who can relate

Oh right i forgot to post this

Critizeing Transmeds as a Transmed:

Btw some of this is pointed out to radmeds and I know that not all transmeds do this its just that I've seen these problems in the community before:

Stop judging random people online: This is a thing that I've done before and this is the most common thing I see in the transmed community. You don't know someone's entire life or story based on a few photos or videos, just because they look like a cis person claiming to be trans you don't know that. Some people can't transition at the moment because of living somewhere unsafe or anything like that . And btw transition takes time so if someone doesn't seem to be transitioning that isn't always the case. I don't pass at all but I am transitioning because I've gotten a haircut, got a binder, told some people close to me my chosen name and pronouns (although they're not being used at the moment) The best example I could use for this is when I was arguing with someone online because they said they were a trans men yet looked completely female (not even GNC, they looked completely cis) I called them cis and said they weren't trans because they didn't experience dysphoria or a desire to transition and they told me that they DO experience dysphoria (social dysphoria) and desire to transition and the reason why they didn't want to transition at the moment was because they wanted to have biological kids and didn't want to mess up their body until they had at least one biological child which is completely VALID. Every trans person is different and their journey is different. Unless someone straight up says they have no dysphoria and have no desire to transition then don't judge because you don't know them or their life or their current situation.

Not everyone has to medically transition or do all the surgeries: This is more directed to the radmeds of the community and I know it is a small minority but I would still like to point it out. Anyways, as I mentioned before, EVERY TRANS PERSON IS DIFFERENT which means that their transition journey will be different. That would include some people not deciding to medically transition. Someone may not medically transition for many reasons, they may already have features of their desired gender and pass with just social transition, their dysphoria isn't that severe and they already feel comfortable with just social transition, etc. Now for surgeries, there are some trans people that will medically transition by taking hormones but they don't want to have any surgeries and that is completely valid. Again, no trans person is the same and people will have their reasons not to get any surgeries. Some trans people will be fine just binding/tucking and don't desire top or bottom surgery, some don't have dysphoria with certain parts of their body and don't need top or bottom surgery (for FTMs with no top dysphoria would probably mean they already have a small chest or no chest at all which is valid for them not to want top surgery), some people just don't want to risk surgery complications, some trans people already pass without surgery and don't feel the need to have surgery, etc. Transmeds belive that to be trans one must have gender dysphoria and a desire to transition and transition is different for everyone, some will only socialally transition, some will medically transition without having any surgeries, some will medically transition and have some surgeries, some will have all the surgeries and everyone's transition journey is VALID :)

Stop supporting right winged transmed creators like Blaire White just because they have a good point sometimes: The right hates ALL trans people, even us transmeds trust me I've tried arguing with transphobes using transmed logic and they were still transphobic. People like Blaire White not only makes the transmed community look bad because she is the root of most transmed stereotypes and strawman arguments (like how all transmeds are miserable, all transmeds are right winged cis bootlickers, all transmeds hate non binary people although Kalvin is also somewhat responsible for that stereotype) but also people like Blaire White have a lot of internalized transphobia as they side with the right which we all know that most of them are transphobic TERFS and transmeds shouldn't associate with these people as they still don't realize that transphobes are after all of us and you can't be a "good" trans person in their eyes. Just because these right winged transmed creators have good takes sometimes doesn't make them a good representation of our community, these people are usually fuelled by negativity which leads me to my next point

Just be more positive guys: Everytime I go on the truscum subreddit all I see is just vent after vent after vent and people complaining about tucutes. Although I do belive that trans safe spaces should allow people to vent, Jesus Christ its all I see, no wonder tucutes think we're all miserable. It wouldn't hurt us to be a little more positive, yea I understand being trans isn't the most positive thing ever, I get it gender dysphoria fucking sucks. But try to focus more on the positives of your life, like how you had a pretty nice day, you passed well today, how therapy is going really well for you, etc. We should have a community where people feel safe to be sad and vent but let's try to be a little more lighthearted :)

And that's all I can think of for now, if you disagree or think I've missed anything I am definitely up for debate and discussion :)

The Inclusivity Facade

Like the name suggests, ‘inclusionists’ often perceive themselves as the inclusive side. They see themselves as martyrs—morally righteous individuals guided by a one-track goal: to promote “inclusivity” and “compassion” in all areas of life, particularly in LGBTQ+ discourse. Admirable, right?

However, despite what it might seem like on the surface, the core principles of inclusionist rhetoric are not based on actualized inclusion. Instead, they are based around dogma, control, blind acceptance, exclusion (surprise!), and sometimes even abuse. Inclusionists typically spread their value of “inclusivity” by blithely accepting any identities, no matter how contradictory, illogical, or unscientific they may seem. They will claim they believe in inclusivity, yet they are notably exclusionary towards those of different beliefs. They will claim they believe in compassion and understanding, yet they will send death threats or threats of violence to transmedicalists, exclusionists, and others that don't conform to their ideology, tell them to harm or kill themselves, verbally abuse them (cyberbullying), enable their eating disorders, claim false and derogatory things about them, dox them, engage in online harassment campaigns, attempt to silence dissenting opinions through mass-reporting, etc.

As such, the vast majority of inclusionists (it is unfortunately not a small but vocal minority, as one might hope) are as averse to basic human decency as a vampire is to sunlight. The truth is that inclusionists, for the most part, are not really trying to spread “inclusion”. Instead, they use the deceptive veil of “inclusion” as a way to make them seem better than they really are; if you present yourself as someone who stands for such an agreeable ideology (inclusion), people are more likely to perceive you as a virtuous person who stands for virtuous things.

