firstclassstupid

Female, she/her, pansexual, Dutch, studying Chemical Engineering at University of Twente. I like a whole lot of different things, this blog will mostly be crafting stuff and random shit that I find interesting.

[silkirose]

:/

[silkirose]

:0

[silkirose]

:)

[nyamafriend]

This got really pure and I’m so so proud of you op

[making-friendos]

hi I’ve been up since 5 am have a knitting meme

[firstclassstupid]

I'm cable/aran and fair isle/intarsia. I do occasionally crochet, but only blankets

[bigfatscience]

so basically im cursed to remain fat forever? jesus christ i did not need to hear that today.

There is no permanent and safe way to intentionally lose weight. This is true.  

And that means that if you want to truly live a fulfilling and meaningful life, you will need to let go of the fantasy of being thin. You will need to do the difficult self-work needed to unlearn your internalized fat phobia. You may also need to learn how to eat normally without restriction and shame. All of this is difficult. But a lifetime of self-hate, restriction, repeated cycles of weight gains and weight losses, and declining health from the damage caused by under-nourishing your body is far far worse. 

And I know you are in pain right now, so I am being gentle with you, but I need you to think about what you said in your ask, and think about who you said it to. I am fat and my life is not a cursed existence. It is never okay to say such hateful things about fat people, including yourself. Don’t do it anymore.

[bigfatscience]

What is the evidence supporting my conclusion that there is no permanent and safe way to intentionally lose weight?

Over fifty years of research conclusively demonstrates that virtually everyone who intentionally loses weight by manipulating their eating and exercise habits will regain the weight they lost within three to five years. And the vast majority will actually regain more weight than they lost. [sources]

In fact, the results of a 10-year study of over 275000 people revealed that the annual odds of a fat person attaining a so-called “normal” weight and maintaining that for five years is approximately 1 in 1000. [source]

And those very few people who do maintain a significant weight-loss for more than five years do so by engaging in unhealthy, disordered eating and exercise. Consuming just 1300 calories per day, recording everything you eat, and exercising for one hour per day is not healthy, and in another context, would be considered evidence of an eating disorder rather than behavior worth emulating. [source] [source]

[studying-studies123]

The first source doesn’t work, so I checked out that second source.

Basically, they went through the medical records of people in the UK (with some restrictions, such as having their BMI recorded at least 3 times and not having had weight loss surgery) and looked at the amount of people who maintained their weight, lost weight, gained weight, or weight cycled (lost weight and then regained it).

“Patients in this study were required to have a minimum of 3 BMI measurements recorded, suggesting that an inflated proportion of patients in this sample may have been involved in and interested in weight management interventions.”

“Nevertheless, we acknowledge that unintentional weight loss was also included and might result from physical disorders such as cancer or psychological concerns such as bereavement.”

“Recording body weight in primary care is generally related to the opportunity to do so and depends on patients attending the practice. We acknowledge that weight measurements in electronic health records may be associated with error and bias, including measurement error, confounding by indication if weight changes prompt weight measurements, variation between professionals and family practices in measurement recording, and weight management strategies.”

“We acknowledge that participants with fewer than 3 BMI records may show different patterns of weight change, and our results might be biased through their omission.”

“The relatively high levels of comorbidity seen in obese compared with normal weight patients would also likely result in more regular consultations and more frequent recording of BMI. However it is possible that patients from all BMI categories with 3 or more BMI measurements recorded over the 9-year study period represent a biased, less healthy sample compared with the general population. If this is the case, then unintentional weight loss, along with comorbidities contributing to weight gain such as mobility impairment, may have influenced BMI changes disproportionately in our sample.”

So, what’s my point?

This study was literally just observing patients’ BMIs. It was not observing whether they were dieting, what their maintenance strategies were, or if weight loss is or isn’t feasible. It was observing probability of various events (weight maintenance, weight gain, weight loss, etc.), not possibility of these events.

They selected people by seeing who had their BMI recorded at least 3 times. Since weight and height are taken at almost any doctor’s visit (unless the patient requests not to), any time someone saw a doctor, they were likely to have gotten their BMI recorded. So, patients who needed to see doctors frequently would be overrepresented in the study. People who need to see a doctor frequently are more likely to have some kind of health issue. Many health issues, especially chronic ones, can cause weight gain or loss, or even weight cycling. Which, as stated by the authors of the study themselves, could lead to a “biased, less healthy sample compared with the general population”.

