Hi! @femboyhoot - Tumblr Blog

HOLD ON -

I haven’t checked tumbler in 2 years. And looking at my -YES NOT OUR WE ARENT A DID SYSTEM. shitty past behaviour i dont. know if i wanna fully address it or run away. A lot has changed within the past 2 years0^0

Anywayysss

Thats all i need to sayyy (ignore bio this account was during my fake phase)

almighty-hail

Hey I heard you guys like readable guides so I made some readable guides for some alignment/gender/presentation systems.

IN THIS ORDER: Galaxy Gender Alignment, which is meant to be replacements for the typical ‘___-aligned’ description. Made by @temp-nb-blog

Celestial System, which is for nonbinary genders that have a soft “energy” to them – not a gender or gender alignment in and of itself. Made by @juparian

Xenic Alignment System, which is for xenic genders. Made by @uncommongenders

Aesthetic Alignment, which is for gender expression. Made by @elfiot

Exemgenders System, which is for xenogenders that have wild and animalistic traits, following the Pokemon types as a theme. Made by @coiningblog

Gender Element System, which is for a gender’s essence, not necessarily its associated alignment. Made by @genderelementarchive

WARNING: When you see the word “Neutral,” THAT DOES NOT MEAN “IN BETWEEN” OR “ANDROGYNOUS.” In most contexts here it actually means “gendered, but not binary,” which is similar to “nonbinary” but since all of these genders are nonbinary to begin with, think of it as the unnamed, but still resonant, feeling of having gender that has no masculine or feminine feelings within it. In the case of the Aesthetic Alignment, “Andro” is short for Androgynous, or rather mixed (or in between) gender expression.

The terms “masc” and “fem” are short for “masculine” and “feminine,” not really masculine or feminine genders, but masculine or feminine feelings.

The Element System has a secondary colorblind-friendly chart, since I know the color choices I picked for the first chart may not be viewable for some people with visual disabilities (yellow-blue color blindness, for example). Hopefully, for those it applies to, the colorblind version’s easier to see.

And for the love of god, please, open these in another tab/window. Do not view them inside tumblr’s image preview, I will die inside.

If you have any other gender alignment systems that you want made into a viewable, broken down graph, please let me know. I’ll do what I can. I need sources for ALL CONTRIBUTORS and ALL POSTS should there be multiple posts/contributors involved in the alignment system.

Terfs, swerfs, MAPs, anti-MOGAI and other gender gatekeepers keep your filthy hands off.

femboyhoot

akkakakakakakaaoakakkaaloaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaa

thelegendaryhuman-blog

Femmesexual

I’m attracted femininity regardless of gender… That usually turns out to be straight women and gay guys. Great.

femboyhoot

Ah, yes fetishization. My favourite.

profeminist

rat-bisexual

Nonbinary skeptics love to say that there’s no research on nonbinary genders to prove or disprove it.

Y’all just haven’t looked hard enough.

“But there is no such thing as a female or male brain, according to the first search for sex differences across the entire human brain. It reveals that most people have a mix of male and female brain features. And it also supports the idea that gender is non-binary”

- Jessica Hamzelou, biomedical scientist and reporter

“This evidence that human brains cannot be categorised into two distinct classes is new, convincing, and somehow radical”

-Anelis Kaiser, professor of gender studies at the University of Freiburg, Germany

“The study is very helpful in providing biological support for something that we’ve known for some time – that gender isn’t binary”

“Joel’s findings can be used to help many people understand the non-binary nature of gender”

“It’s a shame that people’s experience alone isn’t enough for us to recognise as a society that non-binary gender is legitimate.”

-Meg John Barker, psychologist at the Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

The original study and review article both explain:

Gender is not a binary system

Gender is a ratio of male/female characteristics in the brain

How’s that for research, nonbinary skeptics? Will you accept our existence now?

dee-against-daddies-blog

💐ddlg is disgusting

🌷ddlb is disgusting

🌹mdlg is disgusting

🥀mdlb is disgusting

🌻cgl is disgusting in general

femboyhoot

🌹facts🌹

what two consenting adults do in their bedroom shouldn’t matter to you

some csa survivors participate in ddlg and variations to cope

age regression is usually not a part of ddlg and variations

ddlg and variations are vaild

me defending ddlg doesn’t mean that I must be into it

stop speaking on the behalf of all csa survivors because some... myself included fully support cgl

rat-bisexual

Please stop confusing nonbinary and GNC.

