cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/36560405
rule
One of you geoguessers figure out where this is!
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2026
238 points (97.6% liked)
196
5960 readers
247 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Erskineville, Sydney, Australia
It was quite easy to find it, she shared where she lived in a PHD and then with reverse image search i found similiar images and selected the ones in Sydney, I have come to the conclusion that it should be in that area.
Brb, going for a drive.
Always weird seeing a meme on truscum 196 but I'm glad there's variety, even if I don't agree with y'all's opinions on which trans people are allowed to be valid
I’m not sure what you’re talking about I support all trans people’s and all other people’s rights
I'm talking about old PugJesus drama. Guy got banned from Blahaj and started hard pushing this community because he didn't like Blahaj's rules about all trans people being valid
Was that in relation to that dragon drama?
Yeah, he thought dragongender people aren't valid
Dragonrider was a troll. Don't shed any tears for them.
Yeah, I know, and PugJesus fed the troll. He did exactly what drag wanted, he told everyone there were limits to his acceptance. He made the trans community feel unsafe, because some of them genuinely do have genders like drag's. Ada did the right thing, she banned anyone who thought it was okay to invalidate trans people, the trolling didn't work on her. But it worked on Pug, he changed his values, and now the community doesn't trust him to be their ally.
Yeah, I know, and PugJesus fed the troll. He did exactly what drag wanted, he told everyone there were limits to his acceptance.
I hope you're accepting of dogfuckergender too.
He made the trans community feel unsafe, because some of them genuinely do have genders like drag’s.
Lord.
But it worked on Pug, he changed his values, and now the community doesn’t trust him to be their ally.
I've never believed in dragons. Not even as a kid! Yes, shocking.
And I've long defended the trans community against conservative canards like "I identify as an attack helicopter"; an old canard that Drag commented on positively.
At some point, you, as an individual, apparently, decided conservative arguments, rather than being ridiculous slander, were something to aspire to. I'm sorry that you lost your way.
I hope you're accepting of dogfuckergender too.
If you're talking real dogs, no, those can't consent. If you're talking puppygirls, yes, obviously.
And I've long defended the trans community against conservative canards like "I identify as an attack helicopter"; an old canard that Drag commented on positively.
Speaking of consent, did the trans people around you ask you to do that in the way you did it, or did they tell you to stop because you were making them uncomfortable?
Trans people see you as a white knight who wants to "protect" people you won't listen to. Who applies your limited cisgender worldview to their lives against their will. "Father knows best", it's abusive. You need to have more trust in other people to define their own experiences.
If you’re talking real dogs, no, those can’t consent. If you’re talking puppygirls, yes, obviously.
Not puppygirls, doggender. Are you denigrating the dogness of doggender individuals? Are you saying they can't be dogs?
Speaking of consent, did the trans people around you ask you to do that in the way you did it, or did they tell you to stop because you were making them uncomfortable?
I can honestly say that I've pushed back against the attack helicopter canard around trans folk and not once been told to stop or had it implied that it was unwelcome before coming to Lemmy. I started pushing back against it in the late 2000s precisely because trans folk were fighting it. Furthermore, the attack helicopter canard is widely accepted as a conservative attack of the 'one joke' variety, and has long been unwelcome in mainstream LGBT spaces.
Trans people see you as a white knight who wants to “protect” people you won’t listen to. Who applies your limited cisgender worldview to their lives against their will. “Father knows best”, it’s abusive. You need to have more trust in other people to define their own experiences.
Fucking what.
Opposing conservative canards is now white knighting and abusive.
Are you fucking kidding me.
Is your only objection to the litterboxes in schools myth that it's not true?
Are you denigrating the dogness of doggender individuals? Are you saying they can't be dogs?
If a dog's nonsapience is part of their gender, and anyone pursues a sexual relationship with that dog, then I'm calling that bestiality and urging them to stop, as we're getting into rape territory. Believe it or not, I've been in a similar situation before. However, most dogs don't consider intelligence part of their identity to the degree that they reject sapience.