Because we don’t know pretty much anything aside from these people’s BMIs, we can’t really conclude that there is no permanent way to lose weight. We can conclude that it is unlikely for people to lose weight, but we don’t know if that’s within the context that the people who are weight cycling are continuing their diets and exercise habits, or if they changed them in some way.

TLDR; The study does not prove that there is no permanent way to lose weight. Doesn’t prove that there is, but it doesn’t prove that there isn’t.

[studying-studies123]

Okay, onto the other studies!

So, study number 2 can be found in its entirety here: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/1/222S/4863393

It’s studying the National Weight Control Registry. Which, hey, just wanna say this, it’s not the greatest source considering a lot of it is self-reported data (though you do have to have a physician who can verify the weight loss/maintenance). That said, it’s not the biggest flaw.

I think I can throw the biggest wrench in this, though, with this little excerpt:

“Registry members reported eating 1381 kcal/d, with 24% of calories from fat. In interpreting their data, it is important to recognize that 55% of registry members report that they are still trying to lose weight and to consider that dietary intake is typically underestimated by 20–30%. Thus, registry members are probably eating closer to 1800 kcal/d.”

So, basically, people who are still trying to lose weight are eating ~1400 cals/day. People who are just trying to maintain are eating closer to 1800 cals.

“Women in the registry reported expending an average of 2545 kcal/wk in physical activity, and men report an average of 3293 kcal/wk. These levels of activity would represent ≈1 h/d of moderate-intensity activity, such as brisk walking. The most common activity is walking, reported by 76% of the participants.”

So…a majority of participants are walking for at least an hour a day. Walking. Hell, I walk my dog for about an hour a day! It’s not even high-intensity exercise! In fact, an hour of walking per day is right in line with what the WHO says people should be getting if they want to lower their risk of certain diseases.

They did mention that people recorded their calories, but counting calories is not necessarily a disordered behavior. It depends entirely on the person. I also want to share this little tidbit:

“ The most common dietary strategies for weight loss were to restrict certain foods (87.6%), limit quantities (44%), and count calories (43%).”

A little under half of the members used calorie counting. So, not all of them used calorie counting to lose or maintain their weight.

And:

“Registry members are asked to complete the Three Factor Eating Inventory, which includes a measure of cognitive restraint. Registry members scored high on this measure (mean of 7.1), with levels similar to those seen in patients who have recently completed a treatment program for obesity, although not as high as eating-disordered patients.”

Literally stating that their eating behaviors were not at the level of someone with an eating disorder. It’s not disordered to limit certain foods or quantities of food. It’s only a disorder when it negatively impacts your daily functioning and living. Limiting certain foods doesn’t automatically mean an eating disorder.

Now for the other one. Here’s a better link to the full thing: https://jandonline.org/article/S0002-8223(98)00093-5/fulltext

The first thing I noticed was that Rena R. Wing was an author for both this study and the other study. I also noticed that this particular study was done in 1998, whereas the other was done in 2005. It was also published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association which, from what I could find online, appears to be a decently reputable source, however it is apparently a very low-impact journal according to Researchgate. All it means is that there aren’t a ton of citations of this study, which is probably because it’s so old, but it’s a bit of a red flag that this paper on weight wasn’t published in larger journal about that topic. Again, doesn’t mean that anything is wrong with this study, it just presents itself as a red flag.

And, well, there’s not a ton to say about this study. It’s very short, and I can’t find anything beyond this basic description that isn’t behind a paywall. 

I’ll just bullet point my observations:

It’s all self-reported. Which, again, doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong, but there is a lot of evidence that shows that self-reported food intake tends to be quite inaccurate.

The other study found that many of the people on the registry (which this study is also studying, by the way) were still trying to lose weight, and so their daily caloric intake was artificially lower. This study doesn’t mention anything about that, but it has a similar intake to the other study (this time 1309 calories/day). Considering this is an earlier study, perhaps the newer study saw that they made the error of not factoring in whether people were still trying to lose weight, and that’s why this study doesn’t mention that but the newer one does.

Something that I never saw mentioned in either articles was height or BMI. Height and proportion of weight to height (BMI) can have a huge difference in how many calories someone may need. A very short person is going to need far less calories than a very tall person. A person with a higher BMI is going to need more calories than a person with a lower BMI. It’s a huge factor that I didn’t see addressed at all. (Edit: when I’m saying this, I mean that they didn’t say if they factored for people of the same BMI or not. They used the number of BMI recordings, and obviously looked at those statistics, but they don’t say if they adjusted the average calories consumed by the BMI and height, or if they just averaged everything without much thought to it).