GNC means you don’t conform to gender roles, such as a feminine man or masculine woman. Its presentation, and it’s not a choice.

Nonbinary is a gender identity that’s not wholly male or female. I’m nonbinary because of my dysphoria, not because of the way I dress. Every GNC person in the world could just wake up tomorrow and decide to not be GNC but nonbinary people can’t stop being nonbinary.

Don’t mix them up. One is a choice, one is a permanent identity.

femboyhoot

Wow the truth

Yes, DDLG is vaild and your conditioning argument is bullshit: from a soon-to-be psychology major

I get it, DDLG makes you uncomfortable and it generally makes me uncomfortable as well however your argument of classical conditioning is complete bullshit from a psychological perspective. To give you context, I’m in a social science class as we speak and I have applied for a psychology program at multiple universities (accepted into both). And this place that I’m getting this information from is a university psychology textbook. I will include a picture at the end of this post but I only have 9 slides and 10 whole ass pages on classical conditioning alone in this damn book. There are many types of learning- habituation, classical conditioning, operative conditioning and complex learning. Habituation is when an organism learns to ignore a stimulus that is familiar and has no consequences. Classical and Operant conditioning both involve developing associations. Classical conditioning is when an organism learns that one event follows the other- an example of this is when a baby learns that the sight of the breast is followed by the taste of milk. Operant conditioning is when an organism learns that a particular action will lead to a particular consequence. An example of this is when a child takes a cookie from the cookie jar after being told not to will be followed by a “time out.” Complex learning involves something in addition to forming associations. For example applying a strategy when solving a problem. This post will mostly be focused on classical conditioning however I wanted to give a basic overall as to how organisms learn in general.

Study of Classical Conditioning

The study of classical conditioning started with Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist who was studying digestion at the time. He turned his attention to studying learning after he noticed that a dog began to salivate at the mere sight of food. While most dogs would salivate when food is in the mouth the dog has learned to associate the sight of the dish with the taste of food. Then he started his experiments, a researcher attached a capsule to the dogs mouth which would measure the amount of saliva. The dog was then placed in front of a pan in which meat powder would automatically be delivered. The researcher then turned a light on in the window in front of the dog and then the light was turned off. The device recorded a lot of saliva. This is called an unconditioned response or UCR where no learning has occured.

The meat powder in this case is called an unconditioned stimulus or UCS. This procedure was repeated over again a few times, light and then food to see if the dog could learn to associate the light with the food. Then they turned on the light however this time, no food was delivered. The dog salivated which means that the dog has learnt that the light is associated with food. This is called a conditioned response or CR. While the light is a conditioned stimulus also known as CS. The dog was taught, or conditioned to associate the light with food. Psychologists over the years have repeated variations of Pavlov’s experiments. To understand this we need to comprehend some critical things about the experiments that Pavlov did. Each time the CS and UCS are paired, it is called a trial. When the trials are occurring the subject is learning the association between the two stimuli. Repeated pairings between the CS and the UCS reinforces the association. If the association is not reinforced (the UCS is omitted repeatedly) the association will diminish. This is referred to as extinction. However this isn’t true unlearning because the association will come back after the subject is moved to a new context. This is called spontaneous recovery. As a result of extinction the CS takes on an inhibitory signal as well as an excitatory signal. The inhibitory signal is tied to the context, the inhibitory signal is then lost and the CS can be recovered.

Predictability and Cognitive factors

Since Pavlov researchers have tried to define the critical factor needed for classical conditioning. Pavlov thought this was temporal contiguity of the CS and UCS. Which is that the two stimuli must occur close together in order to develop an association, however there is an alternative to temporal continuity: predictability. That the CS is a reliable predictor for the UCS. In other words for classical conditioning to occur, there must be a higher probability that the USC will occur when the CS has been presented.

