#leviathan argues

[dyspunktional-leviathan]

Legal frameworks around disability largely exist to withhold aid as much as they can get away with and to suppress disabled autonomy, and are also in many things entirely different in different legislations, so maybe we shouldn't rely on them.

If you make assumptions about my life from this post you have lost twice.

Making assumptions about strangers' life where they said nothing about their life because you think everyone with the same/similar experiences has the same opinion or doesn't count

The idea that if a framework does not fit someone's life, it must be that how they define their life is the problem and not the framework since it does work for someone else in what it says about their life

And also, seriously, can we please acknowledge that "different legislations" part.

[dyspunktional-leviathan]

Support those with exotrauma exactly as much as you(&) do those whose trauma happened to them during or prior (as in happened to the body before they were there) their occupation of the body they currently occupy, and then fucking double it because they will always face a double amount of "it didn't happen", "it wasn't that bad", "it's your(&) own fault"

And yes, any fucking "having exotrauma is not the same as having that trauma bodily" is that.

The circumstances of their trauma may differ from how things are in this reality. That's fucking it, it does not lessen the fact that they survived that, are traumatized by that, and yes deserve fucking space alongside others who survived that.

Solidarity among different experiences until that experience is not orthohuman, and suddenly you(&) turn into "well we should make a third bathroom option specifically for transgenders."

I do not have a single exomemory and yet it has never been a fleeting fucking thought to me that the idea that exotrauma should be treated onthologically differently than "bodily" trauma is anything but violent orthohuman-normativity. If anyone comes up to me and tells me that they experienced outside of this reality whatever I've experienced in this one, I will treat them exactly as I would a "bodily" survivor with added care as relates to orthohuman-normativity and affirmation of their experiences against the world shutting them down even more than it does me which is fucking plenty.

There is no fucking reason to segregate exo-experiences except for violent bigotry and maintaining orthohuman normativity. There is fucking nothing that "bodily" survivors even gain from it.

If you(&) do not welcome exotrauma survivors in all trauma survivor spaces, you do not fucking view exotrauma as real trauma deserving of real, as substantial as may ever be needed support.

I'm already anticipating all kinds of shit that may be thrown about this but fuck you(&), I'm not even going to reread this three thousand times to make sure to account for everything possible, reflect on your(&) fucking orthohuman-normativity.

[dyspunktional-leviathan]

Repost of something I wrote recently, but have been planning to for over two years. I've got that perfectionism in my brain telling me to shape my words certain ways and put things off for The Time that often never comes, but it can sometimes actually be so easy to say even everything I've wanted to say once I let go of it and go literally low effort.

On the youth age gap contact discourse and mostly the fediverse but relevant to other environments too, from someone who has in the past spent a while not being anti-contact and being around pro-contacts.

_

NNIAns becoming pro-c & the other way around being less visible did not mean pro-cs were right. I leaned pro/complex-c basically based on vibes. I became anti-c from witnessing the behavior of pro-cs, the way lots of those who positioned themselves as very youthlib kept being adultist and age essentialist, and my thoughts were like jesus, you folx certainly shouldn't be let anywhere fucking near someone with a social/neurological position of a child/young teen, and if that's so for self-professed youthlibs how it's fucking got to be for the general population.

There also has always been so fucking little contact-discourse from anti-cs on NNIA, self-censorship, meanwhile pro-cs were forbidden to pro-c on NNIA but did lots of that on the other instances. So users saw little anti-c argumentation but lots of pro-c both argumentation and just "anti-cs suck" things.

And also I saw so little of pro-cs criticizing other pro-cs despite supposedly having different positions.

I was not "radicalized into pro-contactism". I radicalized into anti-contactism.

_

The last sentence is a reference/response to another anti-c using the phrase "radicalizing into pro-contactism" about former anti-cs going pro-c

[dyspunktional-leviathan]

Someones: para rights! Para pride! Paraphiliacs are not abusers! Having the desire for something and expressing oneself about it is not the same as believing it is right to do that and/or do it, and the latter comes not from the former!

Those same someones with zero self-awareness: transhatefuls are automatically suspect to me, having the desire to be a bigot is not in the same category as having the desire to be a cat, having those feelings can't be anything other than an indication of those beliefs!

This post is pro-para and pro-transhateful.

[dyspunktional-leviathan]

If you define sexual violence as anything other than nonconsensual actions in the sexual sphere, you're going to be excusing and/or dismissing(the effect of) sexual violence that is not "bad enough" in your opinion, and/or attacking or enabling the attacks on people for consensual actions and things that do not involve any sentient beings other than those people themselves.

If you agree that sexual violence means nonconsensual actions in the sexual sphere but believe that is exclusive to the sexual sphere, you are Actively Excusing A Lot Of Violence and do sex exceptionalism on the literal highest level, and some of the people who do this also claim to be against sex exceptionalism.

For specifically the "weaponization of consent rhetoric" which some of you are trying to argue against and end up doing that, I am copying my Shirt Examples (https://www.tumblr.com/dyspunktional-leviathan/777176885489762305):

A comes in wearing a shirt. B doesn't like it / thinks it's immodest / whatever. B should shut the fuck up.

A comes in wearing a shirt. B's abuser worn a similar one and this triggers them. They may leave if they want&can; if they have to see A often, they may have a discussion about it. It is, in fact, possible and alright, that if that shirt does not matter as much to A and does heavily trigger B and they cannot/don't want to avoid seeing each other that A should not wear that shirt around B.

A comes in wearing a shirt. It fucks with B's sensory issues (like having bells on it or something or being an eye-straining color). I guess, pretty much the same as the above applies. And in these cases, if it is both important to A that they do wear that shirt and to B that they don't it will be a dealbreaker to them seeing each other.

A comes in wearing a shirt. It has writing on it personally demeaning B. Has B consented to that?

A comes in wearing a shirt with hate group imagery. A should be gotten the fuck out unless it's like, a scene / a theatre rehearsal / etc and they're in costume which is not an actual reflection of their beliefs, and everyone around has consented to seeing that costume.

[dyspunktional-leviathan]

"Cringe culture is dead" people when someone actually does things they consider cringe without parading that Yes They Know It's Cringe

Do Not blackout this post, I said what I fucking said, this is not just about the part prior to 'without'

Yea Sure U Can be Cringe but only if you paste a little (or preferably very very big) "cringe culture is dead" / "I am cringe but I am free" / etc on it

That is its function

[dyspunktional-leviathan]

If your worldview allows the existence and validity of doubles, it does allow the same for factkin.

(This post is pro doubles and factkin)

[dyspunktional-leviathan]

You cannot without hypocrisy say that with queer labels it’s everyone chooses what feels best for them and identity does not have to be about shared experience it’s about identity and then turn around and say that altbeing labels must be rigidly defined, that if your experience does not fit some rigid definition of a label (which with some of them I haven’t even seen the community remotely agree on) you must use another and not even dare to claim some similarity even if you also have experiences that do fit that definition, etc.

(This post is pro radical inclusion in queerness and altbeingness)