Really I’m just assuming that the 2005 study was likely a better, revised version of this study. They took the mistakes they learned from this one, and used them to make a better study a few years later.

So, again, none of this says that people 1. can’t lose weight permanently, and 2. have to keep up unhealthy habits in order to maintain that weight.

I look forward to hearing your response.

[studying-studies123]

I’m just going to tag other people who responded to this post tbh. I’m really curious to see if anyone has any responses because, honestly, I want to know where the holes in MY own argument are. It’s a discussion, not a “you’re wrong, i’m right” kinda situation.

So if anyone wants to look through my response and see if there are any problems, please do!

@pureerraticism @enjoyritenow @firstclassstupid @krrvitz @sameatsbird @cactus-spirit @tinyhatonapumpkin @by-fel-fire-be-purged @books-cats-fandom @notyouramelie @mynameinyomouth @the-jackals @obsidianthunderwolf @raptor-moon @vorillaz @astoryinred @abstract-concept-difficulties @dancingkirby @search-bar @hoifne @dark-theatre @retrooutro @earth-to-oli @fatphobiaislame @serotonine-tnt @shadowybouquetsaladsthings @riverside–wren @tempest-caller @lookitsahinkle @psycho-nerd @frozen-toad83 @cactus-squirrel @diorsus @annijinder @atypical-butch @howprolifeofyou @boxerwagon @arctic-hands @aridara @kelu-rising @90000000bc @choice-of-an-oceanographer @fluffyfinror @vappyland @evan-humps-freely @dragonsspire @freshhelll @hazellazer @eternalsailordianamon @one-lost-at-sea @typical-fangirli @a-polite-melody @foxshowl @tubbyflubbychubby @asjgfdsfdfdgfhjkjlkjghfdfsgdaf @designedtoatee @ladyzannis @thatpsychodargon @phinarei @sunfloweraspen @livscull @swimminginthedesert @princessworm @watisballon @groovydoosy130 @ohmygodnobodycares @theoldmoultingrook @selkies-song @apple-miki @redneckhippiefreak @kuraihonofullmeta @hope-and-many-miles-to-go @chikzilla @khatfield79 @gottamove @gnomenovels @ok2befat @gallivant-fervently @diostukos @luciferandphilosophy @heofspeckledplumage @caterfree10 @lesmis5 @werewolfheads @matronwickid @jamesbondgirl007 @andersonsallpurpose @winterwombat @nicetrytopredictme @read-play-sing @fun-n-fashion @broke-and-eating-well-in-okc @amuserobin @digitaldiscipline @camillabech @naamahdarling

[firstclassstupid]

I don't really see any holes in your reasoning. I am very glad with your addition to this post. As someone who has actually experienced and eating disorder I feel a lot of annoyance towards people who equate watching what you eat to lose enough weight to get back to a healthy weight with my disorder where I wanted to be severely underweight. Wanting to be healthy is not the same as wanting to see all your bones. The ways to get to the goals are very different...

[firstclassstupid]

As per usual, I forgot to take a picture and upload it untill I have gotten quite a lot of it done XD This is the back of an oversized Aran jumper I am designing myself. It's knit with DROPS Lima, a wonderfull combination of alpaca and wool. It feels very soft and luxurious. I might even write down and upload the pattern someday.

[kuuras]

✧ ・🕸️ ° 🎃 O c t o b e r : Movies To Watch This H a l l o w e e n 🎃 ° 🕸️ ・✧

[firstclassstupid]

Have to remember these

[firstclassstupid]

I keep forgetting to post pictures of stuff I am working on or have finished. Hereby, a cotton and linnen cardigan. I might at some point upload prettier pictures, but I only have these right now.

[firstclassstupid]

I started this quilt about six years ago... Now I'm finally starting to finish it.

[blackfoxx-deactivated20211115]

The white male style of debate is to antagonize you until you snap. Then they win by default, because they make up their own rules in which being upset automatically invalidates your argument. The key is also to argue about things that they have no stake and experience in, so they dont snap first. Of course in the event that they do snap first, its of course passion, not anger…

White people are like little kids who make up new rules and obnoxious powers to keep themselves from losing….

At the end of it all, they are happy that you are so civil and can debate things rationally and clearly without getting upset. Everyone shakes hands and thanks everyone for being able to discuss “conflicting” viewpoints. Because after all everyone needs to hear the opposing side to truly be sophisticated. Even if you’ve heard that side all your life and it completely devalues you as a human being.

