logical fallacies

@logical-fallacies-opinions

system | personal opinion blog

36 posts

Hello I'm Logan, an introject from the system @buds-of-wilting-retrospect . I am the main mod for this blog.

This blog is where we'll post things from discourse to silly opinions and questions. If you feel like your question may be incredibly stupid and you dont want to ask it publicly, I do not mind if you send an anon to ask. We understand disliking being ridiculed and such and do not mind taking that off your shoulders on this blog.

More Mod Info ::

You may call me Logan, Logic, or Brain; I use he/they/star pronouns, however ' ' star ' ' is only for if use when I am in a good mood. I tend to write semi-dryly and have trouble with distinguishing jokes and sarcasm. This is my normal. Please do not fret if I am upset due to the way I type; you will know when I am upset.

The others will tag themselves as they see fit on this blog.

I consider myself fair and try to be fact-based when it comes to debating, although this is not saying my opinions are directly corralated to my moral or logical stance.

I will, however, listen to anyone who wants to offer knowledge as long as they stay fairly level minded and morally decent at least when discussing or debating with me. Therefore...

Anyone can interact .

DISCLAIMER : I have all rights to block as I see fit. I don't have to ' ' be nice ' ' if you aren't . All I ask is you do not attack my partners or sysmates over my opinions or opinions specifically made here. - In addition I hate when someone says ' ' kys ' ' to anyone, as it is childish and foolish. What do you expect to happen when you say that? For them to simply decease? You may act like that is going to get your opinion heard; it is not. Dont be an arsehole; death threats aren't a joke.

[ guide post links tags under cut ]

logical-fallacies-opinions

mild take of the minute: DID & OSDD systems not being plural is literally the same as the "I'm a woman not a birthing person" argument

I could think of situations where someone has every symptom except being multiple people inside your brain-

not all woman are birthing people, not all birthing people are woman,,,,, doesn't mean they're not under the classification if by definition they technically are??

not all DID & OSDD peeps are plural, not all plurals have osdd & DID, yknow.

Like, okay, you don't have to accept it as part of your identity yknow? You dont have to identify as an lgbtq+ person to somehow be a trans r--fem like skdhbiddscksnsifbrhsbdk??? But technically you are man? Its just attempts to inclusive language I think, so its kinda stupid to fight about it ig. Idk.

Is there like a side im not seeing? kdshbifkds n

night-wyld-system

Hate to get into syscourse again but I genuinely am so confused by this sentiment. We are pro-endo. We're a DID system who identifies with and as plural. However we find respecting systems who do not identify as such to be important.

But onto what actually has been concerning to us is this weird misunderstanding of the concepts you're trying to draw a parallel to.

Not all women are birthing persons.

Not all birthing persons are women.

There is an overlap between these groups. Some intersex and perisex cis women cannot give birth. Many trans women cannot give birth. Many trans men can give birth, many enbies can give birth but are still not women. There is genuinely women who are not birthing persons- and though I am aware this is meant to be about a transphobic talking point you are failing to consider a not small number of women who do indeed exist.

Birthing person refers to the capacity to be able to give birth. Birthing person is not synonymous with women. Birthing person is not a subsect of woman. Woman is not a subsect of birthing person. Many women are birthing persons but that does not mean it is inherent to womanhood. Neither is womanhood inherent to being a birthing person. The statement "they're not under the classification if by definition they technically are" is factually wrong because by definition many women are factually not birthing persons. Just as many birthing persons are factually not women.

Your comparison is wrong on the face of it because you clearly do not understand the actual meaning of "birthing person" if you think that all women are that by default. I understand transphobic terfs say "I'm a woman! Not a birthing person!" but those statements are often targeting and harming trans people and women who cannot for whatever reason give birth.

It's not "literally the same" as the transphobic argument you're trying to draw a comparison to. It's the same as the explanation of the actual proper definition of the phrase. You can't just say "oh but those are exceptions to the rule" if there are exceptions then the term factually does not apply in all circumstances.

