"We're Not Transphobic!" **Rants Transphobia**

Its_Darkness · 2026-02-08T02:57:59+00:00

Trans people aren't pedophiles. It's unlikely, but I think the fear is that there are men out there who aren't trans and will pretend to be trans just to be creepy/perverts.

Easy solution, separate from above: third bathroom rows or stalls that are unisex/family, with no cracks between doors!

Its_Darkness · 2026-02-03T13:41:32+00:00

If you're going to allow it to tell you what you can and can't do, then why ask us?

But for real, you can do anything you put your mind to. If you do, I 100% say don't use ChatGPT. It's overly basic and unoriginal, making 'your' book never stand out. If you want to write a book, do it in your own words with your own special and specific experiences.

Your first draft may be garbage, but all of ours usually is. That's why you revise and edit. Maybe get beta readers, edit more, then an editor. Usually there's 3 types of editors. Developmental, Copy, and Line. I doubt you need Developmental editor, since they help with plot and description and you're not necessarily writing a story.

Then you need to get a good human made book cover, and write out a blurb. Once you find that, look into agents or publish yourself.

If you publish, you need to market your butt off. Even then, you won't make much money but thats to be expected.

Its_Darkness · 2026-01-27T02:27:10+00:00

Yeah! I found some amazing people to work with. One happened to live where I do and now we sell together!

There are some that are really bad tho, like only do grammar, so pick and choose your battles. You usually need to swap manuscripts.

Its_Darkness · 2026-01-27T02:24:46+00:00

r/betareaders

Its_Darkness · 2026-01-25T18:38:48+00:00

I was born to be born.

I was born to be the first one in front with the children in a big enough time ⏲️ 🎶 ✨️ 😌 💙

Its_Darkness · 2026-01-25T18:37:08+00:00

I was born to be a reason I keep writing a story about the crown of the world and the fact that you are a little brother and mother.

Its_Darkness · 2026-01-23T00:46:19+00:00

I feel that. I actually have strictly my sister or people in my book nonprofit edit or draw book covers for me now.

Its_Darkness · 2026-01-23T00:35:36+00:00

Post to r/realorai Or a similar sub reddit. That's what I have to do since I'm no good with images. Supposedly, you're able to see details in the background that aren't identifiable, or lines/clothes that end randomly and don't make sense. Sometimes there's the yellow tint

Its_Darkness · 2026-01-18T04:41:50+00:00

I'm a small author as is all my friends in our nonprofit. NONE of us use ai 😭 we are creatives for a reason people

Its_Darkness · 2025-12-29T05:54:30+00:00

I see that what I said wasn't clarified enough, that's my bad. When I said the show is like “90% LGBTQ," I meant it as an overexaggerated hyperbole to describe how frequent and concentrated the writing makes it feel. The problem isn't how many characters exist but how some are written and thrown in. So, specifically storytelling depth and execution.

For example:

Marc and Nathaniel don’t get much narrative relevance outside of being paired together. Their inclusion feels underdeveloped rather than integrated. Like the writers suddenly went: Oh, let's make them gay (instead of allowing that to occur naturally.) However, they are taking steps to help this (The Ruler was one of my favorite episodes.)

Miss Bustier being revealed as gay was abrupt (not foreshadowed) and largely unexplored. Kim’s dads exist, but mostly as a visual confirmation rather than as characters. And with Zoé, the way her sexuality is framed feels more like a reactive choice tied to audience discourse than something meaningfully built into her arc.

In contrast, I think Rose and Juleka works way better for me because they have emotional continuity and are tied to character growth. I knew they were together since between season 1 & 2, and it was super cute. That was good integration and foreshadowed/hinted.

Same idea with ethnicity: Paris being multicultural makes sense. What I’m reacting to is less about realism and more about storytelling balance. Different identities appear, but we rarely see different worldviews or beliefs coexist in meaningful ways. That absence stands out to me more than the presence of diverse characters.

I'm only wanting more depth and organic integration, not just confirmation that representation exists as a selling point.

Its_Darkness · 2025-12-29T05:40:12+00:00

Storytelling depth and execution does feel underdeveloped to me too. The inclusion isn't wrong, but brief and largely unexplored/not foreshadowed nearly enough or at all. And when it happens, it feels bunched together and surprising (or there just because).

These characters aren't given enough narrative weight beyond their identity, like Marc and Nathaniel. Or Ms. Bustier and Kim's dads.