What i hear is that the mark of civilization to white people is being dehumanized and taking it like a champ. 

They also have little to no concept of power dynamics in these ‘sophisticated” discussions.

[getoutoftherobotxaviii]

Why I stopped indulging people who followed this argumentative “format”

[enterheavenalive]

This is so real and applicable to every dinner party I’ve ever been to

[eviltessmacher]

This is a particularly aggressive form of Sealioning.

Sealioning is the name given to a specific, pervasive form of aggressive and willfully intentional cluelessness, that masquerades as a sincere desire to understand.

 A Sealion is someone who, when confronted with a fact that they don’t care to acknowledge, say, the persistence of systemic racism in America, will ask endlessly for “proof” and insist that it is the other person’s job to stop everything they are doing and address the issue to their satisfaction.

The purpose of Sealioning is never to actually learn or become more informed. The purpose is to interrogate. Much like actual interrogators, Sealions bombard their target with question after question, digging and digging until the target either says something stupid or is so pissed off that they react in the extreme. The other major reason why people hate Sealioning is because responding to it is a complete waste of time.

It’s an insidious trap. Responding to questions asked reasonably is, of course, a natural thing for people to do. I like to do it myself; educating others is generally pretty entertaining, especially if they are receptive to learning. Dismissing those questions can appear condescending or rude, especially if you actually are condescending or rude.

Of course, these questions are not asked because the person asking them genuinely wants to know the answer. If they did, they would do their own digging based on your statements, and only ask for obscure or difficult-to-discover information. This is the “debate principle”. It is best explained thusly: When you go to a debate, you educate yourself on the topics at hand, and only request evidence when a claim is either quite outlandish or unflinchingly obscure.

No, these questions are asked to make a responder waste their time. It works, too; I’ve responded to Sealions before, answering all their questions and claims for evidence, only to be greeted by even more willful ignorance. It’s a way to force people into responding to questions phrased neutrally but asked in bad faith.

The name “Sealioning” comes from a most splendid webcomic, “Wondermark”, by David Malki.  

It can be found here: http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/873260-sea-lioning

Sealions are just “asking nicely” but they are asking questions that have been asked and answered fully many times, and are unwilling to so much as open a new tab to look up the answer, nor will they recognize the validity of your sources, your experience or expertise no matter what you do. It is impossible to satisfy a Sealion.

Make no mistake.

Sealioning is a specific form of harassment. You may not explain their inquiry has already been address. You may not cite a source. You may not refer to a previous answer. You definitely may not ever point them to a link. You must spend all your time and energy responding as much as you can to every little details of every innocent, polite little question they ask. Sealioning isn’t a sincere attempt at anything. It’s a calculated technique to grind an opponent down.

[digitaldiscipline]

If any of my followers feel like you’re being sealioned, I can play elephant seal and help destroy them.

[mightyviper]

Not only is this a thing, it’s actually something various hard right groups are teaching their members to do. It’s essentially just never backing down no matter what, never admitting someone else is correct, and always try to force the argument onto the path you want to go down. So I’ve found the best way to combat it is:

A) Call them out on their inability to admit they were wrong. This sounds pretty simple, but it’s very easy to get dragged into whatever they say next instead of just pointing out that you’ve proven their first point is bullshit yet they’re still yakking on.

B) They try to box you into a corner? Box them back. If they won’t accept a link, laugh at them for failing to understand it/read it. Call them out for trying to veer the conversation in another direction without yielding the point. Specifically state that you see their cheap tactics and find them weak and a sign of a poor debater.

C) Never let them move onto the next question. Demand they answer yours instead. Why should they get to set the terms of the debate? Why is it always them who deserves explanations?

D) Suggest that they’re arguing in bad faith. That they don’t really want an answer. And if they say no way? Then point out that someone arguing in good faith would do all the things they refuse to. They’d read links and evidence. They’d agree on at least *something*. And failing that, they’d walk away. Good faith arguers will reach a certain point and then just say agree to disagree. But these guys? Won’t. They will not leave it alone no matter what. That’s the hallmark of a sealion trained to demoralise us.

And when they indirectly admit that, you call them out on it.

Then you don’t leave it alone. Hound that fucking sealion until he honks for mercy.

[ryanlewisandclark]

Still important.

[theriversdaughter]

So many people in my social circles need to recognize the sealion problem we have, and stop feeding the wildlife.