Just like many women aren't birthing persons... many DID systems aren't plural. Just like birthing persons are not always women- plurals are not always DID systems.

aysmias-multiverse-deactivated2

its almost like everyone exists on a spectrum, and putting people in boxes is dumb and shouldnt be what we do to litreally everyone we dont know, or have concept understanding over and have empathy for those who are different.

logical-fallacies-opinions

I- Yall I think theres a heavy misunderstanding here, and its probably because i fuckin wrote that at 3 am???

"not all xyz are zyx, not all zyx are xyz" is... quite literally in my og post? That applys to my idea of birthing person vs woman.... in fact the whole thing (to me) is

although it may not seem that way??? sorry????

The whole point is, yes they're not inherently the same....... but there is an overlapping middle where technically, yes you'd fit under.

"Well not everyone ids like that and you should respect that!" As yall point out to me... which is where i circle back to the "you don't have to accept it as part of your identity" directly in my post ^^;

and.... it is almost the exact same argument to me, because as I see it (please refer to below image)

It is literally just that.

"many women aren't birthing persons... many DID systems aren't plural. Just like birthing persons are not always women- plurals are not always DID systems"

as you stated is my entire arguement with the small addition of "technically there is an overlap and thus no reason to fight over whether DID/OSDD is or is not plural"....

logical-fallacies-opinions

sorry... that was mean..

s just... upsetting to be called transphobic... Sorry... m.. explanation for the bad wording on the first one below... I wrote it after..

in honest and stupid defense we tend to write these discourse thoughts at like 3 am because we have Ideas at that time mainly because we jus

#-jareth #... tq #I dont want to do these... but i dont want people to think we're transphobic...

logical-fallacies-opinions

mild take of the minute: DID & OSDD systems not being plural is literally the same as the "I'm a woman not a birthing person" argument

I could think of situations where someone has every symptom except being multiple people inside your brain-

not all woman are birthing people, not all birthing people are woman,,,,, doesn't mean they're not under the classification if by definition they technically are??

not all DID & OSDD peeps are plural, not all plurals have osdd & DID, yknow.

Like, okay, you don't have to accept it as part of your identity yknow? You dont have to identify as an lgbtq+ person to somehow be a trans r--fem like skdhbiddscksnsifbrhsbdk??? But technically you are man? Its just attempts to inclusive language I think, so its kinda stupid to fight about it ig. Idk.

Is there like a side im not seeing? kdshbifkds n

I feel like it isn't really the same as woman vs birthing person and feel that comparison is a bit off because of how woman vs birthing person is a heavily transphobic debate and plural vs not plural just... isn't that.

But to address your actual point here, I will point out that not everyone with DID/OSDD actually considers themselves as meeting the definition of plural at all - Plurality is often defined as having more than one person in your head (Or other beings, such as non-humans), and many systems with DID/OSDD simply don't consider themselves to be multiple people living in the same head. A lot consider themselves to be parts of a whole or seperated self-states, but don't consider themselves to be multiple people. (Personally, I use both parts language and people language for myself and consider myself plural, but for those who don't, this is the argument that I have seen recently)

In these cases, it's not a matter of just meeting the definition but not accepting it as part of your identity as much as it is that they don't fit the identity at all, even definition-wise. And when it comes down to personal identity and language, I feel that we should respect that.

I don't agree with people who want complete seperation between the broader plural community and the DID/OSDD community, but I also don't agree with you that everyone with DID/OSDD is "technically" plural or that it's similar to woman vs birthing person.

logical-fallacies-opinions

im sorry yall it was genuinely like 3am when i wrote this--

in honest and stupid defense we tend to write these discourse thoughts at like 3 am because we have Ideas at that time mainly because we jus

im just. gonna put this on all of them because like writing that so many times would make me seem impersonal and insensitive

Alrighty argument time. I'm gonna sound a bit rude n m sorry but like... yall i've heard so many "xzy is nothing like abc and shouldn't be compared" which i feel like. Sometimes, yes, you cant compare two things. Okay? But also youre never gonna have an argument that is EXACTLY like what youre making a comparison for unless your arguing in a circle of the same ideas.

No! It isnt exactly the same argument, nothing ever will be, but saying you shouldn't compare two things when they do have similarities you'd like to use as an example is kinda stupid,,, to me at least. But that take is for another post.

