That Is Autistic 0w0

Sorry for making a side blog for everything. A blog for me to think about my autism. Oh!! I’m corporeal, and it’s custom to describe that aspect. 18 they them. No. That’s not right. Oh I am 28. Time is passing. Oh dear. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I’m an adult though.

[ohheyidothat]

Omg pinned post! I forgor I could do that!

Tags for searching:

#funshapes - for when I post about shapes an topology and dimensions and stuff

#blossompokemon - all posts relating to Pokémon!

#poképlans - plans I have for Pokémon related interests

#ohheyisaidthat - posts by me!

Other tags:

MH4 for MH4 lol

Botany

Biology

Anatomy

[unfathomablylargekiwi]

I used to think I was manipulative bc I would sometimes make certain facial expressions/use body language that would make people see how I was feeling. Then I realised that that is called expressing yourself and I might be autistic

[ohheyidothat]

Genetic Science Learning Center

This is really cool :O you can zoom in to understand the size difference between macroscopic and microscopic things! From a coffee bean down to a single atom

[ohheyidothat]

Speculative biology ramble about things I understand very poorly aldnwkdbskd

Since I only have to understand evo-devo enough to do my speculative biology project, I'm not doing the most thorough job understanding everything. If I figure it out enough to design my own creature, I move on! Otherwise it would take me billions of years to do this. So! This ramble is not necessarily correct about anything, and is entirely in the context of speculative biology rather than a genuine study of earth life!

That being said! Time to ramble! (I'm excited to reread this later and see how much I got wrong, because it'll feel very nice to be able to recognize my mistakes later when I've learned even more!)

It seems that segmentation is, indeed, not a simple thing. I was hoping that each segment would be the result of a discreet set of genes, and that additional segments were the result of those discreet genes duplicating. A gene says "make a segment with kidneys, veins, nerves, a gut tube, etc," and if that gene (or set of genes) gets duplicated, then another segment is added. With that assumption, I figured there'd be at least 3 genes for segments--a "first segment," a "last segment," and a "middle segment" that gets duplicated. I wanted it to work like that, and figured it would, since replicating a head or tail segment would create a weird mouth-mouth or anus-anus. Honestly I was about to give in to that idea, pondering if any of the sphincters of the digestive tract were actually the result of additional head or butt segments being added!

But! Alas! It seems far more complicated than that.

It seems that the segmentation likely arose initially without any discreet segment genes. Though I did read a paper recently about a mulberry moth with a mutation that caused supernumery posterior segments, I think such a mutation is only possible after initial segmentation has been established. I think segmentation originated not as a duplication of an established functional segment, but rather as a division of a non-segmented body. If you knockout a hox gene, it doesn't change the segment count, just the identity of the segments. So segment identity isn't necessarily connected to the creation of the segment. Identity-bestowing genes didn't necessarily arise alongside segment-bestowing genes. The segments--and their identities--could have arisen first, which would need to occur in order to necessitate hox genes...I think.

Anyways, there's another reason I think this. First I'll actually argue against my own point because it's important to get the nuanced picture. (Which is an interesting thing to say when I'm not sure about any of this, only interested in accuracy as long as it serves my ulterior motives of designing aliens wkdjwkdj but I digress.) Sea anemones are considered radially symmetric, and they sure look that way from the outside. But internally they actually seem to have an axis along which different hox genes are expressed. You might be tempted to call this an anterior-posterior axis, which is the only real axis discussed when speaking of hox genes, but that's not really right. Not only do sea anemones have a blind-gut, and thus an oral-aboral axis rather than an anterior-posterior axis--but the linear expression of hox genes doesn't even occur along the oral-aboral axis! To my great surprise they express across the organism horizontally. The only way I can orient this in comparison to a through-gut animal is to wonder if the through-gut evolved not from a continuation of the blind-gut through a secondly formed orifice, but rather from a re-fusing of the middle section of the oral opening of the sea anemone.

I think this is especially possible considering that the planula larva stage of at least one sea anemone experiences a complete fusion and closing of the blastopore. Surely it would be possible for it to only fuse partially, in the middle, leaving two holes, at the ends of the hox gene expression axis. The trouble is that I have no idea how the hox genes express during embryogenesis in sea anemones. Additionally, if the through-gut formed as a central partial fusion of a blind-gut, I'd expect to see evidence of that in the blastopore formation of animals with an alimentary canal. I'd expect a single blastopore to form and then fuse in the center, and then the two pores to migrate to opposite sides. I...don't think that's how alimentary canals are formed? But honestly I've not looked into gastrulation of "higher" animals much, since I am not making those in my world yet.

