Prince!xavier On Your Wedding Night Hiding From Duties. Cs The Only Duty He Has Rn Is Pleasing His Wife

I love all the positivity about t4t, but sometimes people make generalizations about trans people only being into other trans people as a while or being down on relationships with cis people, and like. Actually my relationship with my cis bi bf has been incredible and healing and it's been amazing to see the similarities and differences in our struggles. Actually oppression isn't a monolith and in some ways he's faced more oppression than I have even though I'm trans bi and he's cis bi because people are more complicated than simple Oppression Olympics hierarchies. Actually being in a relationship with a cis person has it's own unique struggles and joys that aren't about whether the cis person is supportive. Actually cis partners absolutely can be supportive and loving to trans partners and that's a standard we should hold them to. Actually good cis queer men are a beloved part of my community

Like, I'm not going to comment on anyone's post because I realize a lot of people are just trying clumsily to be positive about something that's been helpful for them and to share their experiences. But you don't speak for me.

The rise in the popularity of Love and Deepspace (which, for brevity, I’ll be abbreviating to LADS) is incredibly interesting to me, particularly when we analyse it in conjunction with broad social trends within dating and relationships. I think that the uptick in AI Companionship and how women engage with it reflects a deeper set of issues pervading relationships and intimacy with women who experience attraction to men. Moreover, I think that this does speak to a generalised divestment - or, at the very least, re-examining - from previous views and approaches to heterosexual relationships. Personally, I believe that this is developing as a reaction to the broader uptick in misogyny.

While LADS is often dismissed as simply a ‘Gooner Game’ - that is, essentially, pornography for women - I think that such a dismissal is both inaccurate in terms of the game’s content as well as the motives and draw experience by its playerbase. It’s not entirely incorrect to point out that, yes, there is a degree of suggestive content in the game, particularly in the dating/relationship sides of the game, but LADS is much deeper than that. The game presents a self-directed approach to players: players interested in the story and universe of LADS can focus on that, whereas those players who wish to prioritise the ‘dating simulator’ aspects of the game are free to do so - while the dating aspect is, admittedly, much of the draw, presenting it as solely a dating game is, really, quite inaccurate.

Moreover, I think the way such a criticism is levelled is far more telling about the critics than the players; fundamentally, it suggests a refusal to engage with the game by simply writing it off as nothing more than just simple fluff met to titillate touch-starved players. Plus, the fact that this criticism has been, broadly, made by men is rather revealing. Firstly, it’s quite telling that a game that heavily targets, and is played primarily by, women receives these critiques, whereas arguably far more ‘explicit’ games that target men do not - or at least not from these same critics. Secondly, I think it’s rather telling that a game where the Love Interests are primarily approaching the player/main character through a lens of respectful attraction receives such heavy criticism from men.

But what truly fascinates me is the draw of LADS; as previously mentioned, I think that LADS represents a sort of ‘Heterosexual Idealism’ - that is, the idea of a heterosexual relationship where the man genuinely loves, respects, and cares for his girlfriend. And I think this speaks to a broader trend in society; we see more and more women turning to these types of ‘escapist’ content - such as LADS, CharacterAI, Dark Romance, and similar content - that, arguably, fulfills this Heterosexual idealism in response to the resurgence of misogyny in society, particularly in terms of dating.

To put it bluntly, as more and more men demonstrate themselves to be incapable of being a proper partner - often reacting with blatant misogyny when called out for such failings - I think we’ve seen a growing divestment from women. Relationships with men can be perilious, toxic, traumatising, and, unfortunately, too-often abusive. Naturally, it’s understandable that many women would choose to simply refocus their time and decentre men from their lives.

And this is where LADS comes in. LADS, and AI Boyfriends broadly, offers a sense of fulfillment for this desire for emotional intimacy with men while often avoiding the pitfalls that come with it. Women don’t have to worry about Xavier, Zayne, Rafayel, Sylus, nor Caleb abusing them, manipulating them, cheating on them, or anything else - they represent a simultaneously wish fulfillment of Heterosexual Idealism while also highlighting how, truly, low the bar is. Really, do the LADS boys truly represent an unattainable ideal, or do they simply represent the idea of a man who consistently goes above the bare minimum? It wouldn’t be impossible for a man to be what LADS players desire - sensitive, kind, emotionally intelligent, respectful, and supportive - it’d simply require consistent effort. But such a request is too often met with anger, resentment, mockery, or dismissal.