My actual point here! In an image form,

Is this. (above image)

The two things are ids that DO have overlap, but aren't necessarily the same. Technically!! Someone who ids as a woman could be in the overlap of being both. I never said they had to id as both, and I'm not in any position to enforce that.

You can see where I see this being a very similar if not literally the same argument idea.... to me in the image below

There is... an overlap. Where technically you are both.

It is a choice to id with either. I'm not going to force someone to id as what they technically could be. I dont care that much what people id as.

And of course there are other bubbles and other things outside of said bubbles as well! I'm not at all trying to say "youre either xyz, zyx, or both!"- its quite obvious its not a black and white kind or thing. I'm just trying to point out whether its your personal id or belief or not, there is and always will be an overlap.

Technically there is both. Technically someone arguing there not could fit both. My argument is that the idea that its a stupid thing to fight and divide amongst others about. Yknow.

It kinda just seems like an afterthought, sorry, I can understand the confusion

we're just gonna put this here cause like hfbdeihsdfdk repeating it like 50 times would be stupid

in honest and stupid defense we tend to write these discourse thoughts at like 3 am because we have Ideas at that time mainly because we just want reasonable (meaning not angry) conversation about cause theyre not like. talking topics you just chat with a friend about- but they are important to us and especially good to get multiple view points about??

1-3am timing is the main time we write these because at those times are the ones where the only thing we can really do is think sjsifbskf? nobodys awake to talk about stupid silly stuff yknow, so we think about our ideology and whats controversial, and form our own ideas.... and send it out for peer review.

aniebajefekw we dont like. have the brain power to think "well I think this is worded awful" its literally just. how our brain decided to word it.

so we're genuinely sorry if we word something god aweful and its misunderstood, if it is we promise we'll always try to reword it sometime we actually like... sleep through 1am LOL...

#yeah #idk i wrote this at 9pm so hopefully its fine #we have a whole ass mental n physical problem that makes brain to mouth and brain to hands and brains to body fucking HARD but i mean if we #fuckin slept well we'd have the fuckin brains to be like “lets pause and ask the tumblrers people tommorrow. after we read this shit again”#kfdbekrfndiksf #i have no idea whaat logans tags are so like #yeet

logical-fallacies-opinions

mild take of the minute: DID & OSDD systems not being plural is literally the same as the "I'm a woman not a birthing person" argument

I could think of situations where someone has every symptom except being multiple people inside your brain-

not all woman are birthing people, not all birthing people are woman,,,,, doesn't mean they're not under the classification if by definition they technically are??

not all DID & OSDD peeps are plural, not all plurals have osdd & DID, yknow.

Like, okay, you don't have to accept it as part of your identity yknow? You dont have to identify as an lgbtq+ person to somehow be a trans r--fem like skdhbiddscksnsifbrhsbdk??? But technically you are man? Its just attempts to inclusive language I think, so its kinda stupid to fight about it ig. Idk.

Is there like a side im not seeing? kdshbifkds n

logical-fallacies-opinions

yall godamn im sorry this got taken as transphobic bros

i'm gonna. re explain it in a fucking second yall because wtf ibfhsyehfbrs /lh

logical-fallacies-opinions

mild take of the minute: DID & OSDD systems not being plural is literally the same as the "I'm a woman not a birthing person" argument

I could think of situations where someone has every symptom except being multiple people inside your brain-

not all woman are birthing people, not all birthing people are woman,,,,, doesn't mean they're not under the classification if by definition they technically are??

not all DID & OSDD peeps are plural, not all plurals have osdd & DID, yknow.

Like, okay, you don't have to accept it as part of your identity yknow? You dont have to identify as an lgbtq+ person to somehow be a trans r--fem like skdhbiddscksnsifbrhsbdk??? But technically you are man? Its just attempts to inclusive language I think, so its kinda stupid to fight about it ig. Idk.

Is there like a side im not seeing? kdshbifkds n

night-wyld-system

Hate to get into syscourse again but I genuinely am so confused by this sentiment. We are pro-endo. We're a DID system who identifies with and as plural. However we find respecting systems who do not identify as such to be important.

But onto what actually has been concerning to us is this weird misunderstanding of the concepts you're trying to draw a parallel to.

Not all women are birthing persons.

Not all birthing persons are women.