And as to your question, if I were a school principal and a student suffered from species dysphoria that a litterbox would relieve, I would provide that student with a litterbox (in the bathroom, not in the classroom) so long as that student or their family/carer took responsibility for keeping it clean.
Now I urge you to read at least the Research section of this Wikipedia article so you can be acquainted with the science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherkin
If a dog’s nonsapience is part of their gender, and anyone pursues a sexual relationship with that dog, then I’m calling that bestiality and urging them to stop, as we’re getting into rape territory. Believe it or not, I’ve been in a similar situation before. However, most dogs don’t consider intelligence part of their identity to the degree that they reject sapience.
So you're saying that they're effectively not dogs in some deep and essential way?
And as to your question, if I were a school principal and a student suffered from species dysphoria that a litterbox would relieve, I would provide that student with a litterbox (in the bathroom, not in the classroom) so long as that student or their family/carer took responsibility for keeping it clean.
Fucking Christ.
Now I urge you to read at least the Research section of this Wikipedia article so you can be acquainted with the science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherkin
This is the totality of the 'research' section of wiki:
Daniell Kirby wrote the first academic paper on otherkin in 2008, which served to introduce the community to other academics.[14] Kirby described otherkin as sharing ideas with the neopagan movement, however she called this an "interim classification", and warned that "to construe this group as specifically neo-pagan or techno-pagan obscures the focus of the participants".[14] Subsequent research has treated the otherkin community as having an essentially religious character.[23][16][30][31]
From 2016 onwards, otherkin research has taken more of a narrative identity approach, investigating how otherkin come to understand their experiences.[32][21][4] Reviewing prior research, Stephanie C. Shea criticizes the prevailing conception of the otherkin subculture as being, or being alike to, either a religion or a spirituality.[33]
In four surveys of furries (with a sample size of 4338, 1761, 951 and 1065 respectively), depending on the sample, between 25% and 44% responded that they consider themselves to be "less than 100% human", compared to 7% of a sample of 802 non-furries surveyed at furry conventions.[34]
What am I supposed to glean from this that I didn't already know?
Fuck's sake. Next you'll start talking about your tulpa.
So you’re saying that they’re effectively not dogs in some deep and essential way?
No, intelligence is not necessarily essential to dogness, just as whiteness is not essential to swans.
What am I supposed to glean from this that I didn’t already know?
Otherkin are a recognised social phenomenon to which scientists assign some legitimacy. But okay, you want more direct proof that scientists think these identities are genuine and worth valuing, here it is:
Otherkin science is conceived, constructed, deployed, and enforced by a lay group that, for all intents and purposes, appears to ignore central scientific tenets in their very self-definition. I argue here that, in fact, they take great pains to employ scientific knowledge in a rational and systematic way to explain their other-than-human identification. In doing so, they seek to mitigate the tension between their Cartesian epistemological frameworks of empirical science and their animistic ontological perception of other-than-humanness: the dissonance caused when what they know conflicts with what they experience.
Next you’ll start talking about your tulpa.
That term is culturally appropriated, "parogen" is the more respectful term for the online phenomenon.
No, intelligence is not necessarily essential to dogness, just as whiteness is not essential to swans.
Says who? Are you speaking for all doggender folks now? And swangenders as well?
Otherkin are a recognised social phenomenon to which scientists assign some legitimacy. But okay, you want more direct proof that scientists think these identities are genuine and worth valuing, here it is:
Jesus Christ. That paper isn't talking about what you think it is. It's discussing the use of scientific terminology and thinking in online groups of 'otherkin', and how they use it to attempt to fashion and validate their identity. It's no more saying that the identity is 'genuine and worth valuing' than a paper discussing how racialists use scientific terminology and thinking in their attempts to fashion and validate their own identity. The paper points out, at several points, that their thinking is not backed up by scientific evidence.
That term is culturally appropriated, “parogen” is the more respectful term for the online phenomenon.
Jesus fucking Christ.
The Otherkin know that current accepted science does not support their other- than-humanness; they also know they experience life as other-than-human beings. These things are both equally true, so they must find ways to reconcile the two if they hope to ever achieve anything like the recognition they see in the LGBTQ+ community.
