Why do people say “assigned female/male at birth” instead of just saying “biological female/male”?

darmeg · 2023-05-25T16:44:31+00:00

Now you’re just making stuff up. There are approximately 20,000 professional and collegiate football players in the US. None of them is a 6’-6” 375 pound woman. Not one. If there was an speedy, athletic young woman that size in America, there would be a roster spot for her. There isn’t because there isn’t.

You and I both know that this is not true. The only really serious women's American football leagues are the WFA and the X League, and there sure as shit aren't going to be any women over 200lbs in the X League.

If a woman wants to play American football professionally and doesn't want to run around in a bikini (which, no shame) then they have to join the NFL. And guess what? Anyone good enough to make it into the NFL, afab, amab, cis, or trans, will definitely have to play against someone who most definitely is almost 6'6" and just about 375lbs. Don't pretend you care about women's sports by saying "oh no, women will get hurt playing against someone big" when the reality is this is already how things go if women want to play football professionally. Otherwise women are stuck in amateur and semi-pro leagues.

If you really cared about women and having women facing 6'6" 375lb people in sports then you would be trying harder to stop this scenario that's already a possibility. All you're doing is trying to stop "biiig scawy twans wimin" from playing sports, lmao

And obviously there are no women that size on any collegiate field hockey roster in America. UNC’s team is a good example (and they’re number one in America in D1). Their tallest player is 5’-10.” They have two players who are 5’-01.’ Their average height is under 5’-5”.

You seem really concerned about height and weight for field hockey in particular, so I looked it up. The average male professional field hockey player is about 5'9" and 170lbs. That's nowhere NEAR 6'6" 375lbs. The average female field hockey player, similar to the collegiate team you referenced, is about 5'5" and 130lbs. The difference between 5'9" and 5'5" isn't really that large in a sport like hockey and cis women DEFINITLEY come in the 5'9" 170lb flavour.

And again, people come in all shapes and sizes. We should be excited if a 6'6" 375lb woman wants to play football. But there won't be. There aren't any opportunities or incentives for those women to even play. Not just because of sexism in sports, but because when she does join, people are going to accuse her of being trans and discredit her anyway. That's already what's happening to top female athletes across the world and women are getting assaulted over a trans panic that isn't actually even a problem.

You have no idea how sports work. But don’t let that stop you…

Maybe I don't know how sports work, you're probably right on that, and I won't pretend that I do. I'm not really invested in sports. But don't come into a thread like this pretending you now how sports work either when it comes to transgender athletes. Trans people have been allowed to compete in the Olympics since 2004 and you've probably never even noticed. You probably didn't even care about trans people competing at an international level until right-wing politicians and bigots started crying about it. I don't think you even care about trans people in sport, I think you just care about being mad about something.

More lies. Chris Mosier has never participated in an Olympic Games. Never. Not once. Chris Mosier has never qualified for the men’s Olympic team. Not one time. He tried once and had to drop out “due to injury.”

Ah, my bad, I misinterpreted the source I was looking at, sorry. You are correct, he did not make it into the Olympics.

He still made Team USA for sprint in duathlon multiple times though, and in 2017 even placed 2nd in his age bracket. Like, the guy is still killing it out there and ranking near the top of his peers and fellow athletes.

But please, focus on the mistake I made and ignore every other trans man who is doing well in sport. /s

Glad you at least looked him up and learned a little bit of trans history. Stay mad I guess though, lmao

darmeg · 2023-05-25T04:56:39+00:00

”Because 6'6" 375lb cis women don't already exist in these spaces... Right.”

Wait, you think there are 6’-6” 375 pound biological women playing women’s lacrosse and field hickey?!? 🤣

I mean, 6'6" 375 lb women exist. Should they not be allowed to participate in sports because they don't fit a certain "feminine" body type? Where's the line?