There is an overlap between these groups. Some intersex and perisex cis women cannot give birth. Many trans women cannot give birth. Many trans men can give birth, many enbies can give birth but are still not women. There is genuinely women who are not birthing persons- and though I am aware this is meant to be about a transphobic talking point you are failing to consider a not small number of women who do indeed exist.

Birthing person refers to the capacity to be able to give birth. Birthing person is not synonymous with women. Birthing person is not a subsect of woman. Woman is not a subsect of birthing person. Many women are birthing persons but that does not mean it is inherent to womanhood. Neither is womanhood inherent to being a birthing person. The statement "they're not under the classification if by definition they technically are" is factually wrong because by definition many women are factually not birthing persons. Just as many birthing persons are factually not women.

Your comparison is wrong on the face of it because you clearly do not understand the actual meaning of "birthing person" if you think that all women are that by default. I understand transphobic terfs say "I'm a woman! Not a birthing person!" but those statements are often targeting and harming trans people and women who cannot for whatever reason give birth.

It's not "literally the same" as the transphobic argument you're trying to draw a comparison to. It's the same as the explanation of the actual proper definition of the phrase. You can't just say "oh but those are exceptions to the rule" if there are exceptions then the term factually does not apply in all circumstances.

Just like many women aren't birthing persons... many DID systems aren't plural. Just like birthing persons are not always women- plurals are not always DID systems.

aysmias-multiverse-deactivated2

its almost like everyone exists on a spectrum, and putting people in boxes is dumb and shouldnt be what we do to litreally everyone we dont know, or have concept understanding over and have empathy for those who are different.

logical-fallacies-opinions

I- Yall I think theres a heavy misunderstanding here, and its probably because i fuckin wrote that at 3 am???

"not all xyz are zyx, not all zyx are xyz" is... quite literally in my og post? That applys to my idea of birthing person vs woman.... in fact the whole thing (to me) is

although it may not seem that way??? sorry????

The whole point is, yes they're not inherently the same....... but there is an overlapping middle where technically, yes you'd fit under.

"Well not everyone ids like that and you should respect that!" As yall point out to me... which is where i circle back to the "you don't have to accept it as part of your identity" directly in my post ^^;

and.... it is almost the exact same argument to me, because as I see it (please refer to below image)

It is literally just that.

"many women aren't birthing persons... many DID systems aren't plural. Just like birthing persons are not always women- plurals are not always DID systems"

as you stated is my entire arguement with the small addition of "technically there is an overlap and thus no reason to fight over whether DID/OSDD is or is not plural"....

#yall i swear to god im not transphobic i've dealt with that shit most of my damn life #i didnt intend to do that and am sorry i did??? somehow????#it was supposed to be a “in the middle of two opposite views” take which is why i called it a “middle take of the minute”#im sorry for the confusion????

mild take of the minute: DID & OSDD systems not being plural is literally the same as the "I'm a woman not a birthing person" argument

I could think of situations where someone has every symptom except being multiple people inside your brain-

not all woman are birthing people, not all birthing people are woman,,,,, doesn't mean they're not under the classification if by definition they technically are??

not all DID & OSDD peeps are plural, not all plurals have osdd & DID, yknow.

Like, okay, you don't have to accept it as part of your identity yknow? You dont have to identify as an lgbtq+ person to somehow be a trans r--fem like skdhbiddscksnsifbrhsbdk??? But technically you are man? Its just attempts to inclusive language I think, so its kinda stupid to fight about it ig. Idk.

Is there like a side im not seeing? kdshbifkds n

#syscourse #these differences ; discourse and related #its once again quite late at night so just having open thoughts time #not-logan using this account again LOL #im not tagging rf on this because i dont wanna argue the heckin woman / birthing thing bro please #correct me if im wrong tho idm as long as youre not insanely rude

artisticallygay

Him!!!

#if anyone says a damn thing to me about being a sanders sides blog or rbing art to my quote unquote discourse blog im going to squeeze the #living hell out of you. this is my personal blog. read pinned if you dont understand.#okay now thats over with!#oh my!!!!!!! op artist this is!!!!!!!#so lovely!!!

logical-fallacies-opinions

trying very hard to see how and why sysmed and traumascum are transphobic and hhh

We find it very funny that you cannot put forth effort into listening to trans voices, yet you seem highly interested in hearing the voices of people who have opinions on incest.

