anafin AU

im letting myself hard on my special interest here

[autisticspecialinterest]

The essence of living with a person who was the only LOVED AND HYPER-PAMPERED child in the family is that your requests mean absolutely nothing, while their requests and inconveniences are a catastrophe of cosmic proportions

[depsidase]

[autisticspecialinterest]

Every person who is a representative of some group of minorities, be it a gender minority, LGBT+, neurodivergence, is authentic and so pleasant in communication because they went through the hell of denial of themselves, attempts to erase their personality and complete its erasure, attempts to adjust to what society, friends, family, school, social networks, books, ideologies say… and when they finally receive a diagnosis, accept their orientation or gender, they begin to value themselves because they either never had themselves or destroyed their authenticity.

While traditional, heterosexual, neurotypical cis people, being themselves, grew up as their identities were partially accepted and they needed to erase themselves only partially — masculinity is glorified very limitedly, as is femininity, and neurotypicality is generally maximally unstudied and standardized. That is, only some parts of their personality were denied.

The level of shock and damage is so different that it can be compared to heaven and earth.

That anger, revenge, rage and hatred are boosts and anchors which reveal all the beauty of masculinity and femininity in people, and after healing make them maximally themselves.

You like (or you hate if you are in defenses) to be in the circle of minorities because they reveal the suppressed qualities of neurotypicals and not only, because they are authentic and value this authenticity, minorities expand the understanding of the human personality and the diversity of its nature.

[autisticspecialinterest]

Gay men are not an exception to masculinity, but its expansion.

Gay men don’t “break” masculinity; they reveal its new facets.

Masculinity is not a cage, but a space of freedom.

Gay men are not less of a man — they prove that masculinity has no single form.

Every gay man dismantles the myth that being a man means being the same.

Gay men are not “against” masculinity — they show that masculinity can be tender, vibrant, and honest.

Gay men are proof that masculinity is not measured by hardness.

Gay men broaden male identity beyond the limits imposed by patriarchy.

True masculinity is not about playing a role, but about being yourself.

Gay men are not a “deviation”; they are proof that masculinity is multifaceted and alive.

[autisticspecialinterest]

When you say that gay men are feminine, you are supporting the patriarchal idea that women are second-class people and that gay men are second-class men

You are supporting the idea of degrading something simply because it is feminine.

Gay men are masculine. Gay men are men too. They are not “less of a man” — they break the old stereotype of what a “man should be,” and in doing so, they themselves confirm the richness and breadth of male identity.

Stop thinking that being masculine means being a hard, emotionless piece of bread. Being masculine also means being playful, light, and tender.

Being masculine or feminine means being yourself, remembering who you are, what you are, why you are, what you are for, and where you are going. It means being true to yourself, your life, and your choices. It means doing what lights up your eyes, whether it’s makeup or drifting.

[autisticspecialinterest]

Why Being Anti-LGBT Is Anti-Science

Let’s start simply: the epidemic of male loneliness is direct evidence that human natural selection has shifted from purely physical to social.

Not every man is able to be with a woman, and not every man is able to form a family and leave offspring. If not every man has access to women or reproduction, then not every man has access to intimate physical and psychological connection with women.

This explains why gay men exist: men also have a need to feel significant and to share their lives closely with another person. For those who cannot form a traditional reproductive relationship—or who do not wish to have children—there are alternative pathways to satisfy these social and emotional needs.

The existence of multiple sexual orientations and gender identities is direct evidence of human evolution, showing that diversity in mating strategies, social bonds, and identity is a natural, adaptive outcome. That only shows great abilities of human race to survive and indicator of being highly evolved and adaptive which is main point in survival of the kind

[autisticspecialinterest]

here is who prolifers truly are

1. Their core motivations are:

Control and moral superiority: The idea of “protecting embryos” justifies a desire to regulate other people’s bodies and choices.

Social identity: Belonging to the “pro-life” group provides a sense of significance and community.

Psychological defense: A complex world becomes simple (“life begins at conception, abortion = murder”), which reduces anxiety and gives an illusion of control.

Narcissistic dynamics: They play the role of “saviors,” feeding their ego.

Just a brunch of insecure, incapable of learning ppl with primitive defense mechanisms

2. Arguing with them is often pointless because

Their position is irrational, based not on facts but on moral dogma.

For them, debate is not a search for truth, but a fight for status.

Cognitive biases (black-and-white thinking, confirmation bias) make them largely immune to logic and biology. They just cannot understand bc their mind "blocks" it

Even when presented with facts, they will change the topic or appeal to emotions (“what if it were your mother…?”). Because their dogma ruins when it faces facts and, again, primitive defense mechanisms

3. BUT arguing IS still be important

Not for them, but for the audience: in public debates, arguments expose facts and alternative perspectives to those who are undecided.