That said, their actions often reveal their true intentions. In reality, inclusionists are quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as intolerant, bigoted, or even evil. They have no interest in understanding different perspectives or engaging in meaningful dialogue. Instead, they resort to unethical, damaging, and even borderline abusive behavior patterns that make a genuinely positive shift in society and online discourse virtually impossible. It becomes readily apparent that their supposed commitment to inclusion is nothing more than a facade to boost their own egos and maintain a false sense of moral superiority.

What inclusionists fail to realize is that inclusion is about creating a space where people feel respected and valued, regardless of their opinions and intrinsic qualities. This doesn't mean one should welcome people who are bigoted or hold harmful views, but rather that creating an environment where differing perspectives can be respectfully challenged and debated is essential to intellectual growth and fostering a culture of critical thinking. Inclusionists should understand that true inclusion involves embracing diversity and allowing for open dialogue, even with those who hold opposing views. It is through respectful engagement and the exchange of ideas that we can foster empathy and understanding and ultimately work towards positive societal change. By excluding individuals solely based on their opinions, we risk perpetuating echo chambers and hindering progress in our collective pursuit of knowledge and enlightenment.

Opinion: Lolicon/shotacon isn’t pedophilia, but it’s still bad.

Loli/shotacon isn't pedophilia, as it doesn’t involve the attraction to real-life children. Regardless, it’s still disgusting, as adults should not be attracted to or sexualizing minors in any context. At the same time, though, it’s not okay to say that the attraction between real children and fictional children is the exact same. I am definitely not one of those people who is like, "It's just fiction!"; I literally have spoken out against people who spew that rhetoric (like comshippers, for example). However, to say that the attraction towards fictional children is completely equivalent to the attraction towards real children oversimplifies a complex issue. Saying that a paraphilic disorder that involves the attraction to real children and typically results in permanent harm towards real children is the same as an attraction towards fictional children that is still disgusting and potentially harmful is the very same is not only regressive but is damaging to CSA victims. I am in no way in favor of lolicon or shotacon; it sexualizes minors, often romanticizes CSA, can be used to groom vulnerable individuals, can offer a safe space for genuine pedophiles or give them free content to get off to, and can cause distress to survivors of child sexual abuse or just people who find that content rightfully upsetting. So, while I absolutely do not support lolicon or shotacon for the harm it inflicts and the inherent immorality I find in it, I think it's erroneous to assume that all individuals who consume this content are pedophiles or support child exploitation. It's a false equivalence to claim that people who experience attraction towards real children and typically harm them are the same people that do not experience attraction towards real children but do to fictional children. Many individuals engage with these materials without any attraction towards actual children. That does not mean that lolicon, shotacon, and other genres that sexualize minors are okay, as they are not; it just means that if we wish to educate pro/comshippers, lolicons, shotacons, dead-dove, and profic people on the potential harm and ethical concerns surrounding genres such as lolicon, we need to approach the conversation with nuance and understanding instead of relying on logical fallacies. If we wish to be taken seriously, we must engage in respectful and informed discussions that address the complex issues at hand. What I see a lot of people do on my (the anti-loli/shotacon and anti-pro/comship) side is simply refer to people who engage with this content as pedophiles. While it is important to acknowledge the potential harm and ethical concerns surrounding genres like lolicon, it is crucial to avoid labeling individuals who engage with this content as pedophiles without concrete evidence. By resorting to such generalizations, we undermine the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and understanding. Instead, we should focus on raising awareness about the potential impact of these genres on society and promoting responsible consumption of media.

Tldr: Lolicon, shotacon, and other forms of media that sexualize minors are unethical and deleterious, but not everyone who consumes such content is a pedophile. Calling every single person who likes that content a pedophile is unfair, fallacious, and intellectually dishonest. We can point out the harms of such content without resorting to addressing the people who enjoy it as people who like real children.

just a reminder if you ship atreus and heimdall i hate you and i strongly suggest you unfollow and block me as well as take a much needed shower

ik for a fact you freaks don’t know what a bar of soap is

^ Drawing of my baby Valkyr! They’re a hybrid between a cat and a Malzeno!

^ fanart for Kanin Cotton / Godless Snowshoe

I’m really proud of this

Me when Atreus made that “I’ll be dammed” joke

He has no right to be as adorable as he is, I STG

btw this is only supposed to be anatomy practice and if I see one comment being weird I’ll delete it <3

Me internally when I saw Atreus on the edge of a mental breakdown after Brok’s death

Atreus is so babygirl so scrimblo so sgrungle pungle so mipy so skrunkly my little meow meow-

there’s something bout him that I never really liked

So I'm going to complain now, because I can

I am so done with people shipping Atreus and Heimdall from the God of War Ragnarok game. Like, ATREUS IS A MINOR, he's literally 15 in the game, and Heimdall is like immortal, but a fucking adult. And there are people (mostly on twitter) who are drawing NSFW with them and i find it disturbing.

I remember when I saw the first meeting of Heimdall and Atreus and my first thought was "there are going to be people who will ship it". And do not give me the "but this would be a perfect enemies to lovers!" FUCK NO. Heimdall literally wanted to kill Atreus, he hated him with passion. And the people who ship it are fucking disgusting

Atreus goes on Ao3

I drew the puppet everyone has a crush on 🤩

Eat up simps >:3