For a detailed explanation: Here

#Hello. to the person we reblogged this from; we would like to inform you if you read anything from this post other than this nonsensical #reblog you will find the whole post is in fact us trying to read up on why or why not it is transphobic.#As you have endos in your dni we will not be interacting following this point of correction. Have a good day.

tw incest, grooming!

hi i’m here to try and explain the psychological aspects of ‘why incest bad’ - the thing is, incest can Never be with an equal power imbalance! full stop! family, sadly, always has a heirarchy built into it. two siblings aren’t equal in their parents eyes (the older sibling may have more pressure on them than the younger, a cousin may have more affection towards them than another cousin, etc.) there is a built in issue that, if you ignore the repercussions of biology, it’s still going to be imbalanced. that’s not even considering stuff like parent and child, which is inherently damaging no matter what (by a grooming aspect). no incestuous relation is going to be healthy, i can’t say all if them will be DAMAGING, but the family heirarchy is always going to mess up any ‘romantic’ dynamic you can form

Thank you for this!!

Now heres a valid point to say "we're so interested in learning why incest is wrong" (cough rather that using One fucking question we had and a "dont fucking use this as a support because it littally has nothing to do with this and its not even WOOO INCEST GOOD TELL ME MORE!";; great now you have us many. your welcome i suppose.)

Question however: Children on the same age (range?) both abused or neglected, and people who never knew they were related until they looked into it? what about them?

bad example i know but isnt alot of the royal family and such seems to be incentous? alot of royal familys actually. and some significant-in-deaf-history-places. Mind you there's definitely a problem there because they reproduce where as not all people will?

they (the royal family) are looked down on with this matter, i understand that,,, but its not as big of an issue to people it seems as some of you make it on here? which is a point where we're curious.

also? most people form alot of jealousy streaks for others, or,,,,, what is the positive word for that- admirations? for people who arent closely related anyways? sometimes i find, not in all cases and not at all most, but sometimes i find it to be strikingly similar to a normal relationship? they simply were raised in the same house?

also how much family closeness is too incentous?

People who live and were raised with you? Would two orphans be incentous?

Two people with blue eyes? They apparently all have the same ancestor yknow?

People who you can remember are family? People your parents can remember? is it okay theyre royal? is it just gross at concept and therefore taboo?

i feel like, rhetorically, I could make a dozen situations where incest is nearly thensame to.. any relationship. sometimes the grey of it all is frighteningly similar, and it makes us wonder, say, why isnt it a more "be careful of xyz" and more of a "NEVER. EVER. TERRIBLE TABOO GROSS WRONG"?

Okay: we dont need deep examples for pedos and age differences and reproductive reprocussion, which is grand. (not mad at you im just cutting your answer into pieces so i may ask the nitty gritty of the greys i am questioning about)

So. Family hierarchy, yes? This is what's wrong with incest, essentially? Please correct me if im wrong or if i missed one of your points, I do promise i will listen and read it as best as can.

Question then:

dont most relationships have hierarchies as well? "ask your mom", "tell dad to get the shoe" dad cooks mom cleans, dad is better at making burgers so you should ask him, babys saying dadda first, etc- also family hierarchy, no? How about a general social hierarchies?: popular kid and weirdos, friends and (as patton would say) ' ' besties ' ' , knows multiple languages and people who only know one, taller people n shorter people, art kids and theater tecs, therapy friends, favorite people, etc.

theres an inherent admiration, affection, jealousy, distaste in almost any relationship, no? Is it simply Wrong because its familial? I understand personal discomfort but i feel as if i went up to ask most people, no one would give me a real answer and thus i thank you for this one?

another question: how about two who are of the same age and raised about the same?

in all seriousness, I'm sure almost no one is raised the same but hey: neglected twins. about same age, i do hope, both pretty much same "I dont care about you enough to be a good parent". the problem is they grew up with sibling relationships? what about neighborhood kids who grew up like that as well? its not truely the same, nothing is, but it is too similar for me not to wonder. of course, to some people "big sibling relationship to lovers" without any incest at all is uncomfortable, and disliked, which i can understand but wish to know more about.

