannot possibly be doing or saying anything that's prejudiced or cruel because I am hyper-empathetic and that's just not something someone as empathetic as me would do!'
So self-perception might make it harder to accept that someone is being/has been indoctrinated.
There are also lots of neurodivergent traits that would make someone vulnerable to indoctrination. Lots of neurodivergent people are very friendly and agreeable, might lack confidence and not be very assertive so might be more likely to follow than lead, might want to fit in and so might be just as likely to follow trends/be influenced.
Some might have a poor sense of self due to masking and so a group might be able to impose an identity on those people. Hyper-empathy/being sensitive might make it easier for someone to manipulate your emotions. A strong sense of justice might also be manipulated by the right dis- or mis-information. Taking things literally and possibly being more likely to believe what you're told can play a part. Being loyal is a good thing, usually; loyalty to or trust in friends or to groups you're affiliated with might make it more likely you'll agree with them/follow them. Developing a social strategy that involves mimicking peers (so following their script) might lend itself to mimicking recruiters/other members of a high control group, and their more rigid and definite way of communicating and behaving might make it easier to mimic and make the scripts and rules quite appealing. Black and white thinking can be very compatible with a cult organisation's oversimplification of complex and nuanced issues/with strong us vs them dichotomies.
When someone is/has been a victim of bullying, is/has been excluded and ostracised, we tend to assume that they’ll be kinder to others, but lots of people who experience being left out or belittled will go on to do that to others because it makes them feel more powerful and because they want to remain on the inside (and sometimes, part of creating/maintaining/remaining in an ingroup, means ensuring that there are undesirables on the outside). Or someone might join in with bullying behaviours as self-preservation – to avoid being ostracised and victimised themselves.
Lacking social skills and a desire for belonging might make an autistic person vulnerable to the ‘love bombing’ of a high influence group. In the initial stages, recruiters and other members will act like they’re your friends, to convince you to attend events and to convince you that you are valued and respected by the group. Being praised for doing and saying the right things might feel good, and later it might feel bad to be criticised for questioning or doubting the doctrine.
What should we look out for? There are cultish aspects to almost any kind of group that's pitted against another in some way. Not everything 'cultish' is the sign of a cult. People become very tribal when they align with groups - whether it's a political group, a football team, or even something like iPhone vs android or Coke vs Pepsi! It's very easy to adopt an 'us vs them' dichotomy without it necessarily meaning that someone is bring indoctrinated into a high control group that will cause them or others damage. However, in some groups, these aspects of human behaviour are manipulated and become tools for control. The dichotomy will be absolute/extreme. There will also be other factors in play, like the group controlling what information their members access, whether that’s by banning certain books or access to media, not allowing someone to visit friends or family, or whether it’s ensuring that you distrust outsiders/anyone who doesn’t follow the cult doctrine (so that if you do engage with outsiders you will not do so in good faith - you will not listen to outsiders and so won’t allow them to make you doubt the doctrine). Members of cults are routinely and intentionally deceived by those above them and often don't know the actual intentions of the organisation.
Here I break down some of the criteria of mind control/thought reform, so that you might be better able to recognise it. The more of these things you notice, the more likely the group is a high control group that it might be best to avoid. Some of these things might be subtle enough that it’s hard to identify them. Steven Hassan's BITE model of mind control: Behaviour Control In more stereotypical ‘cults’, this often involves members being told where to live, who to live with, having their sleep schedules and diets controlled, etc. People who are tired and malnourished or overworked are easier to control. Members are kept closed off from others in some way (whether physically or mentally), and are often told what to spend their time doing. There's lots of chanting and 'meditation' type activities that create the perfect mindset for indoctrination. In some groups people are told what to wear – this might be a uniform of sorts, or some limit on what kind of things are allowed (colours, fasteners, etc). Members are indoctrinated to control their own behaviour, and often go on to control each other's behaviour by ensuring there are consequences for not saying or doing the right things, not following the doctrine closely enough, etc.
Information Control Any source that isn't cult-approved is seen as unreliable and is rejected. Many more powerful high influence groups have members who work on editing Wikipedia entries about anything that might be linked to the group or the group’s dogma in some way, and might own organisations under different names to ensure that the top online search entries are all positive (and any information they don’t want you to have is buried under lots of positive, cult-approved entries). The sources people most rely on for quick info (and that comes up at the top of searches) is therefore full of propaganda and misinformation. This prevents members or prospective members from seeing anything that might cause them to have doubts. The high control group controls the narrative.
