[dragonflavoredcake]

Rejection sensitivity dysphoria is the weirdest ADHD symptom ever. Like hello yes my weird brain chemistry manifests as Whiny Crybaby Disorder

[eroscestlavie]

btw this is not a universally agreed upon "symptom" of ADHD and I think many people would benefit from treating it as part & parcel of ADHD's broad, foundational trait: inability to do emotional regulation. A feeling of total rejection and terror at failure is a treatable and manageable issue. For me, I found it easier to manage once recognized that the reason I was having these reactions is that like many other emotional states, I couldn't "exit" an emotional state related to feelings of rejection once I was in it.

imo way too many people are going through life thinking they're just going to be sensitive to rejection for life because of how some people (not OP, but definitely plenty of ADHD influencers) talk about this "symptom." I don't think it's terribly productive that it gets constantly cordoned off as its own thing. like a lot of ADHD, while it sucks to have it shape your life up to the point you realize what it is, it is indeed possible to exposure therapy & DBT your way out of it.

signed: someone with ADHD who used to not be able to take critical feedback from anyone every and is now a freelancer and gets critical feedback three times before breakfast. still workin on it but it's very possible to go from "whiny crybaby disorder" to "mostly functional, if slightly sensitive ADHD adult"

[grison-in-space]

I also think it's worth noting that rejection sensitive dysphoria is most parsimoniously interpreted as a trauma reaction—a learned response to a potential signals of social relationship deteriorating for reasons the ADHD person can't necessarily control. Social relationships are incredibly important to humans, and ADHD (especially undiagnosed and undisclosed) really sets us up to fail. This is especially true given that perceived social blame for stressful situations is a massive factor in transmuting stressful experiences into lasting trauma, and ADHDers are typically judged to be personally responsible for the failures that happen as a result of attentional, time awareness, or memory failures.

What conceptualizing RSD as a category of trauma response to social triggers does is allow us to treat it like any other trauma response. It pulls RSD out of the bioessentialist framework and into the realm of injuries that can be treated, learned associations that can be unlearned. It turns out that the same techniques that help with PTSD triggers, including the same damn meds (hi, clonidine), are effective for helping reduce RSD. (It also explains why RSD is also common in autistic people, who often have a similar history of social error and narratives of self blame, without requiring inherent neurological differences.)

It's a common kind of stress injury, basically. It's not Whiny Crybaby Disorder; it's more like shin splints. Getting better shoes for running, being careful about the ground you run on, and letting the splints heal properly can all help make shin splints go away when you've been running barefoot on concrete roads your whole life.

[bitterbumblebee]

cool sexting tips

[ooppo]

King shit ngl

[joevo]

I was curious and had to look some pictures up and honestly he's rocking those tits.

good for him

[biracy]

Every attempt to like, "explain tradwives" or whatever (or basically "explain" the presence of conservative, far-right, alt-right, and otherwise reactionary women) always seems so focused on finding one single thing to blame it on ("they're disillusioned with girlboss feminism having gone too far" and "actually they just wanna do bdsm" being the two worst ones imo) and yet no one seems to have come to the conclusion that women are fully autonomous individual people equally capable of being religious fundamentalists, White supremacists, nationalists of all kinds, and, yes, misogynists for mostly the exact same reasons men are

[grison-in-space]

I think it's always worth remembering that women often use the currents of misogyny to shore up their personal power at the expense of other marginalized women. This isn't specific to women: you see it in all kinds of marginalized groups, some people always care more about personal status than solidarity in any group. But it's incredibly evident when you take the time to look at enforcers of misogynistic ideas, because you will always find plenty of women in their ranks.

[luckyladylily]

If you are really mad about maleness for whatever reason, trans men make a very easy target. If you yell at trans men no one in greater society will give a shit on a scale that matters.

Which should be a pretty good clue that trans men are not part of the oppression class. I'm not saying trans men are saints or whatever, just that if someone gets punched, so to speak, and they lack the capacity to punch back with the uncontested weight of popular opinion behind their punches, that's kind of a critical component of the definition of the oppressor class. In order to be part of the oppressors, you have to have the ability to wield the tools of oppression. Trans men as a group are universally denied access to the power of the oppression class, and in particular the power held by cis men.