that also leads me to my last question: how much incest is "too much" incest?

just direct siblings? came out of the same womb? had the same/similar sperm cells? from siblings to cousins? siblings, cousins, and anyone you grew up in the same house with? anyone who attended family parties? anyone who you remember/know has a familial relationship? anyone your parents know to be family? anyone your grandparents know to be family? anyone with blue eyes? anyone whos family has been in the same small town as yours? anyone with the same gene problems as you? historical people; royal blood lines, Martha's Vineyard, isolated groups of people? are some people okay because it was Important? because they had to? because it felt safest to them? because it made the most sense for their time?

genuinely, just, where is the line between no and eh?

unrelated note (as you decided not to delve into reproduction things, which a i respect but do want to make note of); I have no scientific proof or papers directly for this, so most certainly go research it yourself for your own opinion;;;; but based on some digging, people having children at an elder age is seems to be likely to have reproductive problems (from conception to child birth to the child itself than incestual reproductive problems, it seems. I've found no studies of actually comparing the two, but if you look into separated research... yet you know of which being absolutely Taboo while the other is merely judged for? It is an interesting thing, in my eyes.

final thoughts for now are: i feel like yes, rhetorically anyone could make so many incest rhetorics that are on the fine line of "ehhh...okay",,,,, therefore why isnt it simply "be weary of xyz" rather than taking such a grey grouping and going THIS IS BAD. TABOO. NEVER TALK ABOUT IT. ? incest seems to be more of a taboo than abusive relationships now a days, how did that happen? ... do any of you find that odd at all? I feel it is. Thus all these questions. Thus us asking all these "whys" and "what about?".

if someone answers this with "because theyre incestual" and calls it a day i'm. not even going to respond. for the record. and you dont have to either, nonny, youve done already above and beyond for explaining.

for the people in the back: we are searching for a deeper and better understanding of things around us. something we are curious about is incest. we are asking questions from a pro-incest seeming side, as we are trying to see an argument from all sides. again, we do NOT necessarily condone incest and we DO NOT and WILL NEVER CONDONE PEDOPHILES. IF SOMEONE USES THAT AS A "THIS IS WHY YOUR WRONG" REMUS IS GOING TO TELL YOU TO "SHUT YOUR DIDLY DONG ASS UP AND ACTUALLY. FUCKING. READ.". theres a whole foot note for you! read it! thanks!

and in case you need a plain text version . for the people in the back: we are searching for a deeper and better understanding of things around us. something we are curious about is incest. we are asking questions from a pro-incest seeming side, as we are trying to see an argument from all sides. again we do NOT necessarily condone incest and we DO NOT and WILL NEVER CONDONE PEDOPHILES. IF SOMEONE USES THAT AS A "THIS IS WHY YOUR WRONG" REMUS IS GOING TO TELL YOU TO "SHUT YOUR DIDLY DONG ASS UP AND ACTUALLY. FUCKING. READ.". theres a whole foot note for you! read it! thanks!

#also thanks again nonny #i understand why your on anon though and respect that.#personally out current opinion on incest is : in most cases it is Wrong bad not good but there alot of cases in grey #however we just Dont have enough info.#tw incest #tw pedophile mention #tw childbirth #tw child neglect #tw child grooming #tw child death #ask to tag #i understand theres alot of iffy and heavy topics; just send in an ask and we'll tag it #these differences; discourse and related #logan and remus posting #long post

Ik you probably don't want this brought up more because no one seems to be letting you live it down and the post is literally months old, but I have the same question about incest. I know there's some sort of dynamic about it that's unhealthy, I can feel that, but I can't understand what that is in words and in logic, and it's always quietly bothered me. I wish people would answer these questions instead of assuming it's being asked in bad faith. Bc the only explanation I can find is "the baby will have defects" which only has to do with having children, and I'm more confused about psychological aspects. I want to understand why incest is inherently psychologically damaging or otherwise immoral, even if both parties are of age to consent, have an equal power dynamic, and do consent (including just to a romantic relationship). That is where I have a gap in my knowledge. It's a valid question to ask, we shouldn't unquestioningly follow social norms and taboos even if they're right, we should understand *why* they're right. I wouldn't want people only thinking pedophilia is wrong because "ew yucky", without understanding how the inherent power dynamic and child/adolescent psychology make it abhorrent no matter the context. I want people to ask why. So, it's also valid to ask about incest, in the same way Wow this is way more long-winded than I intended, sorry about that

' ' ^^ ' ' No this is fair , good post . Thank you .