Regardless, I've noticed that the gastrulation of even "primitive" cnidarians is extremely complex and implies a fascinating evolutionary history. Of course, one must be careful not to fall into the trap of the "theory" of recapitulation, especially since it is tempting to assume that all the evolutionary history could be stored in the process of embryogenesis. But! That is not true. A great deal is obscured through efficient losses and obfuscating mutations and adaptations. All that being said, it is interesting that the blastopore fuses. Why not just have the single layer duplicate and then have the inner layer undergo determination to become the inner layer? Why use invagination and migration? Surely it is a clue to a possible ancestor that experienced the migration and invagination without the fusion. And, perhaps. Either way, it makes me really appreciate the complexity of an animal considered very primitive. Not only are the cnidocytes incredible proof of a complex life form, but even the embryogenesis is convoluted and meandering in its goal, indicative of a long evolutionary history.

Meanwhile, sponges. Sponges seem to have a vast number of strategies for embryogenesis. They aren't considered to have true tissues, and if you study them, it makes you ask, "Wait, what IS a tissue, then?" I didn't look that up yet. But sponges have their cells organize and differentiate. They form a skin-like layer and an inner digestive layer, and a mesohyl between. This is lovely! I think a mesohyl would be an ideal precursor for the salt-regulation system of kidneys and nephrotic systems and things, or perhaps a sort of primitive circulatory system for oxygen and nutrient distribution and waste collection. It reminds me of the extracellular matrix in my own Mesohydrus clade, named after its own similar inner fluid layer! To think that sponges have something like that is truly wonderful.

Again I wonder about the origin of a larval stage. I asked myself, "Just how basal is a larval stage?" when learning about the planula larvae of cnidarians. It seems that many early multicellular animals could have benefited from a larval stage because many adult stages are sessile on account of not having the necessary support for a large nervous system that would allow movement. It seems that early animals may have had to choose between mobility and size. Size does protect you from predators but it is far from the only incentive. In columnar filter feeders, they use a chimney-shaped feeding tube because if the current is faster at one end it will passively draw water through the tube, thanks to my favorite principle, Bernoulli's principle! So a larger size could allow an organism to reach into a different height of water to allow a greater difference in flow velocity over each orifice. This is why several of my own organisms have convergently evolved to be long tall tubes. Interestingly, one of my tubes formed from a barely-motile meandering mouth not unlike a sea anemone, while another arose from a motile worm-like creature that secondarily lost most of its motility in exchange for a slow metabolism and passive filter feeding.

I find myself wondering how basal larvae are, because the easiest way for a sessile animal to spread is by having a small larval stage that is still small enough for coordinated movement, often able to survive on nutrients from the parent while it seeks new habitat. Then it can land somewhere new and afford to develop into an adult and propagate. This is especially curious in placozoans which reproduce through strange means I do not understand. They seem to have a perplexing combination of traits that only make sense to me if they are the result of losses of some traits. They have distinct tissue layers, but no dedicated gastric cavity. Are they flat upside-down sea anemones? Is that the origin of their toxins? Why would they lose a dedicated gastric cavity? They form temporary gastric cavities. Is it simply a matter of being flat? Why? How do they develop even? What does placozoan gastrulation look like? Did their ancestors look like sea anemones, or did the ancestor of sea anemones look like placozoans, or did their ancestor look like something between the two, or different altogether? Why haven't they evolved more? I can think of a hundred ways that placozoans could evolve into new niches. Why aren't they any larger? Why haven't some taken on a sessile life? Why haven't they evolved any form of shell? Or more advanced sensory organs? Of course, if it ain't broke, don't fix it--but also, if you made room for placozoans to evolve into new niches, I think they'd do very well. Why haven't they? What prevents them from having even an iota of visible speciation? We've known about placozoans since the 1800s but struggled to even decide that there is more than one species. Why haven't any of them adapted to the different environments they inhabit?

I think if an animal only reproduced through budding, rather than having embryogenesis, it would struggle to evolve. Of course it struggles due to the lessened genetic diversity. But I think much of evolution--especially regarding body planning--requires embryogenesis. I suppose if the animal had a later metamorphosis, then budding would be less limited, but... There needs to be a phase of fluid cell identity, so that mutations can reassign identity to new areas and develop new body plans. The specific locations of limbs and organs and the specific shape of the organism and the identities that determine the features of the dermis and teeth and placement of eyes and ears and numbers of segments--I think that the evolution of these traits is heavily reliant on a stage of morphogenesis that you don't necessarily see with budding. If an individual forms from the already-organized tissue of a parent, it cannot change its identity or form or function nearly as much. Embryogenesis suddenly seems like an amazing tool for multicellularity. I see why most animals do not reproduce simply by ripping in half. And some that do, like planarians, have fascinating regenerative abilities, not even bothering with having a nice clean bud.