Predictably and Emotion

Predictably is also important when it comes to emotional responses. If a CS predicts that pain is coming then the absence of that CS predicts that pain is not coming and the organism then can relax. The CS is therefore a signal is “danger” and it’s absence is a signal of “safety” when these signals are erratic the emotional impact on the organism is detrimental. When rats have a reliable predictor that a shock is coming, they will only respond with fest when the danger signal is present. There are clear parallels to humans, an example is a child at the dentist. If a dentist tells a child that the procedure will hurt: the child will be fearful until the procedure is over. If the dentist lies saying that it won’t hurt when it actually does sometimes. The child will feel no fear as the child has no sense of danger.

How does this apply to DDLG?

In DDLG and it’s variations we have a subject, a CS and a UCS

Our subject is the partner in a relationship who is playing the parental figure. Or the daddy/mommy dom.

Our CS is their partner; the “little girl” or “little boy”

The UCS is sexual relations.

Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

So many anti DDLG say that it is pedophilia because of classical conditioning however this is untrue. Because in order for classical conditioning to work. Prepubescent children have to become a reliable predictor in order for the subject to gain an association with children and sexual relations. However in DDLG both partners are adults, one of which is dressed up as a child and is partaking in a childlike role. So the subject will gain an association with their ADULT PARTNER dressed up as a child as a reliable predictor for sexual relations: but not actual children themselves.

Tdlr: you can’t condition anybody using classic conditioning unless the exact stimulus is involved (an actual child)

#antiddlg #ddlg #ddlgispedophilia #ddlgisgross #ddlgsucks

Hm, when will they realize that the person who coined objectum pansexual is a truscum?

#objectum #truscum

chairemoji

i can’t fucking deal with this shit i feel sick

kiss my ass tumblr

dirkmed-deactivated20230907

what do you think of objectum pansexuals? (if you do not know what it is and what the history of it is check out panphobicpannie on instagram they have some great information on it, although tw for the r word uncensored)

Judging by the name alone I have 0 desire to look that up. Uh. Pansexual is a harmful, biphobic and transphobic label, blah blah.

femboyhoot

because yall act like I do NOT have a tumblr- also I changed my ig username but maybe you should stop being a stubborn cuck and give it a chance?

aphostraphe

pls give me 1(one) reason aces have ever been oppressed, and 1(one) example of aces being a part of lgbt history(before 2004 at least) and then maybe i’ll consider the idea that aces belong in the lgbt community lol

bi-asexual

Proof of the existence of asexuals in LGBT+ communities before 2000:

The Golden Orchid association (1644-1949) - a group of women in China that included lesbians, bisexuals, and “women who wanted to avoid both marriage options, and any romantic or sexual partnership” that today we would call asexual or aromantic.

Another Golden Orchid association link (which, interestingly, describes what appears to be a poly relationship).

Personal experience of a queer-identifying person noting that aces were part of the bi community in the 80s and 90s.

A book published in 1999 supports the previous link of someone’s personal experience, and notes that asexuals could be considered part of Kinsey’s “Group 3″ (the bisexuals) because they were “about equally homosexual and heterosexual” and “have no strong preferences for one or the other” just like bisexuals.

Another book that supports the personal experience source by noting that asexuals were considered part of the bisexual “Group 3″, which was published in 1999.

Another post of someone’s personal experiences of asexuals being part of the LGBT+ community in the 90s.

A source from 1999 noting that, while some female-female relationships in the early to mid-twentieth century were obviously lesbian relationships, not all of them were, but that it would be a mistake to label them all “friendships”. It specifically notes that asexual partnered relationships also existed.

This book describes a series of interviews done in 1990 by Catherine Whitney who interviewed heterosexual women married to gay men, and found that they were often asexual. It also describes how, in 1990, Ann Landers (a very popular advice columnist) asked her readers if married couples could enjoy a full life without sex and was flooded with 35,000 responses from people of all ages who had little or no sex and didn’t miss it. It also describes how “Boston marriage” was originally coined with a not-necessarily-always-accurate implication that such a relationship between women was nonsexual, but that later on the assumption was reversed to imply women in a sexual lesbian relationship, and how that caused some women involved in such relationships to hide the asexual nature of their relationships for fear of being called frauds by the larger lesbian community.