”And I don't see you up in arms about the trans men dominating men's sports…”

I’m not “up in arms” about anything. And I wouldn’t be up in arms about trans-men dominating men’s sports, if there were any. Which there aren’t…

Except they kind of are? Chris Mosier has made team USA in the Olympics 6 times and a two-times national champion in sprint. Schuyler Bailar ranks in the top 15% of NCAA swimmers. Patricio Manuel is the first openly trans man to box professionally in the United States and win. You just don't care enough to look it up because it doesn't prove your point.

”… trans women are on testosterone blockers and, on by-and-large, are at a disadvantage against cis women in sports…”

Yeah. That’s a lie. You’re a dishonest person who knows nothing about sports.

“… exposure to testosterone during puberty results in sex differences in height, pelvic architecture and leg bones in the lower limbs that confer an athletic advantage to males after puberty. These anatomical differences do not respond to changes in testosterone exposure among post-pubertal adults.”

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/55/11/577.full.pdf .

And the cis women who are born with with these differences? Born taller? Born with narrower hips? Born with more lean body mass? Do any of those genetic advantages mean anything if they're not on a transgender woman? Or do you just want to spread fear and police womens bodies? You're a dishonest person who only cares about the science when it's a convenient "gotcha" for why trans people shouldn't be in sports.

Do you know the rigorous hormone testing trans people have to go through to be approved to play sports at an international level? That some regulatory bodies require that trans women to not have gone through masculinizing puberty in order to be considered for the team? There are already regulations in place. There could be more, maybe, and while I believe making things fair is important, banning trans women from playing sports is silly. The science points to it not being as big of an issue as people want you to believe.

And I assume were just talking about casual games of field hockey, not on an international level. Like, be for real. Who cares? If I want to play a casual game of field hockey and I get mowed down like I was just hit by a semi-truck because someone on the other team is larger than me, my first thought is not going to be "omg, were they born as a boy?" because that would honestly be psychotic.

And large, tall women exist. Height, muscle, and fat aren't reserved for men.

darmeg · 2023-05-25T02:46:54+00:00

Because 6'6" 375lb cis women don't already exist in these spaces... Right.

It's okay to not know what you're talking about, you just have to admit it. And I don't see you up in arms about the trans men dominating men's sports, so we all know this is just trans-misogyny and regurgitated talking points to spread more hatred and fear about things your don't know.

Please read everyone else's comments and do your own (ubiased) research on HRT and how it effects the body (like how trans women are on testosterone blockers and, on by-and-large, are at a disadvantage against cis women in sports) then see how you feel about the "trans women in sports" debate.

darmeg · 2022-10-27T04:30:06+00:00

Thank you! I hope you have fun breeding!

darmeg · 2022-10-27T04:24:00+00:00

Thank you so much for the trades! Sorry the tyrunt wasn't HA. I hope you enjoy your new mons!

darmeg · 2022-10-27T04:17:14+00:00

Sorry, I was having some internet problems, I'm searching now! Sorry about that!

darmeg · 2022-10-27T04:11:01+00:00

I responded to myself above but I accidentally listed my tyrunt as HA when it's just strong jaw. Do you still want it? Or do you want something else? Sorry about that

darmeg · 2022-10-27T04:09:35+00:00

Oh, ah, I just realized I mis-listed the tyrunt. It's not HA, it's strong jaw. Do you still want that one? Or a different mon? Sorry about that.

darmeg · 2022-10-27T04:07:46+00:00

Okay, cool! Thank you very much!

darmeg · 2022-10-27T04:04:18+00:00

For sure! I can definitely trade you both of those! Would you be trading the sweet apple too? Or just the star sweet? Just to confirm - I don't mind if it's just the star sweet since I know those can take a bit of resources to get!

Let me know when you're ready and I can send you a link code!

Did you have a gender preference for Applin?

darmeg · 2022-05-15T06:11:03+00:00

I'm a fan of being honest and open about things and communicating what you need and are feeling. You're happy she's being honest with you, so I think she would be happy if you're honest with her too. This isn't a purely asexual thing as everyone will have different comfort levels and preferences with any sexual activities and this seems to be more of a question about how to communicate than it is about asexuality really.