Cell migration plays a much greater part in this than I ever knew. Of course I learned that the embryo begins development via cell migration, but that stage is overshadowed by the later phases. The fingers do not develop from the migration of cells into the final shape. They form a club and then the middle cells die to form the fingers. That seems way cooler than migration! But the migration is crucial. I think it's also a clue into the origins of multicellularity. Colonial single-celled colonies may involve migration of aggregating cells rather than directional growth of the already-present cells. This is certainly true in some organisms like slime moulds. Are slime moulds worth studying in the endeavor to understand metazoan evolution? Do any choanoflagellates aggregate like this? Unrelated aggregations obviously would benefit from the chance for sexual reproduction, but at the same time, cooperation is limited by competition. I struggle to balance these two forces in my own world. Cohorts often experience competition with others for mating opportunities and resources. This competition is curiously managed by the development of sexes, which allows a strange relationship to form between members of the sexes, where the presence of a member of the opposite sex can cause competition and reduce cooperation--or the opposite may occur. The evolution of a gamete binary is a fascinating one, and has had such a great impact on the course of evolution that I am at a loss for words to properly express how important it was. But how does that affect unrelated colonial organisms? What sort of circumstance would allow for unrelated colony members to cooperate? I think choanoflagellates may be a worthwhile study. I think that coordinated flagellation would draw in a better current than a single choanoflagellate could alone, especially when paired with a tube and Bernoulli's principle. But how would they manage the competition? Could they? Or are complex colonies mostly populated by clones? Of course there are organisms I do not understand at all that form multicellular colonies. They look so strange, I am intimidated every time I try to study them. Maybe they would provide insight.

How would these organisms approach embryogenesis? Again the formation of a more mobile larva seems highly beneficial. How ancestral is the larval stage? If it is basal to most metazoans, does it have an impact on embryogenesis even in animals with direct development? How does embryogenesis differ in these two types of animals, in closely related and distantly related animals? If insects could evolve larvae from ancestors that only had nymphs, and if amphibians have larva-like stages, then perhaps it is easier than I think to develop a larva. Do any mammals have them? Could you consider marsupial offspring to be larval? They lack the classic traits I have been quietly assigning larva: niche partitioning to avoid competition with the parent, or the ability to relocate in a way that the parents cannot. Marsupial "larvae" rely entirely on their parents which is the opposite of benefiting from niche partitioning or relocating. Then again, some insects do the same, like honeybees, which nurture their larvae diligently. If one of the main benefits of a larval stage is niche partitioning, why do honeybees feed their young? Why don't their offspring have a more direct development? If they could at least move and eat on their own, and wouldn't they do better? Then again, perhaps it would take them longer to grow and become full sized bees if they had nymphs stages rather than larval stages. It must be difficult to balance the benefits of each.

Most animals don't seem to easily swap between strategies. And the strategies they end up with seem to greatly suit them. Caterpillars thrive with their niche partitioning even at the cost of mobility and a thicker outer layer. Cicadas thrive even at the cost of developing adult traits early on while lacking crucial ones such as functional wings. Marsupials do fine. Placental mammals do fine. Amphibians and lizards both do fine.

But I can only think of a few times in the tree of life where a species has evolved to swap which strategy it uses. Each has very good reasons, too. Amphibians had to lay eggs in the water, so their offspring benefited from being specialized for that, even as adults developed into terrestrial forms. Though, why not just make tiny frogs that can immediately come to land? I think some frogs actually do that. Why do most not? Is it niche partitioning at work again? The insects with larval stages mostly benefit greatly from the niche partitioning. And marsupials were...experimenting with life birth, I guess? That's a bad excuse. Why didn't their ancestors utilize live birth in the first place? That's something I do not know. I know mammals are one of many branches of the tree of life that use live birth. Some sea anemones do something that could be called live birth. Some sharks do. Some snakes. Of course eggs are good on land because they survive outside of water but...live birth also solves that. Perhaps it was just chance. Or maybe the ability to lay an egg and then mate again or just enjoy life without being pregnant was worth it, even if mammals did return to live birth. Do any of these strategies interact with embryogenesis in significant ways? I suppose live birth allows for more maternal influences such as epigenetic changes based on the environment during pregnancy. Of course this could still happen somewhat in eggs, since eggs do indeed originate in the parent. Perhaps even signalling could evolve to cause these changes. I wonder if that's ever happened before. Do any egg-laying animals influence the continued development of the offspring? Some almost seem pre-adapted to such a thing, such as eggs that develop into sexes based on temperature. I wonder if any animals incubate their eggs differently based on the current ratio of sexes in the population. Or if one sex is better at dispersal, maybe the parent would influence the development to favor that sex when the environment is stressful, versus favoring the other when the environment is plentiful.

