Yoinking That Butch Flag

Yoinking that butch flag 👹

alternate butch, futch, and femme.

[Image description: Three flags, each with seven equally-sized horizontal stripes. On the first flag, the top three stripes form a gradient from deep violet to dark blue, and the bottom four stripes form a gradient from pastel yellow to light blue. On the second flag, the top three stripes form a gradient from blue to pale green, the middle stripe is off-white, and the bottom three stripes form a gradient from pale pink to pink. On the third flag, the top four stripes form a gradient from red-pink to pale orange, and the bottom three stripes form a gradient from warm purple to deep blue. End description.]

left: butch. middle: futch. right: femme.

the butch and femme flags are edits of the butch and femme flags by disasterbisexual, and the futch flag is inspired by the futch flags by neopronouns. also check out the alternate chemme flags by neopronouns, as those were what inspired us to make these edits!

as with the flags they're edits of/inspired by, these flags are explicitly inclusive of all butches, futches, and femmes.

tagging: @radiomogai, @neopronouns

'What's it like to be a system?'

Me:

ID: Discord screenshot where my name and profile picture is scribbled out in red. The words 'Damn imposter syndrome got hands' are seen. End ID

I know I'm going to hate myself for responding to this with anything but disgust, but it's very important to me that I do this. Zoophile doesn't instantly mean you're going to abuse an animal. Some zoophiles are therians, and feel like their therian identity is tied with their zoophilia (this is by no means saying all therians are zoos and vice versa, nor is it justifying acting on one's zoophilia). I'm tired of beings treating paraphiles as though they're all horrible beings that are offenders cuz that's not true at all. I don't know the origins of this flag, but it seems like this is a general acceptance flag, yes? Believe it or not, paraphiles deserve acceptance and to not be stigmatized, because as things are going those who need help for paraphilic disorders are often too afraid to get help because of the stigma.

Edit: TW mentions of zoophiles (I’m newish to tumblr and don’t know the proper post stuff)

Zoo’s are using this flag to group zoophiles and therians together, DO NOT use this flag. Real therians WILL NEVER support zoophiles

Endogenic Systems and Experiences in the Neurodivergent Community

We tend to stay mostly on the fringes of syscourse nowadays without directly interacting with it too often but I'm going to post this more broadly and less focused on our specific instance of this because community-wise I think it's important to talk about.

Endogenic and other non-traumagenic systems are so commonly excluded from so many neurodivergent-safe spaces where they would otherwise be able to gain knowledge about the disorders they might have, share experiences and coping strategies with peers, or at least have a sense of community that is so commonly valuable to disabled and/or neurodivergent people. In a lot of cases, even people who only support non-traumagenic systems get shoved out.

[Continued under the readmore as it's long.]

This obviously harms non-traumagenic systems, but I have to point out that when people sit there and say "we care about REAL disabled people!", I have to say.... Do you? Because if you did care about those with mental illness, physical disability or neurodivergence, you in my mind wouldn't exclude them based on something unrelated to the topic itself which might even be something as small as holding an opinion that other people get to be the judge of their own experiences. You can say that you care about "real" disabled people, but what about when a traumagenic DID system also has a tulpa that they consider just as valid and real as their alters? What about when a system labels themselves as quoigenic because in reality, you owe no one the knowledge that you are vulnerable and traumatised? What about when a system starts out as endogenic but gains so much trauma later on that they develop dissociative symptoms?

We're quoigenic because while yes we are diagnosed with DID:

DID does not have trauma in the diagnostic criteria so our diagnosis doesn't mean anything by way of origin. Nontraumagenic is not the same as nondisordered the same way that traumagenic isn't the same as disordered.

We cannot remember a time before we were plural so we cannot say with accuracy what our actual origin was.

We have headmates we consider to be from both traumagenic and endogenic origins and it feels unfair to pick one.

We don't owe anyone a quick little "hey, we have trauma!" flag on our pinned post which can easily paint us as a target. This is the exact reason we don't share our triggers online--it's not safe.

You don't owe anyone personal medical information including your diagnostic history, your trauma history or lack thereof, your current medications or how many times you've been in a hospital. That is your business and yours alone to decide who you share it with. It's downright dangerous to share some of it, especially so publically. So who is anyone online that clearly isn't your specific medical practitioner to decide whether your experiences are real enough to allow you into spaces meant for a usually completely unrelated thing? Why would someone holding the opinion that endogenic systems get to decide what labels they use be denied access to spaces just because they support people with differing beliefs and/or experiences?

If we as a system with multiple disabilities want to go into a space for people who are schizoaffective because we need others who won't immediately jump on the ableism train when discussing something we're diagnosed with that has so much stigma, should we be denied that just because we don't label our origin with a clear-cut "we are traumatized!!" label? Should we be denied access to spaces because we don't want to sit around and smile while parts of our system and other members of our community are called fake and evil and whatever else they come up with? It's so common in spaces for people with disabilities to be exclusive to traumagenic systems and people with an anti-endogenic mindset that people don't realise they're not only hurting the endogenic community, but literal chunks of their own community itself.