Treating trans men as part of the oppression class, and in particular with the hostility and suspicion marginalized people reserve for the oppression class, simply because they are men doesn't make sense. Most obvious thing in the entire world. Takes like two minutes to reason it out. But god damn if there are not a lot of people on here doing exactly that. It's become probably the biggest queer infighting discourse currently.

There are the people just parroting other more influential people, of course, but it had to start somewhere. And based on the particular points often discussed, it feels like some number of queer people were really traumatized by men and then discovered a group of men they could throw punches at without suffering the kind of life destroying consequences that can occur when you attack part of the oppression class.

And like. Maybe I'm a radical thinker or whatever, but maybe treating another subset of socially outcast queer people as consequence free punching bags to take your frustration out on is not cool. Wasn't cool when people were doing it to Bi people, wasn't cool when people were doing it to ace and aro people. Aint cool now.

[luckyladylily]

Simply by maintaining the position that being dicks to other marginalized people is not fighting the oppression class, a position I have held since I was class conscious enough to articulate it, I keep on ending up having to say shit like this. And I don't feel special or smart for saying this shit. It's like the most luke warm obvious ass default take in existence that we figured out basically forever ago and I've just been coasting on don't be a dick 101. I feel like Luigi. Lily wins by doing nothing.

[luckyladylily]

This is basically point for point the exact justification that exclusionists always give. I'm not even going to bother dismantling it.

You know what the smoking gun is though? If this is actually primarily about bigotry trans women experience at the hands of trans men then why is so much of the discourse publicly litigating the validity of trans masculine identities and establishing trans women as having more serious issues than trans men?

This is what always happens. 10 years ago people were clutching pearls about how lesphobic bi people were, which is why we just needed to talk constantly about how bi women can't use the words femme and butch, and a few years later people were just so concerned about all the prejudice coming from aces which is why it was vital we constantly challenged their status as queer. And the terfs will never fucking shut up about how they are constantly victimized by trans women while they call us men.

If this was trans women defending themselves from mean prejudice trans men we would not be talking about if transandrophobia is a valid concept or playing oppression olympics.

But I do fully believe these people believe trans men as constantly attacking them because exclusionists come to believe that the identity of their target group is inherently a threat. That is why exclusionist discourse always revolves so heavily around points of identity.

"Maleness is not a vector for oppression" Does it fucking matter if this is actually about trans women experiencing prejudice?

[luckyladylily]

I think there is one more aspect of this that is worth talking about. I appreciate these tags, thank you, but notice the part I underlined. "The theory argument has no actual relationship to the behavior of the group". The things is, from the viewpoint of the exclusionist, the theory has *everything* to do with the behavior of the group.

This is actually the reason I brought it up. If this is about trans women dealing with bigotry, why are we talking about the validity of trans masculine identities? Because exclusionists believe that the identity itself is an attack.

Among the reactions to my initial post was the assertion that it was ignorant and anti-feminist. Which is weird because what could possibly be considered anti feminist? I only presented three ideas: Trans men are not part of the oppression class simply because of their identity as men, people who are not part of the oppression class make for poor targets if your goal is stopping oppression, and some people lash out at the wrong people when they are hurt because they are a convenient target.

The second and third points are so widely accepted anyway that it beggars belief that someone would try to deny them. It isn't so much activism as basic logic and psychology respectively. And in fact both are important ideas in feminism, so they can't be anti feminism.

Which means my apparent anti feminism has to be in the idea that trans men are not part of the oppression class simply because of their identity. To this person, transmasculine identities are inherently a threat.

Oh and I am sure they don't believe that on a conscious level, I'm sur they have plenty of trans masculine friends they are not afraid of or bothered by, but that's just the thing. prejudice is always a blind spot. My mother in law swears up and down she isn't racist and isn't afraid of black people and she truly believes it, but that doesn't change the fact that she crosses the street when she sees a "suspicious" black man.

So what makes a trans masculine person "suspicious" in the mind of an exclusionist? Well, based on the fact that a central point of the ongoing discourse is maleness as a vector of oppression and the emphasis on TME/TMA, it would appear that asserting their identity is a major trigger. Being too assertively male in a queer space, particularly a queer space that is traditionally female.