Which creates the question: if an AI Boyfriend can offer a sufficient simulacra of a relationship beyond what many men are willing to do, is it worth it? Is it worth letting oneself be wooed by the digital embrace of Artificial Intelligence?

It seems many women have, to some extent, answered yes.

But from this comes another question: how do we bridge the human desire for physical intimacy with the intangibility of AI? Currently, while AI has made admittedly shocking strides in advancement in terms of communication ability, memory, and realism, it is still bound by the limitations of the black mirror of computer screens.

when the tech guy fucks you:

"kitten! get ready for daddy's data transfer!"

literally Xavier and he's proud 😌

TME and TMA as intersexist terms: as written by an intersex transfem

I’ve had a few different people in my inbox asking me why I view these terms the way I do. In particular, why I claim it’s intersexist. So, I thought I’d lay out a few examples, so everyone can understand where I’m coming from.

Imagine an intersex woman. She was assigned female at birth by her doctors, and was able to go about her childhood as a woman with no inclination that anything was amiss. Sure, she didn’t experience certain parts of puberty, but puberty was different for everyone, right?

But, later in life, she learns she has Turner syndrome. This is an intersex condition where a woman has only one X chromosome, rather than the usual two.

Soon after she learns this, she finds that laws are being made to attempt to keep trans women out of women’s spaces (often specifically sports) which use chromosomes as a defining factor of womanhood.

Would this intersex person be considered “transmisogyny affected”? She has been raised as a cisgender woman with no problems regarding being ‘clocked’, but she is also a direct target of transmisogynistic laws. She lies in a gray area.

Now, let’s go to another intersex person. Imagine an intersex man with PAIS. AIS is an intersex condition where babies are born with testes and XY chromosomes, but their body is immune to or can’t respond to androgens (which includes testosterone). Intersex people with partial AIS (PAIS) often develop a vulva and clitoris during puberty.

This intersex person identifies as a man, and he was assigned male at birth. However, his body does not produce testosterone, and he went through a feminizing puberty. To the average eye, he appears to be a woman now because of this.

Would this intersex person be considered “transmisogyny affected?” He was assigned male at birth, and now appears to be a woman, much like many transfems. However, if many saw how he looks now, stating that he is a male, they would probably clock him as transmasc. He was raised as a boy until puberty, and then faced astrozcization from his peers when he began a puberty that feminized him. What he was facing was a form of intersexism where transmisogyny was playing a huge part. Does his childhood matter? Can one become TME over time, when they were TMA as a child? Again, he lies in a gray area, where the answer is not quite so simple.

What about the “opposite”, per se — an intersex woman who had a masculinizing puberty? She has aromatase deficiency, which means that many ‘male’ hormones (which would usually be converted to ‘female’ hormones) would remain unconverted. She identifies as a woman, and was identified as a female at birth and was raised, until puberty, as a female. But now, she would be clocked as a trans woman upon looking at her. What does that make her? Is it different from the previous example? How and why? This intersex person also lies in a gray area. How she should be described with these terms is not clear.

And keep in mind, these are all relatively simple examples. All of the examples I listed self-identify as cisgender. But there are intersex people who are trans in any direction you can imagine.

If that last example identified as a trans woman, because she is now clocked as one, would you be able to say she’s wrong for that? What about if she identified as transmasculine, because of her experience with puberty? What if she’s multigender, bigender or genderfluid, and says she’s both transmasc and transfem because of her complicated experiences? Would that make her a TMA transmasculine person? But I thought that transmascs were all TME? That’s how it’s so often framed, anyway.

