I learned last night through personal experience that you can in fact fist a neopussy, and it made me realize that so much of the propaganda against bottom surgery, even the really small ways that "a neopussy isn't like a *real* vagina" are complete fabrications.
I get wet when I'm horny, I have a vaginal microbiome, it feels like a cis vagina to partners who've been with cis women, and it can take a whole fucking HAND.
I just want to remind folks that the medical technology we have available is amazing, and that there are people and groups out there that have a vested interest in making sure you don't know that.
If you're on the fence don't listen to the propaganda. At the very least talk to a post op transfem before you decide.
Neopussies are the real deal and I just want as many folks as possible to know that.
hi! carey means needs help still - he's the voice actor for frylock in aqua teen hunger force! adult swim screwed him badly and pays no residuals and barely paid him during the show's run. he has heart failure and survives on con earnings, plushie sales, and donations while waiting for disability to get back to him. posts used to make the rounds for him, but haven't in a while, so i wanted to make a new post!
if you'd rather buy a plushie - here's the shop he and his wife run!
“Uhh trans men are mistreated in those women’s spaces that welcome them while turning away trans women to poverty, social isolation and death.” Then don’t hang out there. Have some self-respect if you won’t have solidarity for your sisters. No one is forcing you to hang out at your university’s women’s resource center.
its irritating how its not widely seen as capitulating to cis peoples transphobia to enter openly transphobic spaces that turn away trans women and require tme trans people to misgender ourselves to participate. like you are being a traitor if you do this! you have walked into the lions den and are complaining about the lions trying to eat you in there! you chose to do this knowing the lions were eating trans women the whole time!
stranger still when ime most trans men have experience being in "afab only" spaces compulsorily i.e. the girls locker room and faced rampant sexual harassment in those spaces for gender nonconformance. why on earth would you even want back in???
I would absolutely agree that trans men who are capitulating to cis ppls transphobia by going to women's events in general are pretty spineless and are opening themselves up to terf recruitment, but if I am being completely honest I don't love the framing in op's post that trans men who are making use of places like a women's resource center are necessarily cowardly or betraying their trans sisters. If you are a trans man who lives in an area that has little to no lgbt resources, it is entirely possible that you may have no other options than to recloset yourself and make use of women's only resources instead. The fact that trans men can do this in order to get access to things like food or housing is an example of how trans men have privilege over trans women, and the fact that those spaces will refuse to help trans women is a blatant example of transmisogyny. But if there is a trans man who is, say, in a position where their options are to either be homeless, stay in an abusive situation, or to closet themselves and stay at a women's domestic violence shelter or something, I personally wouldn't consider that man to be a coward or a traitor to other trans people, and I certainly wouldn't blame him for the abuse he may suffer in those spaces when he is attempting to keep himself from facing further harm by being homeless or starving or whatever. I think there's a big difference between men being in women's locker rooms and men making use of women's shelters or other similar resources, personally
i think you perhaps may have missed the word "university" in the op. women's resource centers at colleges and universities are not the same thing as women's domestic violence shelters. as far as i can tell (my school doesn't have one so relying on google and word of mouth here) they mostly just offer like...workshops on misogyny and places for women to discuss misogyny. they are not homeless shelters.
whenever discussing the erasure and lack of representation of trans men in media, it's best not to fall into the assumption that just because the image of a trans woman has a more prominent place in the cultural zeitgeist, doesn't mean they have better representation.
That's like saying black people in the 1920's had better representation than asian people because minstrel shows were popular.
Text of tweet under the cut because it is loooong.
But... Stochastic Parrots.
Timnit Gebru was fired from Google in December 2020 for refusing to retract a research paper, and every single warning that paper made about large language models has now happened at a scale the industry spent 4 years trying to make people forget about.
Her name is Timnit Gebru.
She co-led the Ethical AI team at Google. She co-wrote a paper called "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots" with Emily Bender at the University of Washington and two other researchers. The paper was 14 pages long. It was submitted to a top AI ethics conference. And it was the reason Google decided that one of the most senior Black women in AI research could no longer work there.
The story Google told publicly was that she resigned. The story she told, confirmed by 2,695 of her colleagues in an open letter, was that she was fired by email while on vacation because she refused to either retract the paper or remove her name from it.
The paper had not even been published yet.
Here is what she actually wrote, and why every prediction inside it has now come true.
The first warning was about scale itself. Bender and Gebru argued that training ever-larger models on ever-larger scrapes of the internet would produce systems that appeared fluent but had no actual understanding of language. They called these systems stochastic parrots because they would repeat patterns from training data with statistical confidence and zero comprehension. The paper predicted that this apparent intelligence would fool both users and developers into trusting outputs that were structurally incapable of being reliable.
This was 2020. GPT-3 had just come out. The paper predicted the hallucination problem before anyone had a word for it.
The second warning was about bias amplification. The paper documented in detail that internet-scale training data contains systematic overrepresentation of dominant viewpoints and underrepresentation of marginalized ones. The models would not just absorb this bias. They would amplify it, because the optimization process rewards confident outputs, and confidence in language patterns tracks frequency in the training set.
The prediction was that hiring tools built on these models would discriminate against women. That healthcare triage tools would underperform on Black patients. That loan approval systems would entrench inequality while presenting their decisions as neutral algorithmic judgment.
Every one of those things has now been documented in deployment.
Amazon's hiring algorithm penalized resumes that contained the word "women" in any context. Healthcare risk scoring algorithms used by major US hospitals were found to systematically underestimate the medical needs of Black patients. Apple Card's credit algorithm gave wives credit lines 10x lower than their husbands for the same financial profile.