Now that is an explanation of what is going on, not proof of it. But the pattern starts to become alarmingly clear when you look at every other exclusionist movement ever. They always focus on matters of identity as the reason the group should be excluded or minimized, basically always by focusing on isolated aspects of the identity in question and drawing parallels to the oppression class via mis or over applied theory.

With the original rad fems excluding bi women, it was the perceived "heterosexual" part of the identity that made bi women a threat. How could gay women ever be safe among half heteros? Heteros are the enemy!

With rad fems and trans women it was all about how trans women were different from women, had different experiences, were "socialized male", and how can women ever be safe among people who are socially male?

With aros and aces the theory justification was all about how gay people experience oppression because of who they are attracted to. Being attracted to no one (a gross oversimplification in and of itself) is not that at all, therefore they are practically heteros! Would you feel safe with cishets in your queer community?

It's the same fucking thing every time. People grossly misappling theory insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with them is lesphobic or anti feminist or anti gay or whatever because ~theory~. This time people got their panties in a twist about maleness again. Trans men are men! How dare they say they are oppressed for their identity! That's so anti feminist, I read book on feminist theory during my queer formative years that said maleness isn't a vector for oppression, that obviously trumps any observed reality of oppression or change of context!

Utter nonsense.

It's not even a pattern reserved for queer exclusionists. Over reliance on theory instead of observed reality? Hostile reaction to a threat to their world view? Attacking the validity of the identity? Sounds familiar!

"It's adam and eve, not adam and steve! Hur hur hur got'em"

Homophobes are transphobes are biphobes are aphobes are transadrophobes. Exclusionists are exclusionists. There's no real difference.

[tinakolesnik-deactivated2022073]

.

.

[parlerenfleurs]

I remember that everything gay was rebranded pedophilia, child abuse, and inherently sexual thus pornographic, thus unsafe for children and public spaces and thus pedophilic and abusive. Neat false circle. Yeah. Does ring a fucking bell, doesn't it?

[vapingbaby]

[dragaszagom]

[aviculor]

[snow-white-shadow]

[sloganeeer]

[were--ralph]

[jewelsigaveu]

not to be like both sides are wrong, and only i’m right, but i have been thinking about sabrina’s album cover controversy. to me, it’s pretty evident that she is going to be exploring her own compliance in getting into relationships where she gets treated badly or well like a dog. while manchild is a tongue-in-cheek mocking song that is all about how she just keeps stumbling into bed with these loser men, woe is me, there is an obvious irony to lines like “won’t you let an innocent woman be?” “i swear they choose me, i’m not choosing them.” sabrina is hardly an innocent doe-eyed girl. she is very sharp and experienced in relationships, and no one is forcing her to date these men. the music video further emphasizes this point by showcasing her hitchhiking into increasingly more ridiculous automobiles with increasingly more ridiculous men who all let her down in various absurd and/or violent ways. and yet the closing shot of the video is her getting out of one car and immediately running over and jumping into the next, continuing the cycle. so while the song on the surface externalizes the blame for her mistreatment to basically everyone but her, the subtext is all about how sabrina is the one doing this to herself. when i see the album cover of her smiling at the camera on her knees while a man holds her hair like a leash, i see a deep and very uncomfortable self-awareness and acknowledgement happening here. it’s obviously going to be dressed up in the shiny pop music veneer and sabrina’s signature brand of dry humor, but this is a very sensitive topic that most upcoming pop girls wouldn’t touch with a ten feet pole because it is humiliating to admit that you’re complicit in your own mistreatment and degradation. that you aren’t just posing as a dog, but you actually let men treat you like one. manchild isn’t just the first single from the album but also the opening track, setting the stage for what the album will be exploring. and again while on the surface it looks like your usual my ex is a loser classic fare, in actuality it is all about how sabrina is deluding herself about her choice of partners. “manchild, why you always come running to me?” she asks, and i’m willing to bet that she is going to be answering that question in the album, eventually coming to the conclusion that these things aren’t as one-sided as she initially presented them to be. from what i’ve seen, sabrina is very smart and very deliberate when it comes to her branding. i highly doubt she chose such a sensational image just to “appeal to the male gaze.” yes the picture is meant to play into that trope, but hardly in a glorifying way.

[gean-grey-blog]

One time I was leaving a friend's place and an older lady with basically no English came up to me and communicated that she was very cold and needed a ride. She pointed to tell me where to go.