The reason why these questions are so difficult to answer is because these terms were not made with intersex people in mind. Very real intersex transfems were pushed to the wayside in favor of centering the perisex view of transgenderism. Intersex people are nothing but an inconvenient little afterthought, annoying perisex people with their demand for “inclusion” and “consideration”. (As per usual.)

You cannot simply make a new gender binary and say, “No, really, this time everyone fits into these two categories! Forcing people to confine themselves to these two rigid labels which are shown as opposites, and as never interacting, will definitely include everyone this time!!” No matter what the contents of the new binary is, it’s not going to work, because sex and gender alike are too complicated for that. There will always be people in the gray area.

This isn’t even getting into the fact that these terms, for all intents and purposes, seem to have been popularized by and associated with the Baeddelism movement around 2017, which was essentially “Radical Feminism 2: We’re Trans Women, So It’s Fine!” This movement is known for chronic villainization of trans men and non-binary people who aren’t transfem. (They act like this with cis people too, but noticeably less so than they do with non-transfem trans people. How curious.) Think along the lines of how regular radfems treat all men (and who they deem to be men) as inherently morally disgusting scum who deserve to be attacked.

Methinks that maybe these terms aren’t the neutral, fact-based descriptors of oppression that many people nowadays tout them to be, considering that.

So, yeah. “Transmisogyny exempt” and “transmisogyny affected” as terms: not even once. Listen to intersex people, stop trying to make sex and gender into binaries, and for the love of God, stop drinking the queer seperationist koolaid!

see, the thing about Palestine that confuses me is why does it matter if it meets the 'definition' of genocide? like, is the fact that literal children are being slaughtered en masse insufficient?

what's always baffled me about zionists is that, like, even if we humour the idea that israel is wholly in the right here (as in defending themselves), do the war crimes not bother them?

like, i don't get how anyone can look at something like bombing a refugee camp and not feel bothered by this. even if you truly believe that israel is the victim here, how can you justify actions this horrific?

especially because there isn't even plausible deniability here, like israel is basically celebrating and sharing evidence of this, so it's like you have clear proof of crimes against humanity being committed, and you're just like "yeah ends justify the means" then????

(and, if it's not obvious, i fully support Palestine)

People with POTS be passing out during sex and there isn't even any choking going on

happy autism awareness day to all the girls who had “ friends” growing up who were actually bullying them . to the girls who always sat alone in the grass and wondered why nobody wanted to talk . to the girls who spoke to animals like they were listening . to the girls who created a little world in their room . to the girls who always felt ashamed for how deeply they love things and how passionately they enjoyed media . to the girls who covered their ears when they were overwhelmed by everything . to the girls who carrying a special thing around to feel safe . to the girls who never understood what they did wrong to feel so lonely . to the girls who were diagnosed later in life because they weren’t little boys who liked trains. you are so special and beautiful and you’re not worse for it, you love deeply and that is so wonderful please never try to push that down . I LOVE YOU !!!!!

Xavier!core includes…

the homely scent of freshly done laundry

hot chocolate so scorching it burns the very tip of your tongue

paw prints on fresh snow

vintage piano that is just a bit out of tune

lazy handwriting turning beautiful on accident

rustling of baking sheet paper

the flutter of someone else’s eyelashes on your cheeks

one half of a corny friendship keychain

getting water sprinkled on your face as if you were a rare plant in need of urgent care

gentle wind messing up your bangs

places far away from the city, where you can see the stars clearly

old splatters of tea on the pages of your favourite book

the grounding coldness of polished stone under your palm

handmade bead bracelets

romanticising the mundane

btw, shoutout to disabled people who don’t do everything right.

to disabled people who knowingly do things that will make their condition (temporarily or permanently) worse.

to disabled people who aren’t the ‘perfect’ disabled person that does everything possible.

to disabled people who refuse to push themselves too hard or try to live up to able-bodied standards, and to disabled people who (knowingly or not) push themselves too hard and suffer because of it.

able-bodied people seem to struggle with the idea that disabled people can do whatever they want with their bodies. they seem to think disabled people should be doing what’s best for them 24/7, and should never do “bad/wrong” things.

disabled people deserve respect and autonomy, always.