Let's face reality for a sec here. Lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer (everything else), as well as other marginalized groups such as furries, plurals, anything else (these are the ones I'm familiar with), objectively speaking, all of these stem from disorders.

Before the US political economies wish to rise out of this statement by me - right wing for finally hoping to get that one extra grip on depersonifying those with such conditions and hoping for things to be fixed by forcing everybody to be straight, white men, or "left" wing for matching the trigger words and hoping to cancel me once again (I have another file explaining why woke is just right wing again, but with an additional clown mask on, hence why "left" is in quotes)... fuck all of you both at once.

Because,
- right wing: there is no need to "cure" such 'disorders' in those who do not have a problem with it other than the fact that you openly go ahead and declare that you wish to radically change others' core identities in order to make things "normal" "again". (I will get to why a lot of the groups listed do, in fact, get problems and how these can be properly solved, without forcing a change in what forms the person at their core - which, unfortunately for you, does include keeping the disorder(s) intact.)
- "left" wing: seriously, stop trying to ally with us when you do not understand what we go through. That's right - 'us', 'we'... this file is being typed by an asexual catboy who has a history of being a plural system formed out of traumatic identity fracturing, and continued for fun. You couldn't have possibly guessed that by me calling each of those 'disorders', though. Just quit it. Your attempts at "supporting" us have been nothing short of pathetic, cringeworthy, useless, and actually counterproductive - actual LGBTQ actively refuse to identify with the likes of you, and so do I.

Heck, sometimes you might see "woke" themselves pushing right wing agendas, especially in the plural space where somebody referred to as a 'sysmed' proceeds to lay out the rules for what is an "accepted" type of collective and what is not. On the pluralpedia page for this I also learned about 'transmed's who do the same in the transgender space. Curious, isn't it? Seriously, go fuck yourselves already.


Now that I believe all of the major problematic kinds have been told to have intercourse, it is now time for things to get much, much worse. It is time to lay out facts. Useful knowledge that is highly dangerous to the US economy - understanding will lead to people not spending their brain capacity fighting each other, and they will eventually realize that capitalism has been toying with everybody the entire time (o7 Luigi Mangione).

Anyways, what knowledge we can gain from analyzing individuals with these disorders?

Note how I avoid the term 'suffer', as a bunch of people are, in fact, able to live not only functional, but much better and richer lives than if they were simply straight, white men instead. And it is all thanks to accepting these disorders as simply the way these people function.

My analysis is going to focus on what the 'disorder' even is - what difference there is from the 'normal, intended' functioning of the human body they were born into, what problems (or advantages! - not all side effects are negative) these differences cause in such functionality, what has been attempted to remedy the negative side effects.



# Sexuality
This section covers everything related to sexuality - straight, gay, bi, and any mix of these, even zoo- and pedophiles get a spotlight here.

I do not yet understand how or why certain kinks develop - but the point is, there are specific things that a person grows a sexual attraction to. And if we are able to accept at least some of those, we should be open to accepting all of those without needless prejudice. (I will cover the problematic sexualities later, and note that I am not quoting problematic here - I do believe them to be an issue.) For some reason, I specifically got something for destruction - whether it be giant people doing a little trolling, or ordinary people growing big parts and having an intense experience that will take a while to clean up or recover from afterwards.

Objectively speaking, sexual activity is greatly rewarded inside of the human body (it 'feels good'). This will eventually cause males to bond with females, and produce children, allowing the human race to, y'know, not go extinct.

Homosexuality breaks this intended functionality by assigning the reward of sex to those who they are NOT able to form children with. And, thus, homosexuals are not able to perform their natural purpose to reproduce and create offspring.


If your thoughts are along the lines of 'but we are not in the wild, we live in a civilized society now', you would be correct in assuming what follows next. We have repurposed the 'feels good' reward of going through a sexual experience to form relationships around them instead.

Relatively recently, there is a rise in normalization of 'friends with benefits', who skip the relationship part. I believe (romantic) relationships to be a completely artificial social struct, and do not have a grasp on them - I am aromantic, will not put labels or commitment on anything but willing to provide during a friendship regardless.

My closest friend, I could say partner for the last 3 years believes us to be a romantic couple. I do not wish to identify with an artificial social struct that has zero basis in reality, but all the power to her. (She accepts my stance on this difference between us as well, which probably just comes from a different interpretation of romance in general.)

With that side tangent aside, the point is - we have long ago grown past our roots, our 'nature'. That is the entire point of living in society. The purpose of life is not to just create children anymore - people are able to explore and enjoy themselves during their existence, possibly working towards a greater purpose - or not.

Homosexuality puts a small, barely effective dam over the river of children - these couples, should they wish, will simply resort to adopting children instead, who would otherwise be less likely to even reach a loving family in the first place.

The solution to the problem of sexuality is simple. Every form of sexuality - who they are attracted to, WHAT they are attracted to - is free to just do the thing they love to do with each other, and everybody is happy.



Everybody, except... mainly, zoo- and pedophiles, where the actual complications of sex come up.