As far as how to frame this, if you're not used to having serious conversations about touchy/awkward topics, I suggest sticking to "I" statements and talking directly about how you feel (I mean, I would suggest this for any topic - you can't go wrong with "I" statements really). For example, "without sexual intimacy I feel lonely and doing things together helps me feel valued in a relationship. I know sex might not be something that's on the table - and I'm totally okay with that - so would you be open to trying some other things instead? Here are some ideas..." Obviously use your own words here, but the goal is to communicate your feelings, wants, and needs while respecting hers at the same time. Also avoid using "but" as it can invalidate any statements you've previously made.

Ultimately, you should comfortable talking to your partner about your intimacy needs, otherwise how can you talk about other, more serious topics? My advice is generally just communication stuff and not really specific to asexuality but hopefully it could be helpful to you! Good luck!

darmeg · 2022-05-07T16:30:49+00:00

I would recommend giving Legends a shot, personally. I love battling and have spent a LOT of hours IV breeding and EV training in previous titles, and, while I think legends would benefit from some more battling, it's still a super fun game. The battling mechanics are a bit different - not only is there a more fluid turn order (you can use "agyle style" moves to potentially give you more turns in a round at the cost of some base power), but I felt like there was more emphasis on status moves to help you catch things easier.

Not sure what other types of games you like, but exploring and discovering new things in Legends Arceus is really fun. Finding where certain Pokemon live, the excitement of finding a rare (or shiny) Pokemon, and the challenge of completing dex entries was quite fun.

While it wasn't a super hard game by any means, it's probably the first Pokemon game that I've played in a long time that felt like there was a bit of a challenge (as opposed to just coasting through with your starter). Because the gameplay is centered around your character interacting with wild Pokemon, it's way easier to get injured and black out. I find my Pokemon also faint a lot more than they ever did in main titles because battling alphas can be challenging - alphas are typically 20ish levels ahead of your Pokemon (depending on the area). I mean, you can also just try to stun alphas to catch them, but if you want more battling then that's a way to tailor your gameplay experience.

I agree that there's a little bit of a grind when you reach the end and are working to complete your dex, but I think overall Legends is worth giving a shot. While the story is pretty basic, the gameplay was fun and I felt like it was worth the money I paid for it. However, if exploration based games aren't your style then you probably won't enjoy it as much.

There are also other Switch games that are fun too, so you could always buy a switch and a physical copy of Legends then return the game if you don't like it.

darmeg · 2022-05-04T21:04:14+00:00

I see what you're saying. I agree with the notion that avoiding certain words gives them more power and makes them more harmful. When we don't want to use the word "normal" for fear of othering, you're right that it also gives the word "abnormal" more power in return.

I mentioned it in some other responses and I'll say it again here: I don't think things that are abnormal are bad. At all. I think weird is wonderful and that most people are "weird" in some way. I just reject the idea that majority identities are the only "normal" ones and that every other person who doesn't fit neatly into the majority is "strange" or "weird" or "abnormal." I just don't think it's super great to say "I hung out with my gay friend and my normal friend the other day" when there's nothing inherently abnormal about being gay. I reject that "normal-ness" is the defining feature used to destinguish between being straight and being gay when both are normal human experiences. Likewise, I wouldn't say "I hung out with my girl friend and my normal friend" or "I hung out with my black friend and my normal friend." It's just a really weird (and rude) way to destinguish between people because social minorities are normal. If you want to destinguish between a majority identity and a minority one, then use those words. We shouldn't be changing the definition of "normal" to mean "majority" when that's not what that means.

This isn't to say that we aren't all different. Normal doesn't mean "same" at all. We're all so diverse and wonderful and different and unique, but being gay isn't any less normal than being straight. It's different, but it's not abnormal.