Thought Control Members are 'indoctrinated so thoroughly that they internalize the group doctrine, incorporate a new language system, and use thought-stopping techniques to keep their mind "centred".' They chant (even phrases that they don't understand the full meaning of, and even in languages they don't understand), give words new meaning (loaded language) to create barriers between communication with anyone outside of the group (who doesn’t use the words in the same way/doesn’t understand the group language).
'Since language provides the symbols we use for thinking, using only certain words serves to control thoughts. Cult language is totalistic and therefore condenses complex situations, labels them, and reduces them to cult cliches.' (Hassan) We see the same words repeated over and over and over, and it does exactly that - oversimplifies and prevents critical thought or good faith discussion that would lead to the cult losing power over its members.
Emotional Control They use the emotions of their members to manipulate them. This might vary from inducing euphoria to create a sense of belonging using rage bait to rally members to ‘the cause’, or using guilt and fear to control how members behave.
Euphoria: Members are amped up and unified in various ways depending on the individual group, via acts like marching, meditating, chanting, call-and-response, or praying.
Rage: Members might be taught to be angry at a certain person, certain groups of people, or world events, so members can rally against ‘the other’ or the group can present itself as the solution to the problems.
Guilt: For not believing or behaving as the doctrine says they should, for being in a privileged class of some sort, for not doing enough for ‘the cause’, for doubting or questioning. Fear: If you dissent in the slightest, you're evil and wrong and they dehumanise you. So there's also fear - fear of not living up to that standard, of being impure, of being rejected from the group, of having your ‘confessions’ shared. Personal feelings and struggles are also seen as selfish and unimportant because everything should be about the cause. Sometimes the group will convince people that awful things will happen if they leave, and these fears can be deeply embedded even if they seem obviously false (to outsiders who haven’t experienced the level of control the member has experienced).
Group conformity and obedience Even without behaviour modification techniques, group conformity and obedience to authority are powerful influences. Experiments have repeatedly shown this. If people are put in situations where the most confident people around them give the wrong answers, the majority will doubt their own perceptions and will accept those answers. The majority of people will be obedient to authority, even if it means causing harm to someone else. In a crisis people will often hesitate, waiting for someone else to take charge, or will follow others (even if the other person also doesn't know where they're going). People often don’t want the responsibility of having to make decisions so it’s easier to have someone else make those decisions and give you permission to enact them.
This can also occur because of trust in specific people or groups of people. Generally, we tend to assume that the people we are aligned with, and who we usually agree with, are probably right about everything else, as well. And we usually don't want to agree with people we dislike. So the politician we detest? If that politician says or does anything that we agree with, we are uncomfortable and might doubt ourselves. Whereas that politician or influencer we like and look up to says something we perhaps didn't agree with previously, we're more likely to be swayed into agreeing with them. Even though there are people who are hero worshipped and thought of as being very good and pure, who turn out not to be. No ones politics or identity makes them infallible.
Universities are prime places for cult recruitment - university students are separated from their usual home and their usual people; they might also be disillusioned, or desperate to make a difference, and stressed from studies and trying to fit in, trying to figure themselves out. Humans are also often primed to trust experts or people they believe to be more intelligent/more knowledgeable about a subject (there is a term for this phenomenon called Captainitis – there can be(and have been!) fatal results if other crew of an aircraft defer to the captain even when they recognise the captain might be making a wrong decision). And cult recruiters might offer all the answers. Or an escape. They provide meaning or belonging or ‘the truth’.
Lifton's Eight Criteria of Throught Reform: Mileu control This happens in various ways, but ultimately most people indoctrinated into a high influence group will heed their peers and leaders and isolate themselves (to some extent) from anyone who doesn't comply with the cult doctrine fully enough. Various other organisations or companies, professors or classmates, strangers online etc., are impure and not to be trusted, so a barrier is created between members and non-members.
Sometimes physically (through members all living or staying in the same place) or through encouraging members not to fraternise with non-members, to distance themselves from family or specific groups of people that might challenge the doctrine (or at least not to listen to others when it comes to discussing concerns with the cult or with issues the cult is concerned with). A campaign of disinformation, loaded language and emotional manipulation that’s successful enough will mean that the influential figure/group doesn't need to physically isolate people in ranches in the middle of nowhere, or control where they work and study, because people are so primed to react to the language and ideology that it's still powerful even over huge distances and spreads effectively via online discourse and other various mediums. Mystical manipulation (or planned spontaneity) Many groups have a defined ‘leader’ who is almost godlike, and in this case all the messages and occurrences are somehow supposedly coming from a higher power (not the careful planning of the ‘leader’ who is presenting themselves as a prophet or a kind of messiah).