If embryogenesis is such a key factor in evolution of body plans, do any maternal influences cause increased or decreased mutation of related genes? That would be cool!

To tie it back together nearly, one more benefit of larval stages is neoteny. Of course, direct development can also utilize this, but it causes more drastic changes in animals with larval stages, of course. The niche partitioning is almost like a backup, where the parental niche can be entirely abandoned if needed. Are there any tadpoles that never become frogs? Any grubs that never become six-legged adults? And of course, did any planula larvae take over the reproductive stage, utilizing their increased mobility, creating the first fish-like organism from life that was previously sessile in the adult form?

[ohheyidothat]

What the fuck is a worm anyways?

[ohheyidothat]

It's been over a year and I still don't know what a worm is. Just annelids? No, because flatworms. I think "worm" is about as descriptive as "flying animal." Many are easily grouped together, but there are always weird outliers that remind you that evolution is wondrous.

[ohheyidothat]

I feel like I'm missing a part of the picture, which is SO exciting.

How did segmentation evolve? What gene is responsible for it? Surely there was a gene that said, "make a body segment here," and it somehow got duplicated so that the organism ended up with two body segments, right?

But maybe it's not that simple. Maybe it's not a mono-genetic thing, maybe it's a multi-genetic thing. Maybe it's an entire orchestra of genes and many of them are beneficial even without segmentation and that's how they accumulated into a set of genes that causes segmentation. But even then, shouldn't there be a single culprit? Was there not a The First Organism To Have Segments, with a genotype new to the world?

I've been pondering this question for weeks. I got lost in nematodes for a while, I'll admit. I was charmed by their simple body plan--a single ganglion, sure proof that it is the non-segmented predecessor of segmentated organisms with chains of ganglions like tardigrades! But I've changed my mind entirely. Considering that all Bilateria is segmented, the ancestor to all bilaterians must have been segmented. Nematodes must have evolved their simplicity after originally having more complex segmentation. After all, it's so difficult to distinguish an organism that lost traits from an organism that never had them. Surely nematodes evolved from segmented ancestors. Either that, or segmentation evolved multiple times.

I suppose it's possible. It is incredibly beneficial. Segmentation allows further specialization. It's almost like how colonial organisms slowly evolve for more multicellular traits. Each one is able to specialize in a different way, until it depends entirely on the whole organism while contributing unique things that unspecialized units couldn't contribute. But if it evolved multiple times, why can't I figure out a single way to do it? Perhaps I should not assume my own difficulty is mirrored in the natural world.

Since I cannot figure it out, I must assume I am missing vital information. I've been researching placozoans lately as a result, looking for the true origins of segmentation via looking for the origins of the bilaterian body plan. Some research indicates they may be organized in a way that is best thought of as having an oral and an aboral side.

I also wonder about the embryological aspects of segmentation. Does segmentation require embryogenesis? What about colonial eukaryotes? Are they not something akin to segmented? If they are, does segmentation require embryogenesis, or do modern segmented animals simply develop segmentation through embryogenesis because that is the only method for the development of anything in a multicellular organism?

I have also been pondering the genes that organize the body, in relation to the genes that organize a single cell. Many single-celled organisms have symmetry. They have a distinct form. They are able to develop into a specific shape. Are these organizational genes reused for segmentation, or to ask a browser question, are they refused for any multicellular body planning in general?

I can only think of one main way for permanent spatial planning in any cell, and that's the cytoskeleton. Even if you want to say, "Oh this specific protein is attached to the back of the cell, and it generates a signal, and that signal is seen as a gradient across the entire cell," well, how did the protein find its permanent home? How did it get there? A cytoskeleton could work as a map since it firmly anchors to various parts of the cell. Endless possibilities exist for how a mostly statically located cytoskeleton could assist in cell organization.

But is that true? Am I missing something? If it's true, how does it relate to multicellular body planning?