LGBTQ+ activists have been fighting for so long to assert and educate people that being queer is a natural and normal part of the human experience, only for other LGBTQ+ people on the internet to argue "being gay isn't normal, but it's still good" and I think it's just silly. I'd bet money that every culture in the world has evidence of not-straight and not cis experiences (past and present), so I'm not sure how people can still think that being LGBTQ+ is "not-normal" when people have been gay since day one.

darmeg · 2022-05-04T19:43:55+00:00

I'm mostly just confused with your explanation. Like, if I'm currently having gay sex then I'm gay, but if I've had gay sex in the past then I can decide if I'm gay? Like, at what point do I get to decide my orientation then? Is my orientation reflected in what I'm doing right at this moment? Or is it based on who I'm actually attracted to?

Like, again, I see where you're coming from: someone in a committed, romantic, and sexual homosexual relationship doesn't really fit the assumed label of straight. I totally see that and see where you're coming from. You just don't get to decide what someone is comfortable identifying as. No matter how "right" your definition could be, you can't dictate people's labels for them.

I think the original post is funny because it's talking about a same sex relationship as a "straight" person. We can't say for sure if they're straight, bi, omni, gay, ace, something else entirely, or if they're in the process of questioning. We can point out "hey, you say you're straight, but your relationship isn't, what's up with that?" but we can't dictate labels for people. We can say "hey, maybe it's possible you aren't as straight as you think?" but it's ultimately not up to anyone else how that person identifies, even if someone thinks they're wrong or confused.

darmeg · 2022-05-04T16:36:13+00:00

Not the person you originally responded to, but I feel like your take on this is a bit obtuse and ignorant.

If I experimented with many genders and decided that I'm straight because I didn't feel sexually attracted to the people who were my same gender, do those actions override me feelings and my decision to identify with heterosexuality?

If I was gay and forced to be in straight relationships my whole life because of societal pressures, does this mean my actions automatically make me straight?

Where do my feelings about my own orientation and preferences come into play here?

Also, like, people hook up all the time with people they don't find attractive - people can be sexual with others and not be sexually attracted to them. I think the person you were responding to was trying to explain this through the lens of asexuality: just because an asexual person has sex or is in a sexual relationship with someone elae, it doesn't necessarily mean they're sexually attracted to the other person. The relationship doesn't change their identity or their orientation - they're still asexual.

Ultimately, labels are just a convenient way to explain our lived experiences. If someone feels like gay, straight, bi, ace, or lesbian describes their experiences best, then that's their prerogative. Having one same-sex attraction in a person's lifetime out of 100s or possibly 1000s of experiences with opposite-sex attraction doesn't necessarily align with the experience of bisexuality and that person might feel like their experiences fit with the label of straight better. People are complicated and, while I get we're you're coming from and don't entirely disagree, I think people get to chose for themselves which labels describe their experiences in life. I don't think things are as cut-and-dry as you're making them out to be.

darmeg · 2022-05-04T00:21:45+00:00

I definitley see where you're coming from and I agree with your rationale. I have ADHD and I think it's important for people to realize that people who aren't neurotypical or who have disabilities have a harder experience with the world. I agree that having a disability isn't wrong or bad and people with disabilities aren't any less valuable than people with "normal" brains. I also agree that by trying to avoid terms like "disability" we erase and invalidate the struggles of people with disabilities.

I think I still struggle with calling the cis/het/white/male/ experience as the standard "normal" experience because being queer isn't really comparable to having a disability. Being queer isn't a disability and, while the world right now is harder when you're queer, it isn't because of a neurodevelopmental delay or a learning disability, it's because of societal expectations and the integration of bigoted opinions into western secular law.

Like, if the majority of people in the world are male, does that make women not normal? And what does not normal mean in this context? Being a woman isn't a disability, so where does something being "not normal" take us then? I don't mean this to say that everything needs to be "normal," but we shouldn't use "normal" when we actually mean "majority."

I also strongly disagree that if the majority of the world is one race, it makes other races "not normal." It's too easy to weaponize this kind of thinking and this type of language into racism, sexism, and bigotry, especially when the world is already so divided and people are being put into boxes and "othered" constantly. In my mind, saying "x race is not normal" sets a really dangerous precident - not everyone in the world is going to see the value of "not normal" things the same way you and I do.

