styofa doing anything
Today's Document

JVL
Game of Thrones Daily
Misplaced Lens Cap
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
No title available

#extradirty

Andulka

if i look back, i am lost
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
One Nice Bug Per Day
wallacepolsom
No title available
Peter Solarz

pixel skylines

Kiana Khansmith

⁂

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Not today Justin

seen from Singapore

seen from T1
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from T1

seen from Sweden
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Portugal
seen from Taiwan

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from China

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Singapore
@solar-emerald-99
it's a bad habit
see you june 24th dark world cowboys
DELTAROON
“It just means you have to work double as hard as most people!”
Well maybe I don’t WANT to work double as hard as abled people!! Maybe I deserve a BREAK!! Maybe I’ve been working MORE THAN double as hard for MY WHOLE LIFE and it’s led me to immense burnout & caused me to develop several MORE disabilities!! Maybe I should be ACCOMMODATED so I don’t have to KILL MY BODY AND BRAIN over trying to do what abled people can do!! Maybe I DON’T have to work double as hard!! Maybe if there’s the option to let me NOT work double as hard, I should have it, because I’m already working double as hard JUST TO SURVIVE!!
Why do you think disabled people deserve less rest than mentally & physically abled people?
It's nuts how common it is to not allow children to be angry, even (especially) in households where adults are angry all the time. As a child I knew my own anger was unacceptable--not just expressing it outwardly but feeling it at all. So now as an adult my immediate reaction to my own anger is often to feel guilt instead of like. Noticing when someone is being rude or unfair or my boundaries are being violated or whatever. fucked up.
susie deltarune eating a darkburger
Hey guys is this anything idk
when you look at a psychiatric diagnosis and you see that it has a 3:1 diagnostic rate of women to men, it's more likely to be diagnosed in trans people than cisgender people, and it's most prevalent in hispanic people out of any ethnic group. you really do have to consider who benefits from a label that amounts to "Biologically and Pathologically Hysterical". yknow.
it’s not a “stigmatised” disorder. it’s a disorder that was designed to stigmatise, to shame, and to oppress. acting as though the diagnosis is a stigmatised one is missing the part where this diagnosis is in fact meeting the exact purpose it was designed to fulfil
OP's tags from both the original post and the reblog were too good to hide.
that's really exactly it.
as someone who could very easily qualify for a diagnosis of bpd or cptsd, and even very often resonates with both, everything described in bpd is just a demonization of the same patterns of behaviour described by cptsd. it is just describing you as evil for struggling with being hurt so much, and in doing so, takes the focus away from the person hurting and puts it onto how it inconveniences everyone else.
we really need to be critical of how these labels come to be, because they are deliberately created, and they are created by people with biases. they are so often just a tool of oppression, another extension of a discriminatory machine.
I hope it isn't derailing, but I think this is also really illustrated with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. "narcissist" was a word for an asshole before it was a word for a disorder. rather than describing how someone might struggle to relate to others or be open to true connection, and centering the person who needs to heal, they instead called everyone who struggles with that an irredeemable dick and dressed it up in medical expertise so you wouldn't think to question it. frankly I think it's silly to call for treating "narcissist" like some sacred medical term instead of looking at how fucked up it is that they called a disorder that???
it was ages ago, but there was a post on here talking about just how many "disorders" and diagnoses boil down to "shitty bitch disease". and well, once you see it, you never stop seeing it. anti-social personality disorder? shitty bitch disease. npd, shitty bitch disease. obstinate defiance disorder (come the fuck on) well that's shitty bitch disease. bpd is maybe the most classic example of this. you don't need to listen to her, she has shitty bitch disease. pay no mind to the fact that this label somehow only makes it onto the most marginalized. don't worry about that, because you don't need to listen to those people anyway. they don't have reasons or pain or bad days or feelings or any of that pesky stuff that real people have to explain their actions. no no, we haven't abused them, not at all. haven't you heard? they were broken from the start, and I can prove it. see? they have shitty bitch disease.
Roots
a place you could go no matter what's happening outside
It’s so disturbing to me how a lot of the “pro-recovery” or “pro-psych” people on this site talk about psychiatric abuse. I.e, they don’t.
“Why would someone be anti-recovery? I don’t understand why someone would just want to suffer?” and then they explain that some people make their disorder their entire identity and that other people don’t understand that they’re suffering at all because this is what their entire life has been like. Which, okay, typical pro-psych arguments. We could poke holes in them.
But what was far more disturbing was the fact that the idea of having suffered abuse within spaces meant for “recovery” was never even mentioned. Not even a footnote. Nothing. It felt like a reminder that if I tell people what really happened to me, people think what I’m describing died in the 60s and it’s all roses now. I’m so nauseous.
I’m not sure why I expected better from them but whatever. If you can’t spare a word for our experiences why do you expect us to listen to you.
"Why do you want people to suffer?" If I have suffered directly due to my involvement with psychiatry, why do YOU want me to suffer in silence? Why is my trauma history inherently invalid and thoroughly dismissible simply because it does not fit into the mainstream narrative? How is that fair? You can't prevent my suffering just by pretending it isn't real.
Susie in chapter 2:
Meanwhile Ralsei, little shit that he is, since chapter 1:
Anti-homeless architecture makes cities hostile to everyone, but we understand that the driving force behind this phenomenon is specifically anti-homelessness.
The curb-cut effect makes streets better and more accessible for everyone, but this is still the result of combating a specific type of ableism in city planning.