I can't even begin to understand the reason why.

Endogenic systems by just existing do not cause harm. They're not like a transphobe you would not be safe around by default of having a label. Not every nontraumagenic system is a saint but if you took any communtiy and called everyone in it the equivalent of an unproblematic holy angel, you'd be lying. People are bad in every community, some worse than others, but the nontraumagenic system community literally just wants to exist--and yes, sometimes a nontraumagenic system (or supporter of such) does have dissociative symptoms, or maybe they have autism, or maybe they're physically disabled. Should they be not allowed access just because of the way they chose to label their system, or their opinion of people picking their own labels for their personal identity?

What exactly is the reason they're so excluded everywhere? I'd try to assume that this level of exclusion (to the point of endos being on DNIs next to transphobes and racists) would mean there's some real harm being done on a community-wide scale, but even when looking for it there isn't any explanation we've been able to find. "They're fake" is all we seem to see which has no actual backing whatsoever. "They're harmful" is another but.. How? We might be looking in the wrong places, but we have never seen an actual explanation for how nontraumagenic systems cause harm as a community just by being themselves.

At this point, I have to wonder how many people who say "we care about real disabled people!" are just covering up their "we care about socially acceptable disabled people who I understand and/or do not find cringey" sentiment instead. Being neurodivergent should never be about fitting into tight little boxes--it's part of the whole point of having a community like this. You're not the majority, and that's okay. So why are we dividing the disabled community into boxes too?

Of course, this doesn't only apply to ND spaces. LGBT+ spaces are similar and even more divided from the concept of being a system that it makes even less sense to block nontraumagenic systems from entering the space. How does their system origin relate to their LGBT+ identity? Sometimes it can, but should a trans person be excluded from a trans space because they have a friend who is an endogenic system and they support them fully?

Overall, the main point is that it makes no sense whatsoever to be anti-endo in general, let alone so violently anti-endogenic system to the point where you hurt members of your own community due to it. Sometimes from something as simple as them supporting endogenics alone. Your safe spaces aren't actually safe if you exclude a nonharmful group who also belong in that space due to having a personal identity or opinion different to yours. If you want somewhere to be a safe, inclusive space, it should include everyone as long as letting those people in won't cause harm. People who are seeking to cause harm (racists, transphobes, etc) obviously do not belong in a safe space because they seek to harm others, thus making the space unsafe. But people who just want to be themselves without harming anyone should be included in your space if they fall under whatever it may be topic-wise. Even the "cringey" ones. Even the ones who don't quite make sense to you or have "contradicting" labels. Even the ones who use labels completely differently to the way you do. And even the ones who are uninformed or misinformed but trying their best to learn. Your safe space is not safe if it excludes those who do not follow your every single mindset and thought without any deviation.

The casual exlusionism within the AroAce community really affected how I view myself, because I'm in my mid-20s and I'm only just realizing that I might be Grey Aromantic too because I really enjoy romance in fiction, romance is one of my favorite genres.

the idea of having someone who understands you and will be there for you no matter what, who you want to spend the rest of your life with is a very appealing idea to me, especially with the trauma I've been through.

I'm not a fan of "happily ever after" romance, but realistic romance where we see couples still struggling with their own problems, but still have each other.

But I only just realized I've felt genuine romantic attraction so little, and most other times I have were hyperromantic trauma responses.

I have multiple partners across two DID systems, and I love them very much, but my romantic attraction is exclusively within those two systems. People outside of those systems, I haven't had any romantic attraction to since I was 13. There were a few hyperromantic crushes out of want or need for attention (as I'm a trauma survivor), but even those were sparse.

Even my break ups with some people only bothered me because of how they broke up with me, not that they broke up with me. Not that they severed a year (or more) long romantic relationship with me.

Aromanticism is more complicated than I initially thought, and the exclusionist behavior that is so common from inside and out only muddies the water and makes it difficult for AroAce people to accept themselves.

We need to learn to spread acceptance and that just because someone doesn't fit a perfect box, that doesn't mean they're not one of us.

AroAce is not a box, and it shouldn't be treated that way.

a friendly reminder from your local NPD/ASPD wolf:

you don't need empathy, whether emotional or cognitive, to be a "good person", and you don't need sympathy, either.

you don't need remorse, guilt, shame, or even regret to be a "good person".

you don't need to have anything else that "makes up for" any of the above to be a "good person".

those of us who don't have some or all of these things still deserve support. we should not have to strive to gain or emulate these things in any fashion in order to be worthy of the same decency you offer to those who do not need to try to gain these things on account of already having them.

it is a form of violence to demand that we change or hide parts of ourselves in order to fit into your definition of "good person" before you'll offer decency and humanity. decency and humanity is not an incentive for change, it is not a reward for doing what you want, it is a basic right that everyone--no matter who they are or what they've done or what they feel--is entitled to and is worthy of having.

if you want us to change in any way, you must first give us the room and support we need to do so, even if we choose not to change in the end. if your support is conditional, if there is a risk of losing it if we do not fit into your box, there is no point in us trying to gain it anyway.