“We are not immediately present to ourselves. Self-knowledge requires a semiotic-material technology to link meanings and bodies. SELF-IDENTITY IS A BAD VISUAL SYSTEM.” - Donna Haraway

The common emotion wheels need unpacking

Not too long ago, a client was consulting the “emotions wheel” I told him to find online. It was useful. When we were discussing the options he might choose, I asked him if “disappointed” was on his wheel. It was not. I was surprised, since what young child is not severely disappointed at some point with the authority figure who denies her a cookie? Or who hasn’t felt disappointing after a…

View On WordPress

Maki Horiguchi japanese girl fucks in rough manners Free gay emo sex dakota hill Lost Dick Female Fake Taxi Post student licks her first wet pussy Tranny ties up step sis and anal fuck her Summertime Saga All Sex Scenes Aqua Part 2 (Sub Deutsch) Beautiful Busty Pale Teen Shows Her Smooth Pussy on Cam 3D HENTAI POV Cowboy girl agreed to have sex while parents are not at home Mi chica Gordy Buena, da buenos sentones BISEXUAL SWINGER PARTY Japanese girl masturbates with sex toy. Asian moans loudly and gets orgasm. Sakura 1 Osakaporn

from here

Gee, I wonder why so many non-homosexual feminists falsely claimed to be lesbians....

"But the sexual issue that tyrannized the most over lesbian-feminists who wanted to be politically correct in the 1970s was bisexuality. Ironically, at a time when bisexuality became quite acceptable to liberals, it became unacceptable among lesbian-feminists. Jill Johnston called it a “fearful compromise” because half the bisexual woman’s actions were “a continued service to the oppressor.” Women who were bisexual were accused of “ripping off” lesbians—getting energy from them so that they could “take it back to a man.” Bisexual women were the worst traitors to the cause, lesbian-feminists believed, because they knew they were capable of loving women and yet they allowed themselves to become involved with men and neglected their duty to help build the Lesbian Nation. Bisexuals were especially suspect because they received all the heterosexual privileges—such as financial and social benefits—whenever they chose to act heterosexually. Although lesbian-feminists recognized that human nature was indeed bisexual, they pointed out that the revolution had not yet reached its goals and women who practiced bisexuality were “simply leading highly privileged lives that … undermine the feminist struggle. It was suggested that, at the very least, those bisexuals who could not ignore their heterosexual drives should put the bulk of their energies into the political and social struggles around lesbian-feminism and keep secret from the outside world their straight side so that they would not be tempted to fall back on their heterosexual privileges.”

- From "Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America" by Lilian Faderman

Jake long is on Disney Plus now! I just watched the whole thing

im serious i fully cannot watch noir films because The Gender of it all makes my head feel like its gonna pop

Jdox, 11

Send me a number and I’ll write a micro story using the word or phrase

11) drastic

"Newbie, sweetheart, don't you think that's a little drastic?" Perry asks, doing his level best to hide his exasperation as he pinches the bridge of his nose.

JD laughs condescendingly. "Oh, Perry," he says with a manufactured sigh, "you know I love you, right?"

Perry stares into the camera like he's in The Office. "Yes, JD."

"If you want to keep it that way, then don't tell me how to react when I've just found out that they cancelled Gilmore Girls! Oh god, how am I gonna tell Turk?"

Perry pats JD's shoulder and heaves himself off the couch. "Take your time," he says, resigned to the fact that he's dating a man-child with terrible television preferences. "I'll just be in the bathroom... vomiting in solidarity."

"That's nice," JD says absently, already dialing his real husband's phone number.

honestly nothing pushes me toward anarchy harder than the supreme court

whoever named controlology I both love and hate you because on the one hand haha ololo but on the other I keep misspelling it because ololo

RE: that thing I said a while back, about how “only a social construct” is very stupid given “war criminal” is a social construct, another point is, even if something is “only” a social construct, it is a social construct. So whatever quality it is, is whatever “we”, as “society” say it is: and if you personally think it’s something else, too bad, you’re wrong, get back in line.

If a thing is only a social construct, then society is the sole arbiter of its nature and anyone who thinks it’s anything other than what society says it is, is not only wrong, but stupidly wrong.

“Interesting.”

INDEED.

… WHY A PLANT?

First thing I thought of.