Happiness can be achieved - as long as sex isn't used in an exploitative matter. In order to simplify and create a barrier over which absolutely everything is banned, we define sexual consent to only even be possible by a human being at over a certain age (varies depending on jurisdiction, but 18 is a common number).


I will be another one of those to just say it - age is just a number, and does not determine capability to consent by a long shot.

I condemn those who use that statement as an excuse to participate in sexual abuse. Consensual sex can only be had if:
- the partners understand and accept the potential consequences of the sex, including, in person, the possibility of bearing a child, and necessary preventative measures have been taken based on either party's wishes
- the partners understand and are able to exit the encounter at any time, should they be unhappy at any time for any reason (in bondage situations, this includes the immediate release of those being bound, no additional questions asked)

The 'bearing a child' part is the main reason why the age of consent is generally placed at an age a person is considered to be an 'independent adult'.


Online ERP/esex and such bring up a good question - there is no risk of STDs, bearing a child, etc. So should children then be allowed to engage in such activities in the virtual space?

God forbid. Even if there is no risk of creating a child, children are subject to another form of abuse that affects specifically them - emotional abuse, taking advantage of how good the person feels during the experience. A problem in adult relationships as well, but ESPECIALLY bad when involving children, who have less experience with dealing with their feelings. There is no question that everybody who participates in any form of sex, physical or online should be independent adults.


I would like to raise a better definition of 'independent adult' to be used instead (and don't just blindly slap a number on the problem). This should include:
- independent thoughts formed on an individual level, free from (or at least not majorly defined by) propaganda or any other singular source
- the ability to avoid all other forms of abuse, including addictions, etc. (bye bye cigarette industry :troleft:)
- currently living a free life, with no hard dependencies (should be able to survive even if every single loved one suddenly turns against them)
  - Yes this complicates romance - a marriage inherently trusts that the 2 people do not ever turn on each other. Another reason I and many others avoid relationships by a long shot, this trust does not work out in practice, see basically every single divorce that has ever been filed in history.
  (note: it has been noted by the deko that the issue is the commercialization of marriage services, as well as the overhyping of romance in order to drive people into said marriage services; religious marriage, at its core, is not intended to face such issues. we truly live in capitalism and its consequences)
  - This complicates work, but let's just say... if fired for any reason, one should just be able to find better work somewhere else. That's good enough. Ideal is if the person can financially function completely on their own, by selling services themselves. (home growing food/electricity/etc is also an option, but like... there's a reason we have community resources, so people do not have to resort to doing all of that individually :exploding_head:)
  - I could get to government and technical (e.g. Microsoft) dependencies too. If your country decides to crack down on your rights for any reason, can you leave to another one that respects your rights instead? One thing everybody could use is to please switch to Linux on your main PC at least for the love of god. Windows is literally a confirmed REMOTE ACCESS TROJAN, used to benefit the palestinian genocide, and your machine too, is contributing to that at least financially by allowing Microsoft to harvest your data and display sponsorships to you.
  - But at this rate I am just listing a whole bunch of things that could get its own document. Let's just put it simply - if you face any form of peer pressure and are not able to be yourself and think freely, you are NOT an independent adult and you ARE subject to abuse and exploitation. (Peer pressure is a self-defensive desire to conform to ideals that then feels bittersweet to follow - no shit, you are not allowed to be yourself, and you are being forced to be something else, something you are not, by the environment you are in.)

Despite what folks could have initially thought while seeing me apparently begin to support zoo- and pedophilia, from my view this is going to end up INCREASING the (average) age of consent, and reinforce that human-animal 'relationships' should not happen. (Every other use of 'child' in this document, and other documents will be defined as those who do not follow this 'independent adult' definition, and will extend up to even nearly 30 years old Christopher Rios Lillo, creator of B3313).

Heck, if we follow what I've listed in 'living a free life' precisely, citizens of a couple nations will simply be completely excluded from becoming an 'independent adult' ever. Mainly this affects US citizens, and is... rather unfortunate that you have all allowed this to happen to yourselves, to say the least. You are supposed to be the freedom people, damn it. Come on, where are the other Luigis? I thought there were at least 10 of them tucked away in that room... ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o8DJqkCO9M



With all of the above said - is it possible for a person under the age of 18 to reach 'independent adult' status?

Following a major reform of the education system (in order to have it, y'know, actually educate... insanity), and a major reform of society overall, I believe that, eventually, it should indeed be possible. And if so - sure, I will accept that those people under 18 engage in sexual activity.

If people are able to reach maturity at an earlier age, it will not just help the pedophile situation - it will also make society more productive overall! Just imagine if it didn't take fucking FOREVER for you to even be considered a person, let alone get your freedom at last...

But until then (this is an EXTREMELY unlikely scenario to happen, especially under US control that desires the exact opposite of those ideals), pedophiles have a problem. They simply cannot find partners who meet the consent criteria.

And zoophiles are especially fucked, because there is no way, no matter how much society reforming we go through, that the conditions of 'independent adult' will EVER apply to anything that is not able to even form a single self-conscious thought.


As of now, the best next step we can take is