This 1997 book that states “To be a Kinsey 3 (bisexual) is to be equally attracted to men and women, i.e. completely bisexual…it is also to be equally unattracted to men and women, i.e. completely asexual. Bisexuality is never about two, only about one – asexual, or self-fulfilling – or three – continuously and equally attracted to both men and women”.

Proof of asexuality being considered as a concrete, distinct orientation before 2000:

One of the first online posts about asexuality in its current use, was made in 1997.

A study on anorexia and bulemia in gay and bisexual men done in 1999 found that 58% of anorexia patients were asexual.

The 1997 Australasian Gay & Lesbian Law Journal mentions asexual as a “relevant sexual identity”.

A 1983 issue of the Journal of Sex Research studied the Mental Health Implications of Sexual Orientation among heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual people.

The article “Asexuality as Orientation: Some Historical Perspectives” describes different historical studies on asexuality, including a study from Johnson in 1977 where the word asexual was used to describe women “regardless of physical or emotional condition, actual sexual history, and marital status or ideological orientation, [who] seem to prefer not to engage in sexual activity”. It also describes a 1980 study by Storms who included asexual as one of four orientation categories when mapping out sexual orientation. It also describes a 1983 study by Nurius that found out of 685 participants, 5% of males and 10% of females were asexual. It also describes a 1990 study by Berkley et al. that included questions “related to homosexuality, heterosexuality, and asexuality” and included four items (out of 45) that were specific to asexuality.

This book published in 1922 contains a lot of what I personally would describe as narcissism and pseudo-science, but acknowledges asexuality nonetheless: “In addition to the ordinary distinctive males and females, we have asexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and old women of both sexes.”

This book from 1996 that notes “A transsexual may have a heterosexual orientation, a homosexual orientation, a bisexual orientation – or an asexual orientation” and clarifies that “a very small number – are asexual or bisexual.”

This book mentions a study by Malyon in 1981 that noted the options available to gay and lesbian teenagers choosing whether, or how, to come out by “[describing] three possible modes of adaptation in adolescence: repression of sexual desire, suppression of homosexual impulses in favor of heterosexual or asexual orientation, or a homosexual disclosure.”

Kinds of oppression that asexuals face:

Eunjung Kim wrote a chapter titled “How Much Sex Is Healthy? The Pleasures of Asexuality” that describes how “the absence of sexual desires, feelings, and activities is seen as abnormal and reflective of poor health” in Western contemporary culture “because of the explicit connection between sexual activeness and healthiness” and argues that “medical explanations of asexuality as an abnormality that has to be corrected constitute a large part of the stigmatization and marginalization experienced by asexual people.” It also discusses the ways in which some groups, specifically Asian American males, that are desexualized can erase the space for asexual Asian American men to simply exist.

Asexuals also face sexual harassment, rape threats, corrective sexual assault, and corrective rape (which, no, is not a lesbian-only term according to actual South Africans) specifically because they are asexual.

There was a recent study by the AAU to identify sexual assault on college campuses, and broke down the responders to their survey by sexual orientation, including asexual. The results clearly show that asexuals are not immune to unwanted sexual contact, stalking, intimate partner violence, or sexual harassment.

A chapter of “Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives” that notes the specific way that asexual people are talked to/about: “Because asexual difference cannot be iterated in the linguistic field where sex and a sexed position dominate the discourse of sexuality and desire, the asexual subject is linguistically and visually dismantled and reconstructed in the position of a fetish object. This fetishistic conversion happens because the asexual person is made into an image, or spectacle, for consumption.” and “The difference between the unassailable asexual (someone who lacks all of the traits commonly blamed for asexuality such as past history of abuse, disability, etc.) and the spectacular asexual is that while the unassailable asexual allegedly makes asexuality digestible for a skeptical public and presents an accessible image, the spectacular asexual is always consumed as a fetish object, regardless of mental health, ability, and gender.”