[ohheyidothat]

I'm shifting my idea of segmentation away from "a single body plan replicated into segments, due to mutations that cause segmentation to appear in one generation when it wasn't present at all in the former generation" and towards "a body plan that acquired segmentation slowly over generations, likely originating from a simple gradient of signals that cause developmental waves that eventually evolve into specialization."

The only problem is that some animals do indeed seem to have sudden changes in segment numbers, such as centipedes, which have various segment numbers. If two closely related species have different segment numbers, it seems more likely that they shared a common ancestor with a set number of segments, and then evolved different segment numbers. So, based on that, it would make sense for there to be a relatively easy way for a genotype to mutate to cause a change in phenotype (a change in number of segments), but I'm not sure that the origin of segmentation shares that mechanism even if it does exist.

Why?

Simply because I can't think of any way for it to have evolved before segmentation. Once there is a way to add or subtract segments, then of course it's doable; but I think it would be very difficult to duplicate a segment initially, since the only segment present in a non-segmented organism possesses the entire organism. It sounds weird to point that out, but... If you replicated the entire organism into a second segment, it raises a lot of questions:

- do segments only succeed if they are linear? Why do we not see organisms that are side-by-side segments, or radially symmetric segments? Or, did that happen? Do we not see that because they evolved into better functional forms that drove their predecessor to extinction? Or, do *I* not see it because I don't know that it exists? Does it exist? Can segments form side by side? Do they ever form in mirror-like fashion, such as having two oral ends with an aboral "end" in the center?

- if they form linearly, how does the organism cope with having one segment's anus open into the other segment's mouth? Did that happen? Is that an origin of gut segmentation? Are any of the sphincters in any animal body plan homologous to lips/anus? What if gizzards are specialized internal mouth segments?

- if organisms duplicate their initial segment, and that segment had a heart, then we'd find evidence of multiple vestigial hearts in descendants. Of course there ARE animals with multiple hearts. Did hearts evolve before or after segmentation?

- many organisms have ganglions that mirror the anterior brain "ganglion" (see tardigrade neural anatomy). Did ganglions evolve before segmentation, then? Do non-arthropods show signs of segmented proto-brain ganglion clusters?

- how many times has segmentation arisen? If it is as beneficial as it seems, it may have only arisen once, as subsequent evolution would create a far more efficient creature that would out-compete any other attempts at segmentation. Alternatively, if it is as beneficial as it seems, maybe it has arisen more than once, and those benefits are enough--even in a primitive form--to allow the organism to hold its own against more complexly segmented organisms. Also worth asking, how easily does it evolve? Do we see organisms in unique environments evolving segmentation? What is the most primitive form of segmentation that we find today?

[ohheyidothat]

I feel like I'm missing a part of the picture, which is SO exciting.

How did segmentation evolve? What gene is responsible for it? Surely there was a gene that said, "make a body segment here," and it somehow got duplicated so that the organism ended up with two body segments, right?

But maybe it's not that simple. Maybe it's not a mono-genetic thing, maybe it's a multi-genetic thing. Maybe it's an entire orchestra of genes and many of them are beneficial even without segmentation and that's how they accumulated into a set of genes that causes segmentation. But even then, shouldn't there be a single culprit? Was there not a The First Organism To Have Segments, with a genotype new to the world?

I've been pondering this question for weeks. I got lost in nematodes for a while, I'll admit. I was charmed by their simple body plan--a single ganglion, sure proof that it is the non-segmented predecessor of segmentated organisms with chains of ganglions like tardigrades! But I've changed my mind entirely. Considering that all Bilateria is segmented, the ancestor to all bilaterians must have been segmented. Nematodes must have evolved their simplicity after originally having more complex segmentation. After all, it's so difficult to distinguish an organism that lost traits from an organism that never had them. Surely nematodes evolved from segmented ancestors. Either that, or segmentation evolved multiple times.

I suppose it's possible. It is incredibly beneficial. Segmentation allows further specialization. It's almost like how colonial organisms slowly evolve for more multicellular traits. Each one is able to specialize in a different way, until it depends entirely on the whole organism while contributing unique things that unspecialized units couldn't contribute. But if it evolved multiple times, why can't I figure out a single way to do it? Perhaps I should not assume my own difficulty is mirrored in the natural world.

Since I cannot figure it out, I must assume I am missing vital information. I've been researching placozoans lately as a result, looking for the true origins of segmentation via looking for the origins of the bilaterian body plan. Some research indicates they may be organized in a way that is best thought of as having an oral and an aboral side.