[fabulousworkinprogress]

And in case anyone wasn’t clear: This method of argument (push until you snap) is absolutely a form of violence, because it requires you to care less about something in order for your opinion to be valid. It is silencing. It is degrading. It is dehumanizing. It is the very first step to making a person into a thing.

[youmightbeamisogynist]

I’ve apparently seen this post before, but I didn’t remember it, so I’ve been suffering guilt for weeks for not responding to a guy on Facebook who insisted that most straight men are completely equal partners in terms of childcare and housework with all the articles I had proving otherwise because doing so made me queasy. But that post was on an article just like the ones I’d collected and I firmly believe now that my subconscious remembered this post and realized it would be useless.

[firstclassstupid]

Precisely why politic debates are a complete waste of time in many cases.

[ladyprydian]

Word

[firstclassstupid]

I'd be set for life, I can do all da crafts: spinning, knitting, crocheting, weaving, sewing, embroidering and probably some of which I have forgotten the names...

[firstclassstupid]

Apparently I'm worth 10 goats, marriage material :)

[sweetteafrances]

http://www.ravelry.com/projects/rahardjo-knits/evenstar-shawl

Omg this is so beautiful. And she handspun her own yarn to make this. Breathtaking.

[knittingtheologian]

Good for yet another reblog! One of these days I must do this!

[knittingcountess]

Hoping to “inspire” myself! I think I will need a little “outside incentive,” however!

[firstclassstupid]

How does this have only 380 notes?! This is pure beauty!

[pinkmisspiggy]

being touchstarved makes u absolutely buckwild when someone does smth simple like .share a chair with u

[pinkmisspiggy]

like having someone touch your hand with the tips of their fingers shouldn’t feel like So Much it shouldn’t feel like your whole body is going into anaphylactic shock but here we are. here we are.

[pinkmisspiggy]

ok 2 many of u relate

[kaijuhearmenow]

Someone gave me a compliment and reached out and squeezed my hand and I fell in love and couldn’t speak for several minutes

[felesrubrum]

I was just gonna type this in the tags but I have to say this.

Growing up in North America is surreal.  Every tiny little blip of physical affection is deemed as sexual interest. Boys aren’t allowed to hug eachother because “that’s gay.” Girls can’t hold hands because “are they going out?” And GOD FORBID a female friend hugs a male friend.

Having lived in the Netherlands, and reading up about shit like this, Canadians and Americans are starving. 

I went to Japan for a school trip in 2012. I went to a highschool there. There were boys hugging, lounging on those blue gym floor mats, holding hands, trowing their arms around eachother. I was startled by how shocked I was.

This mentality of “if you’re touching you must have sexual interest in the other person” is so fucking disgusting. Hug your friends. Hold hands with them. Touch their hands when you want to reassure them.

[airlinewaifu]

UGH IT’S SO TRUE.

[firstclassstupid]

Also with your parents. I still always kiss my mom and dad when I get back home (I live on my own now) and if I stay over there to sleep, I kiss them as well. Physical affection should be a normal thing. However, if people feel uncomfortable, don't force it

[gahdamnpunk]

THIS

[tranquilhawke-2]

this was in the netherlands and there were also two at my local bus stop, its been the poster ive seen replaced the fastest :/

[cuteandbrammatical]

What’s funny is that the Netherlands is known as a super progressive and pro LGBTQ country (they were the first country to legalize gay marriage, pride here is a huge deal, and many of my friends deem it safe to be out), but even in my friend’s ultra-leftist neighborhood these posters were vandalized. It makes me so mad when people say “you don’t need more rights//you can marry, what else do you want//what oppression lol everyone is equal in the West :))))” because it’s so fucking ignorant and false.

[firstclassstupid]

In the east of the Netherlands people are more chill. I haven't seen any of these posters I think, but I have also never witnessed any sign of hatred towards the LGBT+ community. I think that is mostly due to having less radical people in the east of the Netherlands... Maybe in the bigger cities, but I'm not sure about that, I'm from a smaller town. As far as I have noticed, it's completely safe here...

[shortangrybisexual]

Listen I’m bi as Heck and as much as I love girls, I also love boys? Boys are amazing and pure and liking boys is a wonderful feeling? I never see a lot of posts talking about cute boys so

Some Boy Aesthetics™ I’m in love with include:

Their tired grins? Have you seen a cute boy grin when he’s tired? Life Changing

Sleeves rolled up to forearms is all good and Well but also when they have Sweater Paws in their hoodies or jumpers? Makes the tallest of them seem so smol? I’m lov?