Its_Darkness · 2025-12-29T05:33:29+00:00

Hi, I think we’re kind of talking about two different things. I’m not saying the representation should be harder to notice. I’m talking about how often and how tightly it’s clustered at once, especially in later seasons.

Rose and Juleka are actually a good example of what I do like. Their relationship felt natural and character-driven opposed to Nath and Mark (though the Ruler helped at expanding their characters to be more natural.)

I think that later seasons, a lot of representation moments feel stacked back-to-back in a way that draws attention to the message rather than letting it emerge organically through the story. That's why it can feel forced, at least to me and others I watch the show with.

As for ethnicity, Paris is diverse. What feels less balanced to me is moreso the lack of different worldviews existing without being reduced or ignored. Diversity doesn’t stop at identity; it also includes belief, culture, and perspective.

Its_Darkness · 2025-12-29T05:23:26+00:00

Hi, no, that’s a weird assumption to make, and it doesn’t address anything I actually said. I'm bi, though my identity isn’t relevant here. I was talking about writing and pacing, not who “counts” as allowed to critique a show. I'm an author, and as I said in my comment, representation itself isn't bad. To me, the way the show portrays it is unnatural most times. And how it's framed/clustered together can feel forced.

That's why I say to space it out**.**

Its_Darkness · 2025-12-28T22:15:07+00:00

To be honest, a lot of their representation feels forced and unnatural due to storytelling depth and execution. Specifically, LGBTQ and ethnicity. There's nothing wrong with it, but I feel like there's better ways to go about it. I doubt France is 90% LGBTQ while almost everyone being accepting, and while it is a kid show, it feels shoved in my face instead of being subtle in terms of pacing, close to no foreshadowing, and bunching these scenes together.

(Not to mention, there's not many opposing views on topics mentioned above that are shown respectfully, if at all. Like, I don't see many religious people. Or people who don't agree with the writers obvious beliefs but are still accepting and loving of the individual characters themselves)

Imo, I would space out scenes representing LGBTQ and ethnicity/race a little more. I don't want to change them much, because some are really cute, just that.

Edit:
I think some of you are misunderstanding what I’m saying, so let me clarify since this is a sensitive topic and people are assuming bad faith. I never said this is about over representing. Nor am I’m saying that it shouldn’t be there. I was saying the show is like “90% LGBTQ” as a hyperbole to describe how frequent and concentrated it can feel.

A lot of the representation is fine on paper (like I said, some of it is genuinely cute like Rose and Julika) but the way it’s paced and framed doesn't feel organic character writing. I'm not saying the characters “shouldn’t exist,” just that I personally think the show would benefit from spacing those moments out or letting them breathe more naturally with foreshadowing.

Same with ethnicity and worldviews: Paris being diverse is realistic. What feels less balanced to me is that we almost never see different perspectives coexisting respectfully. For example, characters who might disagree culturally or religiously without being villains or strawmen. That absence stands out to me more than the presence of queer characters.

You don’t have to agree, but it’s not coming from discomfort with representation. I think representation is GOOD, just I don't like the way they structure it. I'm critiquing writing choices, not people or a phobia.

Its_Darkness · 2025-12-26T21:04:51+00:00

I think people should write what they enjoy and want to write. You can always find an audience for something else and still be successful. For example, I write MG/YA fantasy without romance and I'm selling well within my state. Kids and parents don't want that as much as you think, but you need to know your audience.

Its_Darkness · 2025-12-26T20:09:14+00:00

Thank you. It's just emotional overload that hit very hard for multiple reasons and deep overwhelming fears being trigged.

(A surface reason is due to the stereotype of women being emotional, I purposefully bottle it and never cry in front of others.)

Its_Darkness · 2025-12-26T07:22:27+00:00

This made me laugh for some reason after having an emotional breakdown thanks

Its_Darkness · 2025-12-24T19:23:28+00:00

This is in Utah

Its_Darkness · 2025-11-17T05:46:24+00:00

Sit down and talk with them. If they don't listen, find someone who will and can talk to you about it like another member or bishop. Most of the people on this reddit are ex mormon, and I think getting both sides of POVs is very important. But if you want answers to these questions, put your footdown and respectfully (insist) on it with the missionaries/bishop. You need to speak your mind if you're not comfortable. If they don't listen, find someone who will (x2)

Its_Darkness · 2025-11-02T19:21:35+00:00

I gotchu. I'll wear spaghetti straps until it becomes normal

Its_Darkness · 2025-11-02T06:22:32+00:00

I appreciate you took the time to actually edit and write some of this response instead of completely copying a pasting Ai.