… I SEE.

one of the fundamental mistakes serano and a lot of others make involves the following line of reasoning:

1. some people have dysphoric other-gender embodiment-desires (e.g. for different genitals) before they acquire an understanding of gender-sex associations or even that there are genitals other than their own

2. if gender is totally socially constructed, as the social constructionists say, then these embodiment-desires would not be possible in such a state of ignorance

3. modus tollens the social constructionists are wrong and there must be some innate gender-desire

this is often accompanied by the following:

1. if social constructionism is right, then the abolition of gender would mean the elimination of dysphoric embodiment-desires

2. the state of knowledge prior to acquiring gender-sex knowledge is analogous to the state of affairs under gender abolition

3. in that state some people still have dysphoric embodiment-desires

4. modus tollens the social constructionists are wrong

these arguments are often defensive, to be fair—the first premise of the latter argument is unfortunately made by certain social constructionists too, steamrolling those early childhood experiences. but in both cases there is a circular mistake happening. the dysphoric embodiment-desires can precede gender-sex knowledge specifically because they are separable from it. penis-dysphoria in young childhood can only be called gender dysphoria if we assume the very gender-sex epistemic constructions we have agreed not to take for granted! and the former dysphoria may well persist in the absence of the latter constructions. this is what people say when they talk about a (utopian, perhaps, but nonetheless coherent and logically possible) gender abolitionist future where people can have whatever procedures they desire done. the embodiment-desires are still there! they are just freed from gender-sex associations.

The huge difficulty that so many women and men have in seeing femininity and masculinity as socially constructed rather than natural, attests to the strength and force of culture. Women are, of course, understood to be 'different' from men in many ways, 'delicate, pretty, intuitive, unreasonable, maternal, non-muscular, lacking an organizing character'. Feminist theorists have shown that what is understood as 'feminine' behaviour is not simply socially constructed, but politically constructed, as the behaviour of a subordinate social group. Feminist social constructionists understand the task of feminism to be the destruction and elimination of what have been called 'sex roles' and are now more usually called 'gender'. ― Sheila Jeffreys

reading whipping girl again and I’m still stuck on Serano’s critique of the “social constructionist” model of gender, seen here:

Unfortunately, a strict social constructionist model does not easily account for exceptional gender expression either. Many girls who are masculine and boys who are feminine show signs of such behaviour at a very early age (often before such children have been fully socialised with regard to gender norms), and generally continue to express such behaviour into adulthood (despite the extreme amount of societal pressure that we place on individuals to reproduce gender expression appropriate for their assigned sex). This strongly suggests that certain expressions of femininity and masculinity represent deep, subconscious inclinations in a manner similar to those of sexual orientation and subconscious sex. […] While I believe that such inclinations are hardwired into our brains (as they exist on a subconscious level and often remain constant throughout our lives), I hesitate to define them as purely biological phenomena, as social factors clearly play a strong role in how each individual interprets these inclinations. (p 98, 2nd edition)

I don’t think she’s actually demonstrated how a failure to respond to cisgender and heterosexual gender norms is biological in nature, unless you assume that the only way a person can “socially” respond to societal pressure is by accepting it fully. Am I “biologically” a communist because I failed to accept the hegemonic liberal values that are pushed on us since birth? Liberalism is arguably just as engrained in my society (ie, Canadian society) as cisgender norms are. Trans resistance to cisgenderism can just as easily be argued on social grounds, because the resistance is itself a response to social pressure. I also disagree that children can exist in a pre-social state, that children are a blank slate whose earliest expressions of gender indicate some biological mechanism that precedes social expectations. Who takes care of you, the food you have access to, the type of housing you live in, the toys and activities available to you, what media you are exposed to, the levels of medical and social support your mother received prior to giving birth to you - these are all social! Those things are all deeply involved in the social production of gender! Children cannot exist outside of society anymore than adults can, and I think it does a disservice to the autonomy of children to ascribe any gender deviance they may express as simply biological, out of their control. They are expressing things that they witness in the world, and just because they aren’t doing it “correctly,” the way they “ought to,” does not mean there is some hidden biological mechanism that produces this deviance.

I agree with some of the parts of the book I shared previously but I think this is one of my major disagreements with it in that I don't think this is like... problematic to the constructionist model the way it is to the essentialist one?

As someone who is firmly in the "gender is made up nonsense" camp I don't think I ever found people with inborn inclinations to be GNC to be remotely problematic to that idea. At most I'd say that I wish one day people will not treat such inclinations as somehow aberrant or exceptional at all.

"Gender is a social construct" doesn't really imply "and therefore everyone was exactly the same before having gender norms forced upon them". People still have different interests, some of which incongruous with society's gender norms and some of which are not.

The constructionist model is simply not threatened by individual and pre-social differences like that. If anything it seeks to maximize the freedom of those individuals to just do whatever they want rather than have them forced into some kind of trad role.