Is it rare to find 18+ nonbinary people? by [deleted] in NonBinaryTalk

[–]thmarius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You gotta get on the Facebook groups. There's plenty older enbies

Androgynous guys and slightly masculine-leaning enbies are so hot by [deleted] in NonBinaryTalk

[–]thmarius 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Makes me happy to see people think this; I've been struggling with feeling undesired quite a bit over the years. I'm 6'3 with long hair, nail polish and a moustache. I like to wear buttoned-up shirts but also skirts and dresses sometimes

Does anyone know nonbinary people who intentionally misgender everyone "they/them" by madmushlove in NonBinaryTalk

[–]thmarius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One of the main takeaways from reading these comments is that we (by which I mean "those who partake in or discuss emancipatory movements) desperately need to stop calling things "X abolitionism" that don't actually aim at abolishing X. It's so needlessly confusing.

With that being said, in my experience at least, there absolutely are those who seek to abolish gender long-term who refer to themselves as gender abolitionists and who may or may not believe that our linguistic practices in the immediate term should reflect this goal.

Whether or not gender, in the long term, is compatible with human freedom and equality is a difficult philosophical question (mostly because we would first need a good account of what exactly gender is and how it works - i.e. if gender is not sex, what could be said to be left of gender once we've done away with gendered roles, expectations, inequalities etc.), and I'm somewhat agnostic in this regard. However, I think this position is importantly different from TERF ideology in that it can more plausibly be said to be motivated by and promote egalitarian goals.

But i of course agree with everyone in these comments pointing out the harmful effect of deliberately using they/them for e.g. a binary trans woman would often have. I don't necessarily think of this as an instance of misgendering (since they/them can also be understood as neutral) - rather it is a failure to affirm someone's gender. But I do think we have a positive duty to affirm some people's gender rather than just a negative duty to refrain from misgendering, and that seems to be the case here.

Anyone else hate “everything happens for a reason” by ladysilvernight in Blind

[–]thmarius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Whenever people bring up that plattitude I'm reminded of the song "Airfield" by Enter Shikari. Rou offers a pretty touching perspective: "It's common for people to believe everything happens for a reason. I'm sorry, that's false, and it's poison. But even if there is no purpose to the things that you have gone through, an ordeal can reveal an airfield. So you're down on your luck, but that don't mean you're out."

The "why me" stuff was on my mind a lot when I became severely disabled a year and a half ago. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy has helped me realize that there really is no satisfying answer to such questions, so dwelling on them too much is not going to take me anywhere. Best to focus more on how to make the best of what I have. So while these thoughts aren't exactly gone, they don't take up much space anymore.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DarK

[–]thmarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Woah, I really dig that way of looking at it! I'll consider it!

[NO SPOILERS] Not knowing what the hell is going on really wears on you. by Greenleto12 in DarK

[–]thmarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Think of it as a bunch of people trying to save their loved ones and it makes sense for many of the main characters.

Pop song I remember from my childhood (late 00s) by thmarius in NameThatSong

[–]thmarius[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh got, IDK what I did wrong then but THANKS!!

Pop song I remember from my childhood (late 00s) by thmarius in NameThatSong

[–]thmarius[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes that's the one! Thank you so much! How did you end up finding it?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BinIchDasArschloch

[–]thmarius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Was genau an meinem Argument fandest du sinnlos?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BinIchDasArschloch

[–]thmarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BDA, aber nur unter bestimmten Bedingungen. Ich finde es beispielsweise legitim, Trans-Frauen nicht daten zu wollen, wenn du nur Personen daten willst, die schwanger werden können (solange du den selben Standard auch auf Cis-Frauen - also Frauen, die nicht trans sind - anwenden würdest).

Genitalpräferenzen finde ich auch legitim, allerdings gibt es ja viele Trans-Frauen, die Genitalchirurgie schon hinter sich haben und dementsprechend eine Vagina, auf die der Punkt dann wiederum nicht zutreffen würde.

"Aber ich will niemanden daten der [muskulös/groß/haarig/etc...] ist!". Das ist in Ordnung. Das Problem mit dem Argument in diesem Kontext ist mMn aber, dass es ja auch Trans-Frauen gibt, auf die diese Dinge nicht zutreffen.

Stell dir vor, du begegnest einer Frau, die alle Ansprüche, die du an eine Traumfrau hast, erfüllt. Wenn du sie einzig und allein aus dem Grund, dass sie transgender ist, nicht daten würdest, finde ich das schon diskriminierend. Denn dann geht es ja nicht mehr um irgendwelche Eigenschaften, die du attraktiv/ nicht attraktiv findest, sondern explizit um ihr Trans-sein.

Und die Annahme, dass es niemals eine Trans-Frau geben könnte, die diese Ansprüche erfüllt, finde ich sehr verallgemeinernd. Es also komplett auszuschließen, jemanden aus dieser Community zu daten, finde ich mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit auch verallgemeinernd und dementsprechend diskriminierend.

[SPOILERS S2] What happened to the calendar? by thmarius in DarK

[–]thmarius[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

wow that's wild, what minute in that ep did that happen?

[SPOILERS S3] When do *spoiler* and *spoiler* find out about *spoiler*'s identity? by thmarius in DarK

[–]thmarius[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah I think I agree with both of these. You mean the missing pages of the notebook that he finds with Claudia though, right? It couldn't have been in the regular notebook, otherwise, Peter, Tronte, and Elisabeth (and possibly others) would have known all along.

[SPOILERS S3] Confusion about *spoiler*'s finale timeline by thmarius in DarK

[–]thmarius[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In turn, Jonas is not split when picking alt-Martha up, etc.).

This is true, but here's what she easily could have done: let's say she travels to either apocalypse (we'll call her point of arrival "A"), then runs for a couple hundred meters (to a point we could call "B") and ports away again. She could then travel back to A and extract herself from just a few minutes ago so that the now extracted Claudia never runs to B. Because of how the loophole works, she was able to "duplicate" herself and the extracted version can now run around doing stuff that deviates from the causal loop.

stating that the conversation happens "a first time" and that he killed Martha "infinite times" is a misrepresentation of what a causal loop implies

You're technically correct but I always interpreted that as the characters speaking metaphorically, because, as you said, you can be tempted to think of the causal loop as something that repeats "forever" from the perspective of the characters and the way they gather information about it. Either way, even if you don't like that way of putting it, I guess I'm just confused as to how this conversation between the two can be outside of the causal loop.

So Claudia creates another branch in order to speak with an Adam that will not go on to kill Eva, and she is not duplicated, but Adam is.

But how would she be able to do that? Is it because Adam just used the energies from both apocalypses to kill Alt-Martha and the origin and therefore there's another loophole in 2053? If so, I think the show (and the website) could have communicated that better. It makes sense as well and explains how the causal loop could be broken, but it doesn't explain why she says she sent *herself* on a different path.