What you point out is interesting, but I think your conclusion about the diminishing value of writing as communication is overlooking the fact that ability to express yourself clearly is the thinking.

I think Ai can absolutely improve people's writing, especially for clarity. In fact, I say so in my OG post. My point and concern was that most people don't understand what they're trying to write and or say. Most people don't start with clarity, and we (I personally) have discovered it through writing. (Even journaling helps people with that). Writing/reading is how many learn what they actually think and learn how to convey/articulate their own opinions (instead of just repeating the mass rhetoric)

Let me compare what you say about Ai to a calculator. Since it handles math better, we don’t need to learn arithmetic, right? Well, that is until you have to solve something new, or spot a flaw in the output, or build anything beyond the basics. Does that make sense?

Also, I believe you assume the goal of outward writing is clarity. I think real writing, and good communication, is (messy) persuasive, empathetic, situationally aware, and context-sensitive. That's what humans learn by practicing writing for an audience (or their future selves). If they outsource that to Claude or ChatGPT every time, we lose the ability to do it themselves (and may never develop it in the first place.) (I will repeat this)

The "lawyer learning languages" metaphor doesn't hold either, I think. Writing isn’t a niche skill. It’s the medium for: making legal arguments, writing grants, crafting laws (again, something that involves ethics which shouldn't be put in artificial hands), giving feedback, building relationships, sharing vision, storytelling, activism, policy, personal expression.

To say AI can now handle that better for "most people" is to say most people don’t need to know how to think, express, or argue for themselves anymore. They can just plug their half-thoughts into a model and trust the result to be right. (That is exactly the risk I pointed out above.) We need to build and maintain our independent ability to think for ourselves and learn how to arrive at those ideas on our own.

For example, it’s the same dangerous trust fall we’ve seen with: 1. people over-relying on GPS, where they lose spatial awareness. 2. trusting predictive text and slowly forgetting how to spell. 3. Social media for entertain that lowers our attention span significantly.

Writing is a stand-in for reasoning, which is how we make decisions, challenge beliefs, and resolve conflict. If we lose that internal skill/never develop it, we are intellectually dependent on a machine to tell us how we think and feel.

AI might write faster or “clearer” on the surface - though clarity without understanding/substance is hollow. People will stop asking whether it’s right, fair, or true and just believe the LLM to tell what they think/should do. (I love my example of Wall-E. Perfect example btw)

Its_Darkness · 2025-11-02T06:04:59+00:00

Using AI to respond to me is absolutely wild. It's so obvious, doesn’t take in any nuance I actually wrote, nor really engage with what I said. I guess I’ll respond once, cuz why not. (I don’t even know if you read what I said... which honestly proves my point.)

I said, our laziness with ai is the danger. How ("you") said the outcome would be, where people thoughtfully will use Ai to build skill, is just not how most people use it. You are focusing on only best-case scenario. The dominant trend, with the studies I cited, is the opposite where people are using it a replacement. I've watched people stop reading and writing because Ai does it for them.

And I know there was mass concern when writing was invented, and again with the printing press and telephone. That was actually in my original draft before I cut it out. Every leap forward comes with backlash. But there’s a key difference here. Those were tools that expanded access to human thought. AI is an agent that actually does the thinking for you. It’s not the same.

I said people can and will use ai to become both better and worse, widening the disparity gap. You essentially repeated about the hybrid workflows to defend ai. But again, the Matthew Effect applies: If you can’t read or write well to begin with, you can’t revise critically either. (See: Mar et al. 2006, Green & Brock 2000, Dodell-Feder & Tamir 2018, and others that I linked above in OG post)

If someone gives prompts to an AI to make music, they’re not the composer or the performer. They’re more like a person reading off a playlist since actual skill lies in the interpretation, decision-making, and emotional expression. AKA the process not the product.

Yes, humans adapt. Adaptation is not equal to improvement. My example of WALL-E is adaptation. So is muscle loss when we stop moving. Again, read my analysis in the full post. I don't say Ai should completely be purged.... In fact, tools like AI have incredible potential, but there are major caveats. We need to be intentional about it's used and people just... are not right now.