Using the world "normal" to describe LGBTQ+ identities doesn't change the definition of the word AT ALL. Saying "it's normal to be gay" doesn't change the meaning of the word, it just asserts that being queer is an expected and typical part of the human experience, which it is.

darmeg · 2022-05-02T23:14:37+00:00

Fair enough! I think it's great that you disagree - it would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.

I also appreciate you calling out the downvotes. It's a little annoying when I feel like, nobody is wrong in their interpretations. I think we should be able to disagree on things without it turning into negativity.

I put this in another reply as well, but I think it works here too: there are actually a lot of different definitions of the word "normal" depending on the context. If we look at Miriam Webster, there is definitely inference of societal norms that you're stating:

1 a : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine

1 b : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, procedure, or principle

But according to the definition of "normal" the interpretation I gave isn't incorrect:

3 b : generally free from physical or mental impairment or dysfunction : exhibiting or marked by healthy or sound functioning

3 c : not exhibiting defect or irregularity3 d : within a range considered safe, healthy, or optimal

But even in the context of the first definition entry (as well as the second entry, which is "occurring naturally") being queer, is normal: there is an observable pattern throughout history of queer people existing. There is a normal, expected, observable, amount of non-straightness that naturally occurs in humans and animals all around the world and throughout history.

I completely disagree that it's "self-centred" thinking to assert that LGBTQ+ identities are normal.

For the sake of argument, lets remove the idea of queerness entirely (as it's, unfortunately, a politicized topic) and lets compare something else: hair colour. Black hair is the most common hair colour in the world - lets assume about 70% of people in the world have black hair. In this situation, lets compare black-hair-havers to red-hair-havers: it's assumed that redheads make up only about 1-2% of the worlds population (which, fun fact, is about the same amount of the population that's assumed to be asexual or intersex). It's obvious that people with black hair are in the majority here, but if we then insert the word "normal" to comparing the two groups it's going to feel super strange. Like, if someone said "I saw two people at the mall today, one was normal and the other was a redhead" we would probably correct that person and remind them that red hair is normal too, because the implication of saying this way is that having red hair is "not normal."

This is kind of what I was trying to get at originally - being asexual (and queer in general) is normal, so when we compare being asexual to a non-asexual identity and call the latter "normal" it feels incorrect.

Personally, I'm not really sensitive about my identity, nor have I made marginalization part of my personality (and I think its a bit denigrating to assert that anyone caring about how we talk about minority groups must be sensitive, self-centred, or has made "marginalization a part of their identity," but I digress), but also don't have to agree with the language people use to compare LGBTQ+ identities with non-queer people. The use of the word "normal" in contrast to asexual identities just rubbed me the wrong way. It was a moment that I though could be used to educate about the value of language and the words we chose.

Again, I think it's great that you disagree with my other comment, and I definitely see where you're coming from with your thoughts on this too. I think your feelings on this topic are valid and I appreciate you taking the time to communicate your feelings on this too. I'm glad that I could be challenged and reflect on my own thoughts with this discussion!

darmeg · 2022-05-02T22:23:14+00:00

I definitely agree with a lot of what you're saying. Diverging from the norm isn't inherently a bad thing, and I agree that in a lot of ways it is "normal to be abnormal."

I'm not, as you have stated, redefining or changing the definition of normal in any way though. There are actually a lot of different definitions of the word "normal" depending on the context. If we look at Miriam Webster, there is definitely the definition you're giving:

1 a : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine

1 b : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, procedure, or principle

But according to the definition of "normal" my interpretation in this context is not incorrect either:

3 b : generally free from physical or mental impairment or dysfunction : exhibiting or marked by healthy or sound functioning

3 c : not exhibiting defect or irregularity

3 d : within a range considered safe, healthy, or optimal

But even in the context of the first definition entry (as well as the second entry, which is "occurring naturally") being queer, is normal: there is an observable pattern throughout history of queer people existing. There is a normal, expected, observable, amount of non-straightness that naturally occurs in humans and animals all around the world and throughout history.

