Egg !

im vitellary / emma, they/them; "@vitellary" on discord, dms always open; i do game dev, but i dont talk about that very often; instead i will talk about all of the things i really like

[mousidy]

a lot of my disillusionment with the trans "community" comes down to the fact that too many of you take "gender is different from sex" and go "ah ok, so instead of saying women are fragile and men are strong, I should say afabs are fragile and amabs are strong. to be Inclusive"

then you just treat gender like a surface level aesthetic draped over what someone "actually" is. really is indistinguishable from terf rhetoric

[mousidy]

you all need to unpack your bioessentialism, but we also need a better theory of gender than "it's just dressup." I will pick my words carefully here, but the word "gender" itself refers to so many different phenomena that have been lumped together, and we need to un-lump them

[mousidy]

in a feminist context, "gender" has historically referred to externally imposed categorization and the internalization and performance of said categories. in a paper I wrote on this subject, I called this sense of the word "extrinsic gender"

"intrinsic gender," on the other hand, is what I used to refer to the sense of the word "gender" that a lot of trans people are talking about when they discuss social gender dysphoria and euphoria. it's the internal sense of category that's resistant to external impositions

but then we also use the word "gender" to refer to subconscious sex, which is the term Julia Serano coins in Whipping Girl to name the phenomenon we're talking about when we talk about bodily dysphoria. it is the "gender" being "affirmed" by gender affirming healthcare like HRT and bottom surgery

so, "gender" is: a social classing system, a performance, and at least two internal phenomena as well. and I really don't know if it's doing us a service to conflate all of these things!

[mousidy]

a lot of people lately seem to be going heavy on the "performance" use of the word, ignoring (intentionally or otherwise) social classing, intrinsic gender, and subconscious sex. this seems to have led to a lot of "progressive" people treating trans women like men "amabs" who wear womanhood as a costume, and nobody understands why that's wrong because they also think gender is just a performance

[mousidy]

see also "why can't you just be a femboy/feminine man/etc"

[mousidy]

furthermore, some trans people experience social dysphoria but not bodily dysphoria, and vice versa. but bodily dysphoria in particular has gained some stigma in the last few years

because we use the word "gender" to discuss both "intrinsic gender" as I termed it above, and subconscious sex, there's been a certain strain of argument from some trans people that says that medical transition reaffirms societal gender norms about bodies, and that bodily dysphoria must only result from externally imposed norms about what kind of body corresponds to what gender, and thus it would just go away if the gendered associations were unlearned

I'm strongly of the opinion, though, that our bodies are not like clothes! gender dysphoria related to clothing would generally have to do with one's intrinsic gender clashing with the gendered norms of their culture surrounding clothes, but I believe "gender" dysphoria related to the body itself is really, in large part, subconscious sex dysphoria, and this component cannot be alleviated by changing norms or associations. I strongly believe I would still seek HRT and bottom surgery if I lived my whole life in a cultureless vacuum

you cannot sidestep my dysphoria by regendering parts of my body I'm trying to change, and frankly it causes me a lot of strife that fellow trans people who flirt with me think they can talk about my body however they like as long as they gender it correctly. the word "girlcock" is not a magic dysphoria repellent, because the dysphoria doesn't just come from the gendering

[elliespectacular]

Happy 24-6-01!

[dreadwedge]

As a transsexual woman 👩 who has had multiple experiences ‼️ I have found 🔎 that the biggest block of cheese 🧀 is usually the one ☝️ that has the largest size 📈

[dreadwedge]

mature content

[uhnonymoos]

i grew up around muslims, i am also trans and leftist.

people in every queer and trans community i go to set an expectation: i should ofrever abandon my muslim past, i should explicitly stop associating yourself with it whatsoever, you either get to be queer or you either get to be raised-muslim.

in reality, there's no such expectation for christianity, and none of them are ready to dismantle their "inner christian" in their heads as much as they expect be to dismantle my "inner muslim"

none fo them get to admit how most first world countries are culturally christian, because christianity is "default" to them, as well as first world, as well as white.

me having a complicated relationship with islam doesn't mean i absolutely despise every piece of it. it means i distanced myself from ummah, but won't hear islamic criticism from non ex muslims at all, because you expect us to dismantle "our inner muslims" in ways you aren't ready to dismantle imperialism and racism in you.

your expectation is us "acting white", you don't want us unless we're that, which means you don't want us at all.

a lot of people claiming to want to uplift brown queer voices and such don't procced to do anything meaningful for them, or for brown people at all. it's just virtue signaling, homonationalism. you'd only care of brown people being queer, and you want the "brown" part of it gone as much as possible.

a lot of people say they want the leftist agenda to stop being us centric and imperialist, but then it's just pretending to care about it. you already made is so little and unhearable you'd have to get out of your way to seek for us speaking. then you'd not seek or if you find us, you will just pass by. hoping someone else would amplify the voice you took from us? and that someone else would hope for that too, so what?

you want us only when we agree with everything usa says about us, you want us until our lives don't put you into too much discomfort. when they put you into too much discomfort, you don't ask why, you'll restore the comfort by banishing us again. your tolerability of us is so intricately conditional, to meet those a third worlder has to build themselves into a first worlder mindset. this is your (inter)nationalism hey.

anyway, islamophobia hurt me more than islam did. now what

[floodnetworks]

[millennial-review-deactivated20]

[nattousan]

ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE 

[kaity--did]

it is wild to me that you're letting your 4 year old have pizza that late at night. my instinct is to be like what is wrong with you but you've been absolutely rocking my world view on food rules for the past couple of years honestly

If you are hungry you should eat, always. We're having pizza cause we're on vacation and that's what's available honestly a lot of the time when she gets the night time hungers she wants scrambled eggs lol.

We let her eat and then she goes to bed and everyone is happy!