I also wonder about the embryological aspects of segmentation. Does segmentation require embryogenesis? What about colonial eukaryotes? Are they not something akin to segmented? If they are, does segmentation require embryogenesis, or do modern segmented animals simply develop segmentation through embryogenesis because that is the only method for the development of anything in a multicellular organism?

I have also been pondering the genes that organize the body, in relation to the genes that organize a single cell. Many single-celled organisms have symmetry. They have a distinct form. They are able to develop into a specific shape. Are these organizational genes reused for segmentation, or to ask a browser question, are they refused for any multicellular body planning in general?

I can only think of one main way for permanent spatial planning in any cell, and that's the cytoskeleton. Even if you want to say, "Oh this specific protein is attached to the back of the cell, and it generates a signal, and that signal is seen as a gradient across the entire cell," well, how did the protein find its permanent home? How did it get there? A cytoskeleton could work as a map since it firmly anchors to various parts of the cell. Endless possibilities exist for how a mostly statically located cytoskeleton could assist in cell organization.

But is that true? Am I missing something? If it's true, how does it relate to multicellular body planning?

[the-trans-dragon]

I've probably posted this thing before but ITS SO GODDAMN PRETTY. I am so enamored with the art, too, such a gorgeous black on white, reminiscent of dark field microscopy!

It's so fascinating. It's actually a member of Bilateria, like humans, fish, sea stars, bugs, etc. I never would have guessed that by it's appearance. But that's not why I'm farming over it again today.

I'm fawning over it because I just learned that it has a brain which just...wow!!! They don't get any bigger than 1mm, and they look like that, but they're remarkably complex? If I had to guess what it was, I would say a protist at least, a cnetophore at most. No, this thing is actually an Ecdysozoan, like arthropods and nematodes (though I think it's closest relatives are actually things called mud dragons (cool!) and penis worms (also cool!)). It's so fascinatingly complex for such a microscopic creature, and don't even get me starting on its lorica for which it's named! This thing is just so cool!!

[the-trans-dragon]

I happen to have a pulse oximeter (measures pulse and blood oxygen levels) and I put it on while skimming research articles and my heart rate goes up 20-30bpm when I find an exciting article 🤭🤭🤭🤭

[the-trans-dragon]

In my defense LOOK at this BEAUTIFUL set of pictures from this article, "The nervous and visual systems of onychophorans and tardigrades: learning about arthropod evolution from their closest relatives," by Christine Martin et al, 2017 (link1 to the photos, link2 to the article), ignore improper citation and check out THESE GORGEOUS PICTURES

YESUESYESYEYSEYSYESYES

[ohheyidothat]

Evo-devo gene toolkit - Wikipedia

:0 what a COOL name for a set of genes? And they're COOL GENES too!

[ohheyidothat]

A meandering ramble about autism and accommodations and societal rules and things :3

It's always funny when my brain manages to go "well, maybe I'm not autistic." Sometimes I start to believe it. Then I realize, no, I'm autistic, I just don't have many of the Unpleasant Symptoms anymore because I've spent 2+ decades learning to cope, and I've spent 10 years living as an adult capable of shaping my home to my own needs. If I do run out of my preferred lotion, or forget to wash my good socks and end up wearing my backup socks, or have too many conversations with People Who Say One Thing And Mean Another And Communicate In Riddles, or run out of my samefood, or spend more than 20 minutes in a busy store, or need to remember someone's name or face, or network with people, or touch my Wedge Pillow Which Is Evil Textured And I Keep It Hidden Behind My Good Textured Pillow, or if I step on too many crumbs in a row, or if I am around bad smells or bright lights or blue lights or loud noises--then I am very much reassured that I absolutely do have autism.

There's a lot of things I can't handle, in terms of sensory issues or taking care of myself. I'm still bad at dressing myself, and I'm almost 30. I forget to make sure I got all the buttons fastened and in the right place, to make sure my shirt collars are right and my belt went through all the belt loops and didn't twist. I cant cook anything more complicated than microwave soup. Im so bad at socializing that I struggle to even talk to doctors to get medical help that I need. I'm too timid to make loud noises, and just don't do things that are loud, like make phone calls in public or hang up my new shelving. There's so many ways my disability disabled me, but also, I've learned so many workarounds that I'm doing okay.

I wear simple clothes, and just accept that sometimes I accidentally go to work with my shirt messed up (I do miss a specific coworker at a previous job who would always come up to me and say, "Let me fix your collar for you. There, now you're lookin' fly!"), and put my belt on my pants before putting the pants on so I can make sure I got it through all the loops.