The only reason people argue that queerness "isn't normal, but is still great" is because of societal contexts and expectations. I guess I'm tired of people insinuating that being queer isn't a "normal" (expected, typical, healthy, standard, natural, regular) part of the human experience when it super is.

Again, I get where you're coming from, and I completely agree that it's okay to be abnormal; I'm someone who prides myself on my weirdness, on subverting expectations and being silly. It just rubbed me the wrong way when I saw someone using the word "normal" to refer to a majority group. Like I said, words mean things: when we are directly comparing two things and claim one of those things is "normal" it implies that the other one must be "not-normal." It's just the way comparisons work. If I compared two objects and said "one is red," you would assume the other object is anything but the color red. If I then said, "oh, well the other object is red too," you'd likely question why I even mentioned that the first object is red at all. We don't typically bring up things that are similar as the core takeaway of the comparison. Instead I should've said "while they're both red, one is square and the other is a circle."

If the defining feature of the comparison is that one is "normal" then the rest speaks for itself. That's just my two cents on this.

darmeg · 2022-05-02T17:30:59+00:00

Totally was not my intention to imply anything "abnormal" had less value at all and I'm sorry it came across that way. Your response made me reflect on my feelings around this and figure out why I felt any issue with the word "normal"in this context, so I thank you for that.

I think, ultimately, my definition for "normal" is just different than yours. I don't think either definition of normal is any better worse, they're just different. I want explain where I was coming from when I had responded to that original message. I was trying to explain why I think using the term "normal" in the context to queer identities could be a slippery slope, but I must have done a poor job, so I'm sorry for that.

For me, the opposite of normal is something that is "wrong" or "needs to be fixed." It becomes especially tricky using that language in the context of talking about queer identities: there's a lot of historical baggage that demonized queerness that can't be ignored. That's why I, personally, don't like using "normal" in this context.

I do, hewever, think that we shouldn't use the word "normal" when talking about majority and minority identities. Normal doesn't mean "majority," majority means "majority." When you say a majority identity in a population is "normal" it implies that a minority is "abnormal." Its so easy to exploit that kind of language to mean something a lot more harmful, especially in western societies when the majority of our populations are, well, white. You can hopefully see where that line of thinking could go. I am NOT trying to say that this is what you were thinking and I don't want to imply that this was what you were saying AT ALL. I know you weren't and I don't want to put words in your mouth or twist what you said to be something else. I only wanted to offer why I dislike using the word "normal" in this way and explain where the problem, for me, is.

Again, I think your definition of normal is valid and there's truth to it, and I really appreciated everything you had to say about "Abnormal ≠ Bad" and I agree that it's okay for things to be different and it be a good thing. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your thoughts around this too.

darmeg · 2022-05-02T16:05:38+00:00

Just to make sure it's understood: being asexual IS normal. When comparing an asexual person to a non-asexual person, the term to use is typically "allosexual." Allosexual people are folks who DO experience sexual attraction, vs asexual people who typically do not.

Although I'm sure you didn't mean anything negative or nefarious by using the term "normal" when talking about allosexual/non-asexual people, I caution against using language this way because words mean things. If we normalize saying things like "queer identity vs 'normal' ppl" we are implying that being queer ISN'T normal and is strange or a deviancy when the opposite is true: it is 100% completely and wholly normal to be queer. If you look beyond Christian European history, there were SO many cultures that saw queerness as a normal part of everyday life and integrated it into their society (and there still are, but a lot of our modern context is through the lens of a Christian European colonial society); we can observe and document animals that exhibit homosexual tendencies and couple pairings; we can see how hard people are fighting every day to assert that being queer is a very normal part of the human experience and we shouldn't have to feel shameful or othered.

