“Stigmata” is just the plural form of “stigma” are you fucking kidding me
Also a singular “spermatozoa” is a “spermatozoon”
Today we learned that “banal” is not pronounced how we thought it was, and we’re mad about it.
(Source: miseriathome)
idk, maybe heritage > herstory?
(Source: miseriathome)
(Source: miseriathome)
Do you ever think about words like… mash and smash. And mash and mush.
……..and smush.
(Source: miseriathome)
Had a thought about a thing, went “man, that’s essentialist,” remembered anti-essentialism is a word and a concept, realized it’s the damn concept I’ve needed for the past couple of days
(Source: miseriathome)
I was writing a ridiculously long response to a post that I saw on my dash and then I realized that the only thing that was really bothering me was that somebody was trying to define a word more precisely and the precision was based on vague concepts and I just get really irritated when people want cut-and-dry definitions for things so they can point to those definitions as an easy discourse gotcha rather than recognizing that word definition formation is a dialectical process and that not all words are actually as deep or meaningful as some people think they are and words that arose in “common sense” circumstances don’t need to have their existing definitions whittled down to a point just because we’re finally in a place where we can question the nature of “common sense” logic and just
like
it’s not the end of the world if words exist for things that are relevant in discussions of oppression but don’t have to intrinsically relate to the concept of oppression or the oppressed status of people in the vicinity of where that language is used.
If you’re trying to create a set of precise criteria for something and it relies on oppressed or oppressor status being distinct and mutually exclusive (even if it’s on a single axis), you’re literally not creating precision and idk what to tell you except that I have anxiety
(via miseriathome)
I was writing a ridiculously long response to a post that I saw on my dash and then I realized that the only thing that was really bothering me was that somebody was trying to define a word more precisely and the precision was based on vague concepts and I just get really irritated when people want cut-and-dry definitions for things so they can point to those definitions as an easy discourse gotcha rather than recognizing that word definition formation is a dialectical process and that not all words are actually as deep or meaningful as some people think they are and words that arose in “common sense” circumstances don’t need to have their existing definitions whittled down to a point just because we’re finally in a place where we can question the nature of “common sense” logic and just
like
it’s not the end of the world if words exist for things that are relevant in discussions of oppression but don’t have to intrinsically relate to the concept of oppression or the oppressed status of people in the vicinity of where that language is used.
(Source: miseriathome)
The word “sexuality” functions as both a countable and an uncountable noun, and acting like one usage is really the other when you have ample context to tell you otherwise is irresponsible and harmful to the development of worthwhile conversations that need to be fucking had.
(via miseriathome)
In case anyone was wondering, my personal definition of adventure is going somewhere, spending a few dollars, and ending up slightly happier.
(Source: miseriathome)
“non-op” is so much more wholesome of a phrase than “pre-op”
Okay, I mean I guess “pre-op” is like more inspiring for people who do want and/or intend to get gender affirmation procedures. But truscum and transmedicalists are the worst kind of scum and I feel like “non-op” includes people with intentions to be post-op at some point as well as people who never want that.
I understand why you feel that way I think, but I really appreciate non-op as a differentiated phrase for people who do not intend to or want to pursue medical transition? I feel like that’s a different sentiment, and merging it’s meaning with pre-op diminishes the effect that it has of declaring that medical transition (or the desire for it) is not imperative to be legitimate.
Like, that’s why it became a phrase in the first place I imagine. When I say I’m non-op or non-transitioning, I don’t want “so are you going to transition?” to still be a question.
That’s definitely fair. I was thinking about how there needs to be more positivity for non-transitioned bodies and I saw the word “non-op,” so that’s where my mind went. But in light of truscum and transmedicalists and whatnot, it is also important to recognize the differences between non-transition that is by choice or not.
Not really an important observation, but an observation I’m kind of proud of:
Nihilism: Everything is meaningless
Social theory: Meaning is embedded into every/thing(s)
The concert of “meaning” is not expressed the same way in these two sentences; ie these “meaning”’s have different meanings
(Source: miseriathome)
Apparently some people have been saying not to use nb anymore… Which is pretty new to me. So I’ll probably avoid it unless it’s agreed upon that one can use it. I’m not fully sure if it’s something largely agreed upon or not, but I can see why people want it to be avoided, though I have no opinion myself besides that I go by what people want.
Ok first of all that’s ridiculous (and the first I’ve heard of it) and it’s probably truscum gearing up again. Just keep using the word and ignore it.
I know I saw a couple people discussing it. They were saying that, because it literally just means “not binary,” it’s just an “other” label for not-binary people, imposed by binary people. And basically the binary/not-binary binary was in and of itself enforcing the gender binary by making a distinction between “this is proper binary” and “this is improper, so we’re going to label it as not us.” There was also stuff about imperialism’s role in that, and how calling genders native to non-Western cultures non-binary supports the idea that the Western binary is some kind of correct. Plus something about the sanitation and sort of scientification of what used to be known as genderqueer.
I understand the argument and I think there’s some validity to it, but I think non-binary is a useful umbrella term and I also like it above all else as a self-identifier… so at a certain point, how can you rally for people not to use it when some of them want to and it also literally just means “not binary” at face value (which is a collection of phenomena we otherwise can’t describe, since not all nb people are genderqueer, see non-Western culture argument).
Also the people I saw talking about it weren’t truscum, although I’m sure there are plenty of truscum arguing not to use it, too.
In general, I just think naming things definitionally is great. Like “sexual minorities” just means minorities in the realm of sex.
I saw this thread once where a bunch of people were saying how they didn’t like the word “non-binary” because it literally just means “not binary” and I just?? Yeah? That’s the point? It’s true to the fact? Which is great?
Which is obviously just a personal preference, but also, like. Why would you need all these euphemisms for things when you could avoid all the drama and stress and anxiety associated with ambiguities and convey tangible thoughts instead.
(Source: miseriahome)
… Why do people keep failing to use Male Gaze properly? It’s not a social force, it’s not something individual people can have, it’s an aspect of media. Concepts of Gaze can only apply to media analysis and criticism, and it’s not really a useful term in any other context, as we already have terms for predatory and objectifying behavior that’s not the viewpoint of a piece of media reflecting the presumed interests and attitudes of the viewer.
(via golbatgender)