Dr Proctor believes and states that otherkin are entirely genuine in their experience of themselves as nonhuman. Would you at least agree with the PhD specialising in this area, that otherkin are not lying or trolling?
I never said otherkin were lying or trolling. I don't think people who believe in ghosts are generally lying or trolling either, and that's another area where scientific terminology and thinking is used to justify a belief, but that doesn't fucking mean that I take kindly to the idea that disputing the existence of ghosts is verboten and bigoted.
Very well, my estimation of you has risen. Nonetheless, I still think you should have chosen kindness over pedantry.
As far as I’m concerned what people want to call themselves or be called is not of my business and it costs nothing to do it.
I left Blahaj voluntarily. I even acknowledged at the time that I understood the rationale, but I didn't regard it as suited for me. I wasn't banned until months after I left, having not posted there nor intended to post there, because I said dragons weren't real while on another instance entirely.
If that's the kind of instance administration you want to simp for, be my guest.
This is the fediverse, you're always on every instance that you're not banned or defederated from. People on blahaj saw you say xenogenders are invalid, and they didn't like it. A ban is the way to stop your truscum gatekeeping from being visible to the trans people it affects.
truscum
Truscum is when you don't believe in mythical creatures, I guess.
Here's the thing, though. You don't believe in dragons, okay whatever. But that's not actually a good reason to say what you said, because dragonrider wasn't a dragon. Dragonrider's gender was dragon rider. You had it wrong the entire time. Dragonrider's partner was the dragon.
I think one of the reasons people didn't take you seriously is because you didn't even understand the people you were invalidating. So people perceived you as very low-effort and uninformed, you know?
Here’s the thing, though. You don’t believe in dragons, okay whatever. But that’s not actually a good reason to say what you said, because dragonrider wasn’t a dragon. Dragonrider’s gender was dragon rider. You had it wrong the entire time. Dragonrider’s partner was the dragon.
Yes, a distinction I pointed out at the time, that "dragonfucker" was not a gender because it implied the existence of literal dragons, something I quoted Drag on at several points when people tried to weasel out like you are here.
I never fought with Drag over identity or pronouns. Nor did I say that dragonrider wasn't a dragon. I said, elsewhere, apart from any argument with Drag, that I would and did use Drag's pronouns, but that I didn't believe in dragons, nor in people being mythical creatures - and being in touch with reality, apparently, is a step too far.
I think one of the reasons people didn’t take you seriously is because you didn’t even understand the people you were invalidating. So people perceived you as very low-effort and uninformed, you know?
Oh, what irony.
"dragonfucker" was not a gender because it implied the existence of literal dragons
Why can't a gender be defined by a relationship to something that doesn't exist? To the impossible? Genders are social constructs, and fiction and myth exist in the social. Sex, sure, that needs reality, but why should gender?
Why can’t a gender be defined by a relationship to something that doesn’t exist? To the impossible? Genders are social constructs, and fiction and myth exist in the social.
Gender is not a social construct, gender labels are social constructs. There's a difference. What you're proposing is reducing gender to a favorite word rather than making any attempt to categorize trends in gender identity.
Sex, sure, that needs reality,
If gender doesn't need that reality, why should sex? If someone identifies as the male sex, are you allowed to think they're incorrect under any conditions?
If someone identifies as the male sex, are you allowed to think they're incorrect under any conditions?
I guess not, because that would be tyranny. You've convinced me that sex is a social construct as well as gender.
I guess not, because that would be tyranny. You’ve convinced me that sex is a social construct as well as gender.
Lord.
Are any words allowed to have meaning, or is language itself tyranny?
Why are you complaining? You've won the argument, you successfully pointed out that the consequences of my belief that sex must be based on reality could be disastrous, and thereby changed my mind. I realised that if I ever met a trans person who said their sex was based on something unreal, I wouldn't be so reckless as to contradict them. Thank you for that warning, you've enlightened me.
Why are you complaining? You’ve won the argument,
Are any words allowed to have meaning, or is language itself tyranny?