WE HAVE TO EXPOSE THE MANIPULATION It is crucial to reveal false analogies (“abortion = murder”) and show how concepts are being misrepresented.

Staying silent allows their narrative to dominate and normalize. DO NOT LET IT HAPPEN. REMEMBER WOMEN FROM AFGANISTAN

AAAND debating them trains you to recognize cognitive biases, resist emotional manipulation, and structure arguments clearly.

A pro-lifer is a person who uses a moral fiction to control other people’s bodies and choices, elevating themselves through the restrictions they impose on others. They are not fighting for life; they are fighting for a sense of self-importance, masking narcissism behind ideology.

[autisticspecialinterest]

here is few samples of how to answer prolifers without wasting time for repeating the same stuff

Argument 1: “Life begins at conception - therefore, it’s a human being”

Response:

Yes, the fusion of a sperm and an egg creates a new cell — the zygote. But “life” in the biological sense existed before this: sperm are alive, the egg is alive, and your skin cells are alive too. “Human being” in biological and social terms is not simply “living,” but an organism with a brain, nervous system, consciousness, and the capacity for autonomous existence. A zygote is a single cell smaller than a grain of salt that has none of these properties.

Therefore: the zygote = a biological process, not a “human being.”

Argument 2: “The embryo has unique DNA - therefore, it’s a human being”

Response:

Yes, the zygote has a unique combination of DNA. But almost every cell in your body also has unique DNA (for example, skin cells). If unique DNA = a person, then every time you cut your nails or comb your hair, you are “killing little humans.” In reality, DNA is a blueprint, an instruction set that can be realized in development, but by itself it is not consciousness, personality, or a subject. DNA is instructions, not a human.

Argument 3: “The embryo has a heartbeat”

Response:

At early stages (6 weeks), this is not a full heart. It is just a group of cells capable of contracting. There are no nerves, no sense of pain, no connection to a brain. Saying “it has a heartbeat - it’s a human” is like saying: “The light bulb flashes - it’s alive.” Humanity is defined not by contracting cells but by consciousness and autonomous existence. “Heartbeat” on an ultrasound ≠ personhood.

Argument 4: “The embryo has the potential to become a human”

Response:

Potential ≠ reality. An acorn can become an oak tree, but until then it is not an oak. An egg can become a chicken, but the egg ≠ chicken. If we destroy an acorn, it’s not “killing an oak.” Likewise, stopping the development of a zygote is not killing a human. Potential = possibility, not an existing person.

Argument 5: “What if this child would have been a genius?”

Response:

Millions of sperm die every day, each with the “potential” to become a genius. Most zygotes (up to 70%) fail before the woman even knows she’s pregnant. This is natural. By your logic, nature and men are committing mass “genocide of geniuses” every day. Potential to “become someone” does not make a cell a person here and now.

Argument 6: “Abortion is killing children”

Response:

A child = a born human, with a brain, consciousness, and autonomy. An embryo before 24–28 weeks has no consciousness, cannot feel, and is not a separate being. Murder = depriving a conscious, autonomous person of life. Abortion = stopping a biological process before personhood exists. Before birth, it is not a child but part of the mother’s body.

Argument 7: “Miscarriage is also murder, then?”

Response:

If abortion is murder, then every miscarriage is also murder - just carried out by nature. Up to 30% of pregnancies end spontaneously, even before a missed period. So, nature would be “killing millions of people daily.” But this is absurd because we are talking about biological material that could not develop, not persons. The “abortion = murder” logic collapses here.

Argument 8: “Abortion violates God’s law/morality”

Response:

Religious laws = matters of faith. But state and medicine operate on facts, not dogma. Law says: a human is a born child. Medicine says: abortion = medical procedure; murder = criminal act. If you rely on religion, then every natural embryo death (millions daily) would be “divine genocide.” Faith cannot be imposed as an argument in scientific or legal contexts.

Argument 9: “The woman is killing her child”

Response:

To “kill a child,” there must be a child. Before a certain stage, the embryo is not a subject: no consciousness, no feeling, no autonomy. It is part of the mother’s body, living off her resources. The woman decides whether to continue the pregnancy process. The woman is not “killing a child” but making a decision about her own body.

[autisticspecialinterest]

İ see that education system has failed you so lets talk about why abortion isn't a murder

so lets start from the basic biology

1. What a zygote really is

When a sperm cell fuses with an egg cell, a single cell forms - the zygote.

Its properties:

Size: ~0.1 mm (smaller than a grain of salt).

Contains DNA — a set of instructions for potential development.