When they run their hand through their hair and it sticks up in places and it looks So Good

Collar Bones

Soft pudgy stomachs they absolutely make me melt

When ya boy gets flustered A++ Bonus points if he giggles Boys giggling is Everything

[itsagifnotagif]

I think this is like the first positive post about boys that isnt to do with a celebrity for ages and it is actually super nice to read????

[firstclassstupid]

I agree

[closet-keys]

One thing I think is useful to conceptualize when thinking about the severity of depression is figuring out what counts as a ‘task’ to your brain

for example, healthy people outlining the tasks they need to do that day might be something like 

- class - work - homework

if a healthy person is having a low energy day, maybe it becomes 

- make breakfast - go to class - class - go to work - work - come home from work - work on an essay - do 2 readings 

a depressed person, on a high energy day will probably see that same day as 

- make breakfast - eat breakfast - take meds - shower - get dressed - walk to bus - take bus … etc

a depressed person, on a low energy day will see that same day as

- wake up - get out of bed - walk to bathroom - use bathroom - stand back up - walk to kitchen - open fridge - take out juice - set on counter - go to cabinet - reach up arm - take down glass - unscrew lid of juice carton - pour juice - drink the juice - finish the juice …etc

the sort of chronic exhaustion manifests in how each ‘task’ takes a certain amount of energy and when you have depression, what begins to take that amount of energy- and thus, cognitively count as a ‘task’- are smaller and smaller subdivisions of what other people consider tasks. 

And the more ‘tasks’ you do, the less energy you have, and the smaller the subdivisions must be to take equivalent amounts of energy. And the longer that “to do” list of tasks is, the more exhausting and overwhelming and hopeless it feels, which creates a feedback loop of dysfunction.

So say our depressed person on a low energy day gets all the way to finishing their glass of juice. They’ve actually gotten through a lot of tasks! They’ve tried really hard. 

But to a healthy person, even on a low energy day, that probably looks like not having done anything- not having gotten through any tasks. And when our depressed person is surrounded by healthy people, they will likely internalize that they haven’t done anything, and further that they can’t complete any tasks no matter how hard they try. And that feeds worthlessness and suicidal ideation 

That, I think, is why it’s so important to encourage your depressed and chronically low-energy friends when they accomplish tasks, even if they’re operating at a level of subdivision that you don’t recognize. It is an accomplishment to get water and actually drink it for some folks. It is an accomplishment to get to class or to work. 

And acknowledging how hard someone is trying and how much energy they’re putting towards accomplishing those tasks can make a huge difference in whether they feel worthless and hopeless or whether they feel like it’s worth it to keep doing what they can.

[theroguefeminist]

I feel like this can apply to other problems with executive function- like ADHD. I sometimes I procrastinate endlessly on simple tasks like folding my clothes and putting them away or replacing a light bulb that went out or even shopping for new clothes because there are so many steps involved. Some things I can’t even process at all like using coupons to get good deals or mastering a beauty routine because there are so many steps involved with that it strikes me as overwhelming. It took me a long time to even get to the point where I can cook for myself and stay on top of basic tasks. On days that lack structure I will also forget to eat unless I go out of my way to. I can’t imagine living by the healthy task example lol

[firstclassstupid]

When you're struggling with a burn-out, it feels very much like this...

[justhereforrachel]

[firstclassstupid]

XD I have never followed a pattern precisely, though my mistakes have not been this severe... Yet...

[thesesummersonspoet]

Hey guys I just want to give a heads up. The book Adam by Ariel Schrag has been turned into a movie which has been named as one of the most exciting LGBTQ films of this year. I don’t want to spoil anybody’s fun but you should know before watching that the book is about a cis boy who pretends to be a trans man in order to persuade lesbians to sleep with him. 

This post has a plot summary that explains more about this concept and why it’s so harmful.

It is deeply deeply transphobic. It is lesbophobic as it features a corrective rape narrative (a lesbian does have sex with him and then decides she does love men after all). 

Here is a review of the book by a trans man. I have yet to find one by a lesbian but will edit this if I do. 

This book gives out incredibly harmful notions about trans men and lesbians that are used to hurt them in real life. It’s so entrenched in the narrative that I don’t see how the film can be any better. You can find more info in this twitter thread

I’d like to tell people to boycott it but I can’t tell you what to do. So instead I’m going to ask that you share this because it being named as an exciting new LGBTQ film is going to make LGBTQ teens want to see it. And they should know before hand how hurtful it could be. They should be able to arm themselves with that knowledge. 

Please reblog.