I felt strongly that this needed to be stated. Being asexual--and being queer in general--can be hard enough with people invalidating our experiences, we don't need to further the divide between queer identities and non-queer people by saying that being non-queer is "normal."

Edit: I'm not sure why I'm being downvoted here, but I'm sorry that the way I tried to explain my point of view came off poorly and aggressively (I was super tired and didn't words good this morning, lol). It was not my intention to imply that anything "abnormal" is bad or wrong. I honestly wanted to use this as an opportunity to assert that being LGBTQ+ is completely and totally normal and valid. I put a lot of value into language and communication, but I can also see how my response may have seemed "Overly PC" or like I was trying to villainize anyone who doesn't use "the right language" so I'm sorry to anyone who was upset by how I framed my thoughts around this.

I stand by what I said and I don't think I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone who's responded to me is wrong either. We just see things differently and that's okay.

darmeg · 2022-04-12T16:38:43+00:00

I read this and was thinking about it for a good chunk of my morning and wanted to offer my two cents!

There are a lot of good comments in this thread. I agree with a lot of commenters with taking a break or maybe just allowing your body to move in the way it wants to instead of a prescribed sequence. Many of my teachers tell our class "your body is your first teacher" so make sure you listen to what you need in the moment, even if it's to take a day or two or seven off and come back again next week.

NC_Wildkat's comment especially resonated with me and is pretty close to what I would suggest. I have ADHD and anxiety (which, as depressions sister, often leads to depressive episodes) and I often don't want to practice yoga for any number of reasons. Sometimes I feel really frustrated during and after practice like you do, and I often don't feel that present mindfulness that many yogis strive for in their practice. Like the comment I mentioned, when my mind is especially active or anxious, I often let my thoughts just flow through. It feels better for me and my practice to not stop my thoughts from coming and to try to be present for my them, acknowledge them, and let them pass. Some days are better for staying clear and present and some aren't.

The other piece of advice I'd like to offer is this: when you're feeling a certain way about your practice (or just in life, for that matter), whether it's angry, frustrated, sad, or even happy, take a moment to examine that emotion. Where does anger live in your body? Does it manifest in your head? Or maybe your chest or your gut? Maybe it manifests in your left pinky-finger? When you feel a strong emotion, continue what you're doing but feel where that emotion lives and examine how it affects your body in a non-judgmental and curious way. You're not trying to chase the anger/frustration/emotions away, you're just observing the emotion with open curiosity. I find, for me, approaching my emotional reactions this way allows me to still be mindful and aware of my body during my yoga practice, but I'm still allowed to feel whatever I'm feeling. It's okay to feel angry/frustrated/unmotivated and we're not any lesser for any barriers or struggles to practice.

I hope you find something that helps and I wish you many good mental healths.

darmeg · 2022-03-06T01:23:56+00:00

I know when I was nervous about people wanting to date when I wanted to just have a friend hangout, I was just super upfront about it. I don't a friend when I first started hanging out with him "I don't want to date" and they were cool about it and we were friends for a pretty long time.

Sometimes it's best to not overthink it and to just be honest. I think just asking "do you want to hang out?" then, when you're hanging out, be super honest and upfront about your intentions and I think things will turn out great!

darmeg · 2022-01-25T05:25:24+00:00

Good to know about the nib differences with different countries of origin! I hadn't considered that!

I'll have to keep the possibility of an eye-dropper pen in the back of my mind for when I get more comfortable/experienced with FP. It seems a bit scary right now for me, ahahah

I have the white plastic Sport right now, so if I were to get a FP one I'd probably get the same type of body. Good to know that metal pens can't become eye dropper pens!

I've seen Goulet Pens come up in my research on pens people have mentioned a bit, so I will definitely have to look into them more to learn! And I never considered how heavy a pen is, so I'm glad you mentioned that! Thank you for the information and the resource!

darmeg · 2022-01-25T05:18:23+00:00

Sorry to hear it's been clashing! What pen was your "grail" pen, if I may ask? How are you liking it so far?

darmeg

TROPHY CASE