I don't even try to cook. I always end up with a barely edible gross lump of something that could have tasted good if I asked for help, so I just always ask for help. If I don't have help, I just eat soup or ramen or peanut butter or frozen food. Someone else makes me dinner every night, and my work has a really cheap salad bar for lunch every day, so I usually have help.

I always keep extra lotion around. It has to be one specific brand with a specific smell and texture. Every few years they change it and it annoys me. I have a backup brand that isn't scented, but it dries too fast and I have to put it on literally every hour and a half, so it's only good for emergencies.

Socks are a constant battle. I find socks I love. I wear them until they're pilled or torn or stretched out too bad. I suffer for months until I find replacement socks.

Sometimes I can't be in other rooms of the house because the smells are wrong, and I'm trapped in my bedroom. Sometimes I can't take my full lunch break at work because the eating area is too noisy. Sometimes I don't eat because I'm out of soup and can't cook. Sometimes I don't drink because we are out of milk and it's the only thing I can reliably drink without elaborate tricks and distractions to keep my attention off the flavor and texture of other drinks. Sometimes I have meltdowns because the apartment rattles in a new evil way. Sometimes I have meltdowns because its sensory hell to make my bed. Sometimes I have to immediately shower and lay naked in bed when I get home from work because I can't handle having more than one texture on me. Sometimes I can't sleep because the AC makes a low hum that my noise cancelling headphones don't block. Sometimes I have to change into a new uniform at work in the middle of the day because I can't always handle my shirt and sleeves being wet after washing things. My deodorant brand changed scents despite the label being the same and it feels like a beast is clawing it's way up from my belly and out of my eye sockets if I put too much on but it's the only one I can wear.

It's not that I don't struggle. It's just that I have a Jenga tower of workarounds and habits and routines and understandings and accepted defeats and hard-fought victories that I use to function. It's precarious and sometimes it falls over and I'm reminded that autism can be a really big issue for me.

For the record, I'm glad I'm autistic, still. I love the way I think. I don't mind that I don't understand a lot of the social cues, because it forces me to be brave and confront my own feelings, and help others do the same. I don't lie to myself with excuses or half-truths about myself--im sure some autistic people do, but my autism has led me to seek a more raw, unhidden understanding of myself. I know myself, and I like the ways my autism has shaped me. I love interacting with other autistic people who've had the same type of growth, who don't worry if you use the wrong word and need to correct yourself, who understand that sometimes words can't capture truth and you just have to trust what the other person is saying, who will let me know if I cross a boundary--even a small one--even if it's one that society says to ignore--one that would build into resentment if not addressed eventually. I love being able to spend hours trading information about passions. I don't mind small talk but I love being able to sit down and say, "Can I tell you about the evolution of respiration for 2 hours?" and I love sitting down to listen to someone else share their passions. I love casting aside the harmful traditions of society, like "I'm going to assume you're disrespectful and rude and then be rude to you in return if you don't look into my eyeballs" and "you misspoke and are trying to reword your sentence but I'm going to assume your first words were true and your second words are a lie to cover up your real feelings" and "if you move around too much in public it means you're a danger to others" and "I'm going to be uncooperative with you as a peer because you are bad at small talk."

Being autistic means I've had to learn to accommodate others a lot. I've had to put so much work into understanding and accommodating non-autistic people. I don't mind. I like being good at accommodating people! It's a skill I am happy to build and hone, to use to make others' lives easier. I do the same for autistic people who aren't quite the same flavor of autism as me, and other people with other neurodivergencies or physical disabilities or things. They're usually easier than neurotypical able-bodied people who've never had to think about what they want in terms of accommodations or support. It's easier with people who've come to terms with their needs and are able to communicate when and how they need help. And my autism has made me grow, made me come to terms with a lot of the ways I need help.

I guess if I wasn't autistic, I could theoretically have gained these skills. But I think a lot of my compassion comes from understanding others through comparing them to myself--to my own struggles and needs.

It's very important to remember that suffering isn't a teacher. It just traumatized you.

It's the learning to love yourself and take care of yourself that teaches you how to care for others. And the same is true the other way around-- your love for others can be applied to yourself. I think autism helped me with that, because society has a lot of strange rules about loving and helping yourself and others. Neurotypical people tend to ignore others' pain, for some reason. They're quiet and patient and wait for the other person to ask for help. But they struggle to ask for help, being quiet and patient and waiting for the other person to offer. It's easier for me to break through that, to say, "How are you? Do you need a hug?" I'm already seen as weird, constantly committing social sins by not speaking and moving the way I'm supposed to, by not navigating conversations properly. Why not commit another social sin, to make sure someone is okay? If I am going to be clumsy, I am going to do it in a well-meaning way. If I am going to stumble anyways, I might as well stumble towards compassion and care.