The study “Intergroup bias toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination of asexuals” is exactly what it sounds like. The article’s abstract states: “In two studies (university student and community samples) we examined the extent to which those not desiring sexual activity are viewed negatively by heterosexuals. We provide the first empirical evidence of intergroup bias against asexuals (the so-called “Group X”), a social target evaluated more negatively, viewed as less human, and less valued as contact partners, relative to heterosexuals and other sexual minorities. Heterosexuals were also willing to discriminate against asexuals (matching discrimination against homosexuals). Potential confounds (e.g., bias against singles or unfamiliar groups) were ruled out as explanations.”

The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality describes many issues that asexuals face, including: how asexuality is seen as “invisible” and lends to people thinking it does not exist, how asexuality is actively erased as “unimportant” or not its own identity, the explicitly and implicitly negative messages associated with a lack of sexual attraction, the fear asexuals face when they believe there is something physically or psychologically wrong with them for being asexual, the belief asexuals face about how they must be deeply flawed since they do not conform to other sexual identities, how asexuals face cultural ideologies that sexuality is biologically based and ubiquitous (that all humans possess sexual desire) and that don’t acknowledge asexuality, that to describe oneself as asexual is a statement of moral superiority or purity or failure to find a suitable partner, that asexuality is an immature state they will “grow out of”, that asexuality is a description of action or a preference, that asexuality is unnatural or unhealthy or has to be a symptom of something else, etc.

Asexuality has been shown in the media in a negative light for decades, reflecting the idea that (for various reasons steeped in classism and racism) any woman who wasn’t willing to marry and procreate was a threat to the status quo, as seen in this 1955 book that notes: “Women who did not marry incurred political and social scorn for another reason. The influx of eastern and southern European immigrants in the United States pushed the question into eugenic terms–the wrong people were reproducing. Educated women came primarily from white middle- and upper-class stock, the most desired element by dominant social norms. When these women refused to marry and reproduce, they forced a new concern into the public discourse. it is not a coincidence that the stereotypical asexual unmarried older woman emerged at this time as a source of popular humor.”

Some people in some religions are very explicit about hating asexuals specifically because they are asexual, seeing asexuality as “a perversion akin to homosexuality and bestiality”.

Other religions see asexuals as actually sinful if they choose not to have sex with their spouse.

While not every member of every religion looks down on asexuals, many people in portions of various religions choose to view asexuals negatively.

Some people even recommend asexuals avoid being in a relationship with non-asexuals and assert that “promoting and trying to spread” asexuality, or behaving in an asexual manner, is wrong or unhealthy.

Because of these religious beliefs about asexuality, that also opens up asexuals to discrimination in various legal ways, including (but not limited to) things like the new adoption bill in Texas.

Asexuality was implicitly pathologized until very recently, and even now, the DSM-V states that a diagnosis of HSDD may not be given only if the patient has a preexisting knowledge of asexuality and chooses to ID that way.

TL;DR:

Asexuals have long been considered part of the bisexual community. When people used to talk about bisexuals, it included asexuals because asexuals were the bisexuals too. Bisexual history is asexual history.

Asexuals have also long been considered as a stand-alone orientation that was part of larger non-straight communities and could be studied in comparison to other sexual orientations.

Asexuals face many of the same issues that other marginalized orientations face as well as issues specific to their orientation. These include erasure, medicalization, misidentification, harassment, rape specifically targeted at them for being asexual, and religious intolerance, to name just a few.

None of this is exhaustive. There are more sources to be found and studied.

Not every person who is diagnosed with autism considers autism to be part of their identity. This is reality, autism affects each individual differently and it may not impact every single autistic enough in their daily lives in order to desire to be called “autistic.” I personally prefer to be called “a person with autism” because yes I may have autism but it doesn’t impact my daily life enough to require identity first language. Preferring to be called “a person with autism” is not ableist and never will be. Saying that everyone wants to be called “autistic” over “a person with autism” is though because it’s ignoring how versatile autism is.