At this stage, the zygote doesn’t think, feel, or have self-awareness.

The zygote is not a “person,” but rather a biological blueprint that may develop into one but often does not.

2. A cell ≠ an organism

Cell = basic unit of biological life. It lives, divides, and dies.

Organism = a system of trillions of cells organized into organs, systems, and eventually consciousness.

If you confuse these levels:

Every skin cell = a “person.” But we shed millions of skin cells every day and by this logic, we’re committing “genocide.”

Every sperm or egg = a “person.” But men release billions of sperm in their lifetime. Does that make men “serial killers”?

Absurd. A cell ≠ a human being.

3. Why DNA ≠ personhood

Pro-lifers argue: “The zygote has unique DNA so it’s a human.” Facts:

Yes, DNA is unique.

But every cell in your body also has (almost) unique DNA.

By this logic, every nail clipping or fallen hair is an individual person.

Unique DNA ≠ self-aware subject. DNA is an instruction manual, not consciousness.

4. When the brain and consciousness emerge

0–2 weeks: zygote - blastocyst - implantation. No nervous tissue.

3–4 weeks: neural tube forms. This is not a brain, just a tube of cells.

6 weeks: some cardiac activity, but no nerves, no sensations.

12 weeks: first primitive neural connections. No consciousness.

20 weeks: neurons start wiring, but the network is non-functional.

24–28 weeks: first EEG oscillations appear, resembling sleep patterns → minimal signs of consciousness.

Before ~6 months of pregnancy, there is no mind, no subjective experience.

5. The “potential human” argument

Claim: “But the zygote could become a person.” Response:

Potential ≠ actuality.

An acorn can become an oak tree, but an acorn ≠ oak.

A sperm + egg may become a human, but on their own they ≠ human.

Destroying potential ≠ killing.

6. Comparison with other cells

Zygote = a cell with DNA and potential for development.

Stem cell = a cell that can also be turned into a whole organism via cloning.

If a zygote = “human,” then every stem cell = “human.” But no one calls lab work on stem cells “mass murder.”

7. Evolutionary perspective

Nature itself discards most fertilized eggs.

Up to 70% of zygotes die before implantation.

If every zygote is a “person,” then nature is the “greatest mass killer.” Clearly absurd.

8. Legal and medical practice

Medicine: abortion = medical procedure; murder = criminal act.

Law: legal personhood begins at birth.

No miscarriage is ever prosecuted as “homicide.”

Even medicine and law distinguish between biological development and personhood.

Conclusion for the very stubborn

Zygote = one cell. A cell ≠ a person.

DNA ≠ consciousness. Your hair has DNA too.

Before 24–28 weeks, no brain - no mind - no subject.

Potential person ≠ actual person (egg ≠ chicken).

Abortion = halting a biological process.

Murder = depriving a conscious, autonomous being of life.

Therefore, abortion ≠ murder. It is a medical decision, not the killing of a person. Now go to war tradhusb

and my sourses are Beckmann and Ling’s Obstetrics and Gynecology, PROLOG: Complete Set of Six Books, Your Pregnancy and Childbirth: Month to Month not a fucking bible AND thats why we are living in dystopian world. People arent only voting for laws against human rights. Laws that go against BASIC SCIENCE are there.

[autisticspecialinterest]

what the hell does a woman bring on the table

She brings the same as any person who is truly worth something: intelligence, character, support, goals, the ability to build, her perspective, her past, reflection, empathy, the chance to share a life together, to multiply joy and ease sorrow.

If you need a checklist of points, it only shows that you don’t understand the value of partnership and have no idea what a relationship really is. And that only means you don’t know who you are and what you’re worth. You have no idea what relationship you want and what kind of. So next time, before you ask a woman out and suggest splitting the bill 50/50 and then call it a date, figure it out first.

[autisticspecialinterest]

whats up about being unique

you know i was watching a documentary about early humans Homo Erectus and there was a few minutes about how important it was for us to be alike and to belong in the group that made me think of our wish to be unique and you guys don't you think that being unique is actually a curse? ask any neurodivergent person who was bullied and who has been feeling different whole life and never knew why and how exactly they were different the thing is we are social animals, species Homo sapiens, genus Homo, family Hominidae When we are children we week to be alike with parents, we repeat after them and try to be like them that's how we learn and that's how any other mammals learn As teenagers we try to be alike other teenagers, have same interests and dress according to fashion to belong to another important part of society We look to be a part of a group, it's incredibly important to us to feel like we belong It's one of the main needs - to belong being unique means to be different and none of us want to be different. even if we create some unique subculture such as goth or punks we still find groups of people following the subculture so that comes we never want to be unique we want to be seen, appreciated and noticed