I like the way that it encourages others to break the rules, too. A coworker who is bad at enforcing their boundaries because it's a boundary that is considered rude to have--but they learn to do it with me, because I set examples by bringing up my own unusual boundaries, by being skilled at checking in periodically, by not being afraid to say, "Im not always the best at reading people or knowing how to help, but I do love helping. Is there something else I can do? If it's something I can't do, we can find a middle ground."

My autism can make life really hard for me, but honestly, most of it is because the world won't learn to accommodate me the way I learn to accommodate the world. Why can't they just make one big store for socks where you can get them all and they last more than 6 months? Why can't they make consistent fragrances for products? If they want to change the smell, make it a new scent and keep the old one lol. Why can't there be dedicated quiet spaces, where you can sit and eat lunch without someone playing some annoying song about bananas and chickens on repeat?

The world is getting there, because people keep communicating and expressing their needs. My local Walmart has quiet hours for autistic people. I'm allowed to order extra uniforms at work, for free, so I can change when mine get too wet. People are learning to be more considerate and kind, to check in more. Even if it's new and awkward and formal, even if it takes a little time and energy. I think accommodations make the world gentler for everyone. It's like how sidewalks have ramps for wheelchairs, but everyone uses them for anything--suitcases and carts and bikes. Like how automatic doors are becoming widespread and making life easier for everyone. It's such a pain to navigate the manual doors at work with our huge carts we push around, and so great when our route takes us through an automatic door.

It's weird because a lot of people think that autism needs to be fixed. But my autism brings me so much joy, and has taught me to be brave and loving. And the hardships are there, and they suck, but everyone has hardships. I don't need someone to fix my brain so I can wear any brand of socks, I just need someone to go on a day trip with me to get more socks sometimes. Everyone has things they need help with. Eliminating the obstacles is the goal--not eliminating the people who struggle with different obstacles than you. I don't mind having bad eyesight. I love the way the clouds look with my glasses off. I don't need my eyes fixed--i just need glasses to see sometimes. I don't need my autism fixed--i just need to be able to find decent clothes. I do need my hip fixed lol. And until I can afford to get more physical therapy, I am unafraid to let people know that I can only walk so far and so fast, that I need accommodations, that if we just rest for a minute or two ill be ready to go more, and to reassure people that I do love walking and I'm so happy to be invited along.

[ohheyidothat]

A good example of why you cannot trust ChatGPT whatsoever! It is very very good at making collages out of facts that do not form a cohesive truth. It was helpful to point me towards Tortotubus, so it wasn't an entirely pointless tool, but I am inclined to think that such errors cause too much harm. You definitely should never trust Generative AIs with anything that needs to be done correctly or morally.

Specifically, do note that it's answer regarding the origin of lichens is not only wrong by 600 million years, but that it's initial answer is also wrong since the earliest fossil records for lichen are actually about 440mya (so it's still kinda wrong, I think because it misunderstood that lichens lived during some of the Ordovician but not all of it) and land plants is about 450mya.

Anyways, for my biosphere, it looks like my plant is evolving to end up with some mutualistically surviving sessile nucleic heterotrophs living in close association with anucleic photosynthetic autotrophs around 600-500mya, probably since the most recent ice age didn't entirely cover the globe the way that earth's cryogenic period likely did! How fun that mine is occuring so much sooner! And it seems that land plants won't be far behind, if they follow earth trends!

Anyways, don't trust Generative AI!

[the-trans-dragon]

Does anyone who likes speculative animal biology wanna look at a speculative microorganism I came up with and propose some potential evolutionary paths :3 I want to make another body plan for it but I just keep making the same thing. Its possible that Worm is just a very convenient thing to be, but, I crave diversity in my body plans :3 message me if so!

[ohheyidothat]

My alien biosphere tree of life so far!! ^w^ the weird big long line in the center right is me getting VERY carried away with a creature that developed an alimentary canal, the first to do so on my planet!

[ohheyidothat]

Okay my alien biosphere project is going great. I keep accidentally evolving more worm-things. It's just...when you're really tiny and just evolving multicellularity, a worm is a very easy and efficient thing to be. I love my worms.

[ohheyidothat]

Some of my alien biosphe project! ^w^ figured it should go on this blog lol

[ohheyidothat]

....hskgskgalbslga