The third warning was about environmental cost. The paper calculated that training a single large language model produced emissions equivalent to the lifetime output of 5 cars. The prediction was that the race to scale would create an environmental footprint that would eventually rival entire industries.
In 2024, Google's emissions were up 48% from 2019, and the company explicitly blamed AI infrastructure. Microsoft's were up 29%, same reason. Both companies have now quietly abandoned the climate commitments they were publicly celebrating the year Gebru was fired.
The fourth warning was about documentation. The paper argued that the training datasets being assembled were too large for anyone to actually audit. Nobody at Google, OpenAI, Meta, or any other lab could tell you with confidence what was in the data their models were trained on. This was not a temporary problem to be solved later. It was a permanent feature of the approach.
In 2023, researchers discovered that the LAION-5B dataset, used to train Stable Diffusion and other major image models, contained thousands of images of child sexual abuse material. The companies that had trained on the dataset had no way of knowing. The paper predicted that category of failure 3 years before it was found.
The fifth warning was the one Google cared about most.
Bender and Gebru argued that the deployment of these systems would centralize linguistic and cultural power in the hands of the small number of companies that could afford to train them. The internet would become a place where the dominant voice was a statistical average of dominant voices, presented as a neutral assistant. Languages underrepresented in the training data would degrade over time as more web content was generated by these systems and fed back into the next training run.
This is now happening in real time. A 2024 study found that 57% of new web content in English is AI-generated or AI-assisted. Researchers studying low-resource languages have documented active degradation in translation quality, because the synthetic content fed back into training is itself worse in those languages.
The paper Google fired her for predicted the model collapse problem before model collapse had a name.
The mechanism behind why this all happened is the part of her work that nobody quotes.
Gebru's argument was not that AI is dangerous in some abstract sci-fi sense. Her argument was that AI is dangerous in a very specific structural sense. The technology was being built by a small group of researchers who shared similar backgrounds, worked at similar companies, and were rewarded for shipping products faster than competitors. The incentive structure made it impossible for safety, ethics, and bias concerns to slow anything down. Anyone inside the system who raised those concerns was either ignored, sidelined, or removed.
She was making that argument from inside Google.
Then Google proved her right by removing her.
The team Google had built to make sure their AI was safe was dismantled in 90 days because they did the job they had been hired to do. Margaret Mitchell, the other co-lead of the Ethical AI team, was fired two months after Gebru for searching through her own emails for evidence of how Gebru had been treated.
Gebru did not stop. She founded DAIR, the Distributed AI Research Institute, in 2021. The mission is to do AI research outside the control of the companies that have a financial interest in not hearing the answers.
Every prediction in the Stochastic Parrots paper has now been validated by deployment. Hallucinations are an industry-wide problem the largest labs cannot solve. Bias amplification has been documented in hiring, healthcare, lending, and criminal justice. Environmental costs are larger than entire small countries. Training data audits remain impossible. Model collapse is an active research crisis at every major lab.
The question worth sitting with is the one almost no one in the industry will say out loud.
Every researcher with the technical credibility to call out these problems watched what happened to her in December 2020 and made a calculation about their own career. The number of people willing to speak publicly about safety and ethics issues inside the major AI labs collapsed after that firing and has not recovered.
The researcher Google fired for warning about exactly what is now happening was right.
The company that fired her is now the second-largest deployer of the technology she warned about.
And the people inside that company who agree with her are not allowed to say so.
i have a very difficult time internalizing the idea that im attractive so sometimes when people treat me like an attractive person i treat them with such incredulity that we just both end up confused.
So he said it can't be a Black. So I said, "For God's sakes, Judge Murphy, that's the whole point of the Goddamn story!" So he said, "No, it can't be a Black". Bill just called him up and raised the roof, and finally they said, "Well, you gotta take the perspiration off". I had the stars glistening in the perspiration on his Black skin. Bill said, "Fuck you", and he hung up.
Just to add context for those not aware of the impact of this story.
The reason it was so important for narrative purposes, was that the plot concerns the visit of the Astronaut, in his completely opaque spacesuit, to a planet populated entirely by self-aware robots (originally from Earth) who have built their own society and are petitioning to be allowed to interact with Earth again as equals.
They have a democratic government and free choice of careers etc. as the orange robot serving as guide tells the Astronaut.
The Astronaut notices that there are two different types of robot on this world; the orange ones, who are in charge, gifted access to all information and facilities. and the blue robots, who are seen as more limited in function, have less access to information and resources, and are not allowed positions of power or as wide a choice of employment opportunities. Even transportation is segregated.
The Astronaut investigates further and discovers that the blue and orange robots are actually structurally identical, there is absolutely no difference between their potential or capabilities, and it is only because the orange robots are instructed by their Educator system to consider themselves superior, that the difference exists.
The Astronaut tells the robots they are not ready for re-alignment with Earth, until they come to terms with their own unfairness, and how Earth had had to deal with this issue themselves. When that time comes, the robots will be able to ally with Earth.
Then he leaves in his spaceship, and it's only in that one final panel that we see the Astronaut is black.
Not subtle, nor should it be, but for 1950 this was a breathtakingly powerful statement, perhaps the first of it's kind in the genre.
The black character was not a caricature, or comedy relief, he was a main character in his own right, a human who "simply" was black.
Ok, but this story is sadly revolutionary even now.
That is not just a human who happens to be black, as far as every other character in this story is concerned this is the most important, maybe even the only human they ever see, who happens to be black.
As depressing as that is, but a black person just casually representing the entirety of humanity is a breathtakingly powerfull statement even today, a quarter of a century later.
vaporwave
pixelskylines
stormborns
jacobvanloon
amandla
andulkaphoto
gummygunk
tangentwithtanner