I hope you stay safely curious .

#incest #these differences; discourse and related #/gen #/minor tq #Logan posting

Wasn't trying to attack you with that ask, just saying. Just a discussion but if you're uncomfortable with it that's fine

I mean.. saying to an endogenic system "I dont see any real proof you exist btw" is a bit of fightin worlds mate? no offense, right?

I honestly rather you explain better why we are transphobic? I'm very confused and concerned, that is certainly not something we want to be.

#if you wanna keep discussing this i dont mind.#i really dont! but man.#these differences; discourse and related #syscourse

logical-fallacies-opinions

trying very hard to see how and why sysmed and traumascum are transphobic and hhh

brettdoesdiscourse

Simple. If you're willing to tell an entire group of people that their experiences are not valid because they don't match yours, you're a lot more likely to tell another entire group of people that their experiences are not valid because they don't match yours.

logical-fallacies-opinions

is this? aimed at us? or?

#we're very confused #h??#i don't understand what this means im sorry #these differences; discourse and related #syscourse #ignore the fact we rbed this to our main qwq'd

Saw you saying "DID is a trauma disorder" is misinformation, and while it is a not necessarily a trauma disorder(it's a dissociative disorder), it is heavily associated with it.

Here's a source from the American Psychiatric Association - worth a read

Be sure that you get your information from credible sources as above too - I haven't been able to find any reliable research that suggests alters can exist without trauma/gen

it is.. misinformation. DID is a *dissociative* disorder heavily associated with trauma...

but sure i'll read that when i can ^^! and aweh that must suck. RIP. If youre gonna try and fakeclaim us you can just.. leave. btw.

I can however try and find the post full of multiple sources? But later. Right now im a tad pissed and not in the mood to do more opinionated writing (and it doesnt fit logan's rule of trying to be logical.)

#im a little snappy rn sorry #but dissociative not personality i am sorry.#these differences; discourse and related #syscourse

logical-fallacies-opinions

trying very hard to see how and why sysmed and traumascum are transphobic and hhh

logical-fallacies-opinions

the thinng im reading... im just. if im reading this right, essentially it says that the term sysmed is ablest because 1. it implies that systems dont have to be medically treated (but also states theyres no possible cure? which. i. okay.*) 2. system is a MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS TERM. right. so its medical? (im not even gonna go into the "well what are we supposed to be called then thing.) 3. sysmed implies.. you think "system" has to be medicalized...? isnt.. that what your saying...?

ok ok ok. "The therapy is not to medicalize the existence of the system"..... but if you are. a being. who goes to any sort of doctor/therapist/etc. youre going there to get medical treatment yeah.? thats. medicalizing it no?

also,, youve spread misinfo at like the first paragraph (DID is a trauma disorder) of this thing... i feel like anyone can. i dont think you cant just call endos misinfo-ers. that could be ableist dontcha think?/lh. circular logic, im sorry.

and trans part...

a. im 90% sure alot of people are not trans at birth. please imagine the society people push for, of no gender confines. i feel like. that is how we are born yes? personal opinions but "assigned male at birth" etc...? like.. in a perfect society theres no trans theres just Styles bae. what. personal experience as well: we likely wouldnt be so "anything nonfem" if we were raised in say, our partner sys' household.

b. w. what.? imma go with no i frankly dont believe that for the same reasons.. above...

anyways medicalization does hurt some people. doesnt really matter what for, cause not all medicalization is moral, legal, or wanted. conversion camps are medicalization of queerness yes? "dont compare gayness to systemhood too!!" okay fine. speech therapy is medicalization for Deaf and hard of hearing people yes? could be caused by childhood trauma. some people do benefit from it, yes, but its not very hard to find Deaf and HH people who absolutely hated it. theres two sides.

also i like to think we're proscience. and partically endo (a system made from the inside). both is cool? maybe look up scientifc research you dont agree with,, it helps sometimes. im sorry people have hurt yall though,,

my-brain-is-hatching

It doesn't mean that people with DID need to be treated, but if we de-medicalized it people's insurance won't pay for help that they need. The point isn't to "cure" anyone, but to have access to therapy for the trauma and depression.