I got there and her daughter or granddaughter came out and was like omg her phone died we were worried

And then the older lady said something and the younger lady translated.

"She knew she could trust you because you have pink hair"

I thought it was funny at the time. But when I think back on it I think she was basically saying "you had a visible sign of not vibing with the system I was afraid of"

Be weird. Be colorful. Help random people.

[spiraledfaun]

some of you are painfully unaware that part of the whole reason many kinksters are like "what happens in my or someone else's bedroom is no one else's business"

is because people have been arrested and put in fucking PRISON just for having gay sex in the privacy of their own homes. in the United States. this millennia.

if you think i'm joking, look up Lawrence v. Texas (2003). 14 out of the 50 US States STILL had laws on the books criminalizing sodomy--and yes, you could be imprisoned for multiple years and sometimes even life for repeat offenses.

in the years directly leading up to the landmark case, enforcement even in those 14 states varied, but it was absolutely weaponized against queer people, especially when stacked on top of other offenses to make up a longer sentence.

um so anyway, what happens between two or more consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes is none of my OR YOUR business, and i'm not fucking kidding!

[goldenasirpa]

Yall sleeping on this Sam L. Jackson interview about trump lmfao.

[soapaipillas]

It’s your uncle, Sam.

[luminouspica]

He was an activist before he became an actor. He was told to get out of town before he ended up dead as a young man, due to his activism.

This is just more of him being himself, which is as it should be.

[tazmanian-cigarette]

People really forgot that Sam Jackson was a Black Panther

[bloodbatty]

I reblogged this without saying anything earlier, but damn it’s so refreshing to see a celebrity that doesn’t feel the need to appeal to literal fascists.

[the-future-is-chrome]

[lilbatteeth]

[Image description: A four panel comic featuring a repeating image of two cartoon people, the first pointing at the second with a smug expression and saying "I'm not like those weirdos", with "those" in all caps for emphasis.

In the first panel, the smug person is labelled cishet, whilst the second person wears a rainbow flag for a shirt.

In the second, the smug person is now the person wearing the rainbow flag, and the other person is wearing the trans flag.

In the third, the smug person wears the trans flag, and the other person wears the nonbinary flag.

In the fourth, the smug person wears the nonbinary flag, and the other person wears the xenogender flag.

/End ID]

[velvetvexations]

it's really frustrating how much the narrative around JKR is solely about transfems and I'm sick of the pushback I get whenever I point out how much of her rhetoric targets transmascs!! thanks as always for thinking of us when others are actively erasing harm done to us

<3

[velvetvexations]

TRFs: If you ever even LOOK at a trans woman the wrong way, you're a violent transmisogynist and should kill yourself.

Also TRFs: A trans man rolled his eyes at me once in 2005, so that means I'm allowed to call ALL transmascs slurs and send them death threats and victim blame them for being raped now and you aren't allowed to say anything about it.

lmao

[velvetvexations]

ive seen the argument that trans men are only fetishized by cis gay men and so are less likely to be sexually assaulted as a result and its like well maybe if sexual assault were about lust and fetishization id agree with you but its not? its about exerting power over people, which cishet men and women are often want to when it comes to people they want to be women, which is probably why we have the highest sexual assault stats in the community

I don't agree that it's not about lust in that lust, fetishization, and power are all major factors, and all three are things all trans people are likely to fall prey to. Like people say rape isn't about just wanting to get off with someone who's physically appealing and they're right but discounting that as a motive entirely is going too far, imo. Which is the dominating factor depends on a case-by-case basis, and often it's an inseparable mix of two or even all three.

[velvetvexations]

trans women are treated worse in every vector of life, without a doubt. such as when they need to access an abortion, or they're forced off their hormone therapy to carry an unwanted child to term. or when they need to access estrogen, which is of course a controlled substance and actually more controlled than testosterone. and no trans woman can get her documents amended to say "f," because the f gender marker only exists in a handful of us states and a few countries.

fucking, obviously trans women have it bad. transmisogyny is a real thing. but to insist they have it The Worst is ridiculous when there are trans experiences most trans women will not have.

all this discourse achieves is that im now 1000% positive they do not care to listen to any other kind of trans person lol

Then they take this as saying trans people AFAB have it worse. But no one! Is! Saying that! Aghhhhh.