This is easily understood by many, that even though a social force may affect many people broadly, it does have a specific target.
So why does this become so difficult to understand when we're talking about transmisogyny?
Transmisogyny can be weaponized against anyone, but as a social force it specifically targets transfeminine people, and thus non-transfems can leverage their position to mitigate the effects of transmisogyny, or indeed, exempt themselves from it.
This is why we have the terms TMA and TME, so that we're able to discuss this phenomenon.
If there's one salient criticism against this terminology, it's that the specific words used can trip up people unfamiliar with the terms; "affected" is pretty broad, and "exempt" is rather particular. This can be remedied by simply providing the definitions for the terms, however.
Maybe terms like "transmisogyny targeted" and "transmisogyny exemptable" would communicate the terms' meanings more immediately, but this would amount to little more than language policing that detracts from the actual discussion of transmisogyny and how it functions in society.
"How long did it take for her to smile?"
The narrative that the use of TMA/TME was the start of some trend of dividing non-binary people into two boxes has been a masterful stroke of revisionism. it not only sneakily implies a halcyon past before the dreaded division, where non-binary people we all equal and indivisible, but also shifts the goal post on what this terminology is meant to achieve in the first place.
non-binary communities have always been categorized and divided along AGAB lines, long before even *that*(agab) was a commonly used term and often *by* non-binary people themselves. With non-binary identities and querrness in general becoming more accepted and talked about, there have been many schools of thought about this. (I am not dismissing these, but I'm not here to discuss them because it is not relevant to the point I'm making) Generally speaking, it has become less acceptable to talk about agab plainly and blatantly in regards to non-binary identities. this does not mean that all non-binary people get treated the same way or have the same experiences regardless of agab. there is in fact, a stark discrepancy in gendered traits and signifiers that are considered as part of, or emblematic of non-binary presentation. this is most obvious with non-binary representation in media, where the majority of non-binary characters fit one of two very specific molds.
one is that of a feminine baseline that achieves an aesthetic of androgyny by adding a select few masculine signifiers. most of the time, these characters will be played/voiced by transmasculine non-binary people. they are more likely to have a backstory or plot relevance and generally avoid homophobic/transphobic tropes. this accounts for the vast majority of non-binary representation.
the other is that of a masculine baseline with feminine signifiers and is (both in and out of fiction) generally considered less androgynous. these characters are most likely to be played/voiced my cis men, then cis women, sometimes transmasculine people and very rarely by transfeminine people. they are also much more likely to be side/joke characters and lean into homophobic and transmisogynistic tropes and stereotypes.
exceptions do exist, but they are rare.
so ask yourself, why is the default non-binary body a femenine one? why is the default non-binary character modeled after a transmasculine experience?
the awnser is transmisogyny. the transmisogynist dos not care wether the subject identifies with womanhood or not. they don't look for trans women, they look for "men in dresses". no transfeminine non-binary person has ever been able to avoid transmisogyny by leveraging their non-binary identity. this assumption ignores the ways transmisogyny actually functions. and all people, including those who make media, are implicitly aware of this, so they avoid casting/designing characters that look like "mem in dresses", except as a deliberate joke or mockery. intentionaluty is not required when transmisogyny is the default.
this is precisely why we have language to describe this dynamic. it didn't transform non-binary(all encompassing) into non-binary(TME) and non-binary(TMA) because that initial state never existed.
there was "non-binary" and "non-binary(tranny)" unless otherwise stated, TME is assumed as the default for non-binary people, same as cis women are assumed to be the default for women(no qualifier) and cis men for men(no qualifiers)
TMA/TME is simply terminology coined to describe a phenomenon that was already reality.
and this isn't all just theory or conjecture, I see this when I go out and spend time in queer spaces.
now, I am not non-binary. I am very firmly a binary trans woman, so I won't claim to have anywhere close to a complete understanding of that experience. I can only speak of my own experience as an egg transfem who thought she was agender, used that label and moved within non-binary friend groups and communities for 2 years.
in my experience and that of transfem NBs i've known over the years, transfeminine NBs are misgendered more often, not taken as seriously with their grievances, given less goodwill for real or percieved bad behaivior, and ultimately viewed more as guests by the non-binary communities they inhabit than actual members. they are included in events and meetups much less frequently, and often avoided when they do participate.
it's not uncommon to go to a meetup and not see a single transfem there. when you point this out or even just inquire about it, people get defensive and uncomfortable really quickly. platitudes like "we're all NB, why do you need transfem NBs specifically to be represented?" or "I don't really think about people's agab, I just go based on vibes" are common. it doesn't strike anyone as odd that the vibes always seem to be "off" with the NBs who look a bit too masculine, who's voice is a bit too deep, those with receding hairlines or hairy arms. those who look just a bit too much like they're "men in dresses".
I am glad that I eventually found my place within womanhood, not because there is anything wrong with being non-binary, but because I cannot imagine myself surviving in that kind of space, my otherness always evident, always affecting how I am seen-how I am treated, but never permitted to be spoken aloud, lest I upset the "real" non-binary people around me.
because they will not suffer a man in a dress. especially one who's too loud.
so when I hear cries about "putting non binary people into boxes" I can't help but think of the boxes that have always been there, just unlabeled.
Transmisogynists fuck off
If you're in the deltarune fandom they'll make one the fuck up!!!!