Cultish movements don’t always rely on a mystical ‘leader’, however. Many are designed to look like a grassroots movement, created or initiated by 'the people', but if you follow the trail up the pyramid there'll often be big money and lots of organisation behind it all. The wizard is hidden behind a curtain (or two or three curtains).
Because it looks (and feels) spontaneous and organic (when events are put together and crowds gather, and people sing or chant of pray together) mob mentality kicks in. Speeches, chanting, etc. gets people fired up. it all feels like they're a part of something big, powerful, and real.
The demand for purity This demand for absolute purity enforces a strong us vs them divide. The cult and its members are pure, good, right, innocent, and anyone who opposes them or does not surrender to the cult completely is impure, evil, wrong, guilty. Bearing in mind there are good and bad people in all demographics, no group is a monolith, yet in the eyes of the 'ingroup', nothing bad they do is ever condemnable, and nothing good an outsider does is ever good enough.
The realistic and reasonable idea that there are good and bad people in every demographic – that all humans have hopes, dreams, doubts, fears, and all are fallible and capable of both good and bad, like the rest of us - does not align with the demand for purity. Anything anyone does or says that does not align completely with the cult rhetoric is deemed impure.
Feeling justified and right is quite a powerful feeling, and unfortunately that often hinges on having people who are ‘wrong’ to berate and judge. It’s also quite human to feel superior and to enjoy this dynamic, and the flip side of it is that the judge fears becoming the judged and so ascribes even more completely to the cult rhetoric to ensure they never have to become the judged.
The cult of confession Somewhat similar to the above. In some cults confession is used to gain useful info on members that can be used against them, and to make members more vulnerable, but it also has another function…
Guilt is a powerful deterrent (people feeling guilty for their own wrongdoings and privilege will work extra hard to become morally pure) and by 'confessing' and cleansing themselves, people feel they have more right to judge others.
Focusing on specific issues also excuses you from having to face up to the things you might actually need to work on. No self-improvement is necessary, no genuine self-reflection has to be faced, because you can 'confess' to the less personal failings, or confess and be cleansed by the purity of the cult. You can also focus on the perceived guilt of The Other to lessen your own guilt. The confessor then gets to become the judge, having confessed and basked in how aware and disgusted with themselves they are for their privileges or wrongdoing. [This also feeds into the demand for purity – people who feel guilty want to offload their privilege and they can do this by believing in The Other is an all-powerful entity (even if, in reality, The Other is a vulnerable and/or minority community. For example: antisemites (which specifically refers to Jew haters) claim that Jewish people (who make up only 0.2% of the world’s population) are supremely powerful and control the media (regardless of all the evidence to the contrary); transphobes often claim that there is a ‘trans lobby’ that is somehow taking over and has the power and influence to somehow make children transgender.]
People enjoy feeling superior and getting to criticise others, and many people will actually become quite gleeful and excited when they are being hateful towards 'The Other'.
Sacred science The world is simplified into a sacred set of dogma. Often the dogma won’t make sense to anyone outside the group, and might even seem ridiculous. Members might seem to just be regurgitating catchphrases and nonsensical conspiracy babble, but they've accepted it as the absolute truth.
There might be an ‘end times’ plan, where the group members will either survive or will ‘ascend’ to a higher plane. Or the group’s cause might involve acting to bring about a better era (which might be as innocuous as selling flowers and/or proselytising for the ‘cause’), or eradicating an evil that will apparently fix all the world’s problems, and supposedly create a utopia where people live in peace (basically it will being a messianic age, even if the group is not overtly a religious group, and even if group members do not consider themselves or the group to be religious). The Other is solely to blame for all the world’s ills (or primarily to blame, to the point that nothing else really matters).
Loading of the language The above feeds into the loading of the language. Everything is extreme and yet oversimplified. No critical thought is needed (or possible). The language is appealing and powerful and absolute - it's emotive. The same arguments are used for everything, whether fair or logical, and whether accurate or not.
Much of this language is made up of thought terminating cliches; it shuts down discussion and prevents facts or reasoning from challenging the cult doctrine. For example, saying that someone is brainwashed is in itself a thought terminating cliché. You’ve already rendered that person’s words not worth listening to because that person has already been labelled incapable of rational thought. By using extreme terms to label someone, they are effectively ostracised from the conversation, and/or the conversation is derailed (the labelled person now has to argue against the label or prove themselves, instead of being able to engage with the original topic).