[fozmeadows]

One of the most eye-opening aspects of parenthood for me has been how socially ingrained it is for parents to be coercive and controlling about food access in the name of manners. Like, scientifically, we know that kids have much smaller stomachs than adults, and also much faster metabolisms. That makes sense! They're growing! And we also know, scientifically, that kids have different palates than adults - that bitter flavours are much more unpleasant for most toddlers, for instance, and that certain kids have strong sensory aversions to certain textures or tastes. This latter point is also true of adults, too - and it's completely fair! But you would never demand that an adult clear their plate once they said they were full, or shame them for their inability to finish because they had a sandwich earlier. You wouldn't force them to eat every part of an unfamiliar meal they ordered at a restaurant that they turned out not to like, or tell them that they didn't get to have a mid-morning snack as punishment for not having eaten breakfast. And yet it's considered completely normal to do this to children - especially very small children - whose bodies constantly want fuel. Which isn't to say it's pointless to teach kids manners around food and mealtimes - it's not! How to sit at a table, how to use a knife and fork, how to behave at a restaurant, how to politely ask for seconds or express that you're full (I've had an elegant sufficiency, was my grandmother's delightful go-to phrase), how to join in the conversation once you're done with your food, how to make a good faith attempt at trying unfamiliar dishes, how to broaden your palate as you get older, how to behave as a guest at someone else's table - all of this is important to learn! But instead of this, what a lot of parents actually do - and most often because they themselves were raised with it - is treat food access as a test of obedience. A child who asks for a snack is whiny, because you just had breakfast!, even though it's developmentally better for a child to eat multiple small meals throughout the day than three big ones. A child who refuses a given food is picky, because you should just eat what you're given!, even though most adults would never extend this same attitude to themselves. A child who eats three square meals a day and still wants more is greedy, because you've already had enough!, even though we'd consider it wholly normal for an adult - and especially a physically active adult - to want extra. And at the same time, once kids are old enough to feed themselves, they're often discouraged from doing so, their hunger treated as a shameful inconvenience. Sure, if a particular food is expensive, difficult to acquire, needed for a particular dish that someone is planning to cook or belongs to a specific household member, then it makes sense to say, "hey, you can only have X if you ask, for Y reason," because that's about teaching responsibility and courtesy, not punishing hunger. It's also fair to say that certain foods, like ice cream, are only for dessert, or require permission, because kids need help learning restraint. And once they can write, you should teach them that, if they take the last of something, they should put it on the shopping list so you know to get more. But a lot of people still just... act annoyed that their kids are hungry, and particularly when that hunger - as is developmentally normal! - falls outside of allotted mealtimes. Because they grew up being punished for being hungry, and so it's built into their bones that food-seeking behaviour is somehow inherently rude, when eating when you're hungry is actually one of the healthiest things we can do.

[parkchanwoohoo]

[lemonsweet]

Very fascinated by this Walmart shirt. Could they not use the actual phrase or something? It's not even specifying "when you're mean to me" it's just when you're mean in general this particular bunny gets hurt. She carries all suffering. This bunny experiences all evil in the world.

[ilynpilled]

[david-de-bergerac]

Hot take but I don't think games need to tutorialize the player on stuff like "enemies will drop items when you defeat them" like that's just something that I can observe happens with my own brain. I don't need a tutorial popup for that. Stop it.

[david-de-bergerac]

Fuccckkk I forgot about reallybig sandwich

[halondrus]

[messygoku]

[messygoku]

ya empezaron con "memes that transcend languages" cuando son palabras obvias

[deepseecreature]

anglofonos cuando reconocen cognados:

[shamebats]

Post by @ sassyandlassiedoamerica, she/her for both human & dog.

[lassieisafag]

Losibg it at these tags

[anarchistmemedistro]

[anarchistmemedistro]

hurtful

[teaboot]

Not the point in the slightest but are cigarette ads not illegal in the USA❔❔❔For some reason that one is blowing my mind

[ayellowbirds]

Only as of 1999. The original, unedited version of this cartoon, by Clay Butler, was published in 1996, and looks like this:

Someone went to a lot of effort to not only remove the cartoonist's credits, but also make the joke weaker. In the original, the graffiti is a lone and comparatively small, unremarkable tag in single-line monochrome. It contrasts with the billboards and signs by being unobtrusive, making it all the more absurd that the pig notices it with such vitriol. The edited version loses the impact by making it stand out in bright color and cover the whole of the wall.

[milkcastro]

And what if rap WAS only about sex, violence, and drugs... what then? Would you be justified in looking down upon it as not being "real" art? What would your justification be? Sex is immoral and taboo? Drugs should never be mentioned outside of D.A.R.E programs? Songs about violence turn children to it? Would you turn that standard to other genres as well? I know you wouldn't, I know you haven't, because it's never really been about the topics explored.

[improbablecarny]

people who don’t watch horror movies are SO confident that they know everything there is to know about the genre. like it’s okay to not know things. it’s okay if you don’t like friday the 13th or whatever. i promise you don’t need to make an ass out of yourself on the internet about it

[improbablecarny]

horror is an incredibly diverse genre, because there is potential horror in everything. it’s in nature, it’s in architecture and technology, it’s in human relationships, it’s in folklore, the past, the future, the mundane. there are horror movies from all over the world. it is straight up anti-intellectual to pretend that the handful of B slashers you’ve vaguely heard about comprise the totality of what horror has to offer. If you’re just not interested in horror, or if you dislike certain subgenres of horror, then that’s fine, you’re not obligated to like anything at all. but smugly announcing that you don’t like horror because you dislike a handful of VERY specific non-universal tropes is just as stupid as saying that you hate comedy because you don’t like adam sandler movies.

[improbablecarny]

this is what I mean by anti-intellectualism btw