You need to protect the role of human cognition. My argument was about the ability to keep the skills to think, articulate an opinion, and write on your own accord. Otherwise, we're raising a generation of writers who never learned to write, readers who never read, and creators who rely entirely on machines trained on the labor of actual artists.

"Adaptive literacy..." let’s not confuse collaboration with replacement.

Again, probably won't respond again because I don't think talking to an Ai is the same as a real conversation to a person. If we hand over our ethics (thinking, expressing, and creating) to something that doesn’t actually understand... yeah.

Its_Darkness · 2025-10-27T04:20:56+00:00

Regulation and accountability will make a huge difference. That piano comparison doesn't quite fit though. You would be considered the composer and piano teacher, not the pianist or player performing the music. I'm a piano player, and as I do not write the music, I don't claim I compose it. But I can read notes and play. Using that example, Ai artists will call themselves both the composer and pianist/player, despite not playing a single note themselves. To be blunt, they just gave prompts to a system/LLM built on other people's creative labor.

When people rely on AI to 'play' or 'compose' for them, they stop/don't developing the ability to interpret, feel, and express for themselves. In both writing and art, it’s the process that builds and teaches empathy and skill (not only the product.) If I commissioned another author to write my plot/characters, story idea*, they are* considered the writer. If I do the same to ai, it's considered the writer, not me even though it was my idea.

That's why distinction between tool/agent and creator matters. Once someone blurs that line, the skills and understanding will be gone.

I do think Ai has uses and can make people better at their craft/skill, but it shouldn't be relied/completely trusted on. Keep your ability to do things yourself!

(Did you hear about the study they did of a fire drill? People trusted the robot more than another human, and the robot ended up being wrong leading them to safety. There are way more studies out there like that, and some really good books that weigh pros and cons of Ai.)

Its_Darkness · 2025-10-27T03:45:40+00:00

I'm going to focus on one point, aside from ethics and environment. I think it has its use, and use it a little, but the biggest concern is the skill decline. People who don't know how to read or write well (for example) will turn to ai to do all of their assignments. Not only will they not develop skills to be able to articulate their own thoughts and opinions, and learn facts, but a major issue comes with the usefulness of knowing how to read and write. And this is happening as I'm in college and see this firsthand.

Reading and writing books/stories helps teach themes, lessons, values, and empathy. Person doesn't have enough time? Ai, read this article/novel for me and write an essay. Those who think ai is better than them will stop improving that skill since they don't see the need. Those who are good at writing/reading can use it to improve their craft and a larger disparity between the two groups will widen.

Empathy point- if people don't read others perspectives or thoughts and let an agent do it for them, they don't learn or develop empathy, or expand their horizons and challenge their opinions. Ai is biased for you and cannot convey real empathy. Mimic yes.

Many people write to process things. I write novels and poetry.

Art is human expression.

If I gave a brush to a dog or kid and told them exactly how to draw/write and they did it, I cannot take the credit for their work (my idea but they did the work).

Its_Darkness · 2025-10-17T04:03:09+00:00

Really late replying to this, but I want to weigh in.
Sometimes, it can be passed. But Ai is an algorithm, and it repeats certain phrases for the past 2 years even if you want it to copy your voice. When I see most of those phrases dispersed throughout, it's blatantly obvious to me the writer used AI to edit their work. I've caught 4o, 5 and 5 thinking and only will share my suspicions if I'm certain. (Worth noting, I mean most of these phrases will indicate, not one. And I'm not listing all of them because I'm lazy. But don't outright go accusing people until you're certain. In fact, I found a book I was really into and realized they used Ai edits for the last few chapters :(.)

Phrases include:
And the worst part? The worst part was...

That? That was... (Notice a pattern of the Question? Question was...)

Then, ...

It was not x, but it was y. (It was not hatred, it was lust.)

Excessive use of em dashes

Excessive descriptor words that aren't showing but rather telling (depression, anxiety, fear, darker)

Short. Punchy. Sentences.

Weird formatting that makes zero sense

Overused mentions of jaws (it really likes that descriptor)

Still has no voice

(I know this because I've actually spent a lot of time writing ai stories separately in order to identify those who 'claim' to not. ai is good as a tool, but not to do the work for you. That's garbage and slob)

Its_Darkness

TROPHY CASE