The language is so extreme and false that you often can’t even argue with it effectively, and that’s the point. ‘I’m not listening to a [insert extreme label]!’ They don’t want a good faith discussion, they don’t care about the facts, they want to control the narrative by making discussion impossible. Whether that’s shutting things down completely, or creating a situation in which the non-member is forced to defend themselves against baseless accusations.
Words are given new meanings to weaponise them and render connection and understanding with outsiders impossible. This language also makes group members feel special and connected to each other (and to the sacred science), but creates a bigger divide between them and anyone outside the group who either doesn’t use those words, doesn’t use them in the same context, or uses those words correctly/differently. The same often goes for chants and slogans that might mean different things to members than non-members, or might be used in place of more accurate or understandable language (so that group members repeat things that they don’t really understand the meaning of, and that might not even have any particular meaning).
Doctrine over person The doctrine is everything - your thoughts, feelings, your previous morals (that the doctrine might contradict) are meaningless. If you do experience any doubt or guilt because of how the doctrine misaligns with your ethics, that's just evidence that you are guilty/impure. There is no nuance, no room for critical thinking or trying to understand someone else's perspective. Your suffering, the suffering of friends or family who are concerned about you, the suffering of ‘The Other’ are all unimportant compared to the doctrine.
Dispensing of existence Anyone who does not pass the purity test, and is not a part of the cult's movement, ceases to deserve to exist. The cult members are pure and elite (which feels quite good!) but, actually, even the members lives are less important than the doctrine. If the doctrine states that in order to achieve the end goal (whether that’s peace on earth, ascension to a higher plane, or protecting leaders from accountability) the lives and freedoms of members are expendable.
Everyone is a tool for the 'greater good'. Because...
The means justify the ends. However horrific or morally corrupt those means are, whoever those means are enacted upon, as long as it's done in the name of the cause it's magically purified.
In cults, anything can be justified. For a higher power or a greater good, anything goes. Deceit, mind control, slavery, human trafficking, all forms of domestic abuse. Leaders can lie to followers, followers can lie to prospective recruits or outsiders, because it's for a good cause. It's all somehow justified, then becomes normalised. And if someone has been taken in and has engaged in anything that they might not be quite so proud of if they really thought about it, the cognitive dissonance would be too much. So it becomes easier to continue to justify it.
[Most people who end up involved in high control groups probably start out with good intentions, and with optimism that the group is good and will help find the answers to all their problems. But the cultish nature of these groups or 'movements' (mind control, thought reform - limiting access to information, disinformation, loading language, a strong us vs them dichotomy, etc.) leads most people away from the well intentioned and caring place they started at into a radicalised, dogma driven mindset.]
Cult members are victims of the cult. Even members who have behaved horrifically whilst under undue influence. Like most things in life, this can be nuanced. So if you have been in a cult/under undue influence, realise you are currently in a cult/under undue influence, and you are struggling to come to terms with that, especially if you’ve done things that are wrong, or have demonised another group, it’s never too late to recognise this and to distance yourself from the cultish dogma. Seek support from other ex-cult members, find therapists who understand indoctrination and de-indoctrination. Better to stop now and work towards undoing the mind control than to continue. It doesn’t have to become another ‘cult of confession’ where you have to self-flagellate to make yourself pure – humans are not pure. We are complicated, multi-faceted, confusing (and often confused)! And that’s okay. We get things wrong, sometimes. We might get things drastically wrong. But once the harm is done, it cannot be undone, and all anyone can do is move forwards, seek support, apologise and take accountability for our actions, work to improve, and try to make amends. If you know someone who is under indue influence and has been indoctrinated into a cult or radicalised by an extremist group: Most people under undue influence will not accept it just because you tell them so. Any confrontation will just make them use the above-mentioned cultish tools to shut you down and to avoid having to think too deeply about it. It's jarring to have your reality or morals called into question. Sometimes more subtle methods might help, like referring to other cults with similar tactics, and if you know anyone who has been indoctrinated and managed to get out, perhaps asking them to share their experiences (it's much easier to hear from people with similar experiences (if someone feels they've been duped, that's easier to discuss with someone else who they recognise is a good person but was also taken in by similar tactics/if you've believed something radical and absurd, it's easier to discuss this with someoen who has also believed things that are radical and absurd). If someone has caused harm while under undue influence (towards you personally, or with their cult-influenced morals/ethics) and they then recognise this and want to leave a high control group, even if you’re angry or disappointed in them, it’s worth remembering that they were also a victim. It might still be worth offering them support to leave, and a chance to make amends and to get away from that influence as long as they are able to acknowledge any harm they caused.