Keep in mind 70% of people with DID have attempted suicide. This shit is a matter of life and death.

I've seen people use collective and other names in place of system.

And dude you really need to re-evaluate your thoughts on trans people because you're using some terf rhetoric. "In a perfect society" it's not just about gender roles/expectations, it's about people being comfortable in their own bodies and having agency over themselves.

logical-fallacies-opinions

hey this wasnt for you,,, this is our thoughts against the thing we were originally reading. As we choose to not link it, you have no context.

im not saying completely demedicalize it. thats a personal choice to persue or not persue therapy. we're bot daying anything about system "cures". Dude.

And yes We're aware of suicide.

Cool us too. main reason we see is because they personally dont like the term system used on them.

and haha ? what? youre very quick to assume we're a terf or transphobic. 1. we are trans,, 2. do you want our mogai blog? term hoard? We were not using a terf rhetoric as we litterally said nothing about a "perfect society" just reversing gender roles or whatever you think. we said styles.

"in a perfect society theres no trans theres just Styles"

styles as in dicks tits peens. style as in punk queer himbo. we never ever said anything about gender roles,,. i'll clarify; i meant thered no be trans people because thered be no gender, period. if you wanted a dick youd just have a dick. "comfortable in their own bodies and having agency over themselves" is exactly what you'd consider "perfect" enough for a rhetoric yes??

#could you please show exactly how we are transphobic thatd be nice. so we can fix it #these differences; discourse and related #syscourse

logical-fallacies-opinions

trying very hard to see how and why sysmed and traumascum are transphobic and hhh

We find it very funny that you cannot put forth effort into listening to trans voices, yet you seem highly interested in hearing the voices of people who have opinions on incest.

For a detailed explanation: Here

sophieinwonderland

This "explanation" for sysmed being transphobic always starts from a false premise that it expects you to blindly accept. The claim that being a "system" is a mental disorder.

Yet, you won't find the term "system" in the DSM or the ICD used in relation to dissociative disorders, nor does most of the literature around those disorders suggest a definition that would apply exclusively to those disorders. The term has been used in the plural community to describe any instance of plurality since the 90s, and has been used by psychologists to describe the parts of a singlet's personality in the case of the Internal Family System model.

The claim that "being a system" is a disorder is a lie and always has been, both based on academic use of the term and the community definition of the term.

"Sysmed" cannot be transphobic from the perspective of the trans endogenic and non-disordered systems who coined the term, or supporters, because to those systems (and psychiatrists,) systemhood isn't a disorder.

You have to demonstrate that being a system is a disorder first. Otherwise, the comparison holds true, as system medicalists would be trying to medicalize a non-disordered experience, just like transmeds.

(This is also probably why most of the claims that "sysmed" is transphobic comes from people who would fall under that label. You're not offended because the label is transphobic. You're offended because you don't like people pointing out similarities between the two ideologies.)

logical-fallacies-opinions

ppop off..?

I'd like to personally believe its okay to dislike it,, personal reasons yknow..? We just wanted to figure out more so we knew where we stood with reasons instead of near-blindly deciding ,,

#this post got really derailed ^^;#not logan posting #syscourse #these differences; discourse and related

logical-fallacies-opinions

trying very hard to see how and why sysmed and traumascum are transphobic and hhh

We find it very funny that you cannot put forth effort into listening to trans voices, yet you seem highly interested in hearing the voices of people who have opinions on incest.

For a detailed explanation: Here

logical-fallacies-opinions

I-

we are a Part of trans voices??

we ARE putting effort into listening. that is the whole post. ?? thats what this is about. please check the notes? and tags?

in original post we were Gathering information and were complaining that the post we were looking into used things not related to the topic to prove the point

cant open the link atm but I'll read it later, thanks(?)

#these differences ; discourse and related #syscourse #tw incest

logical fallacies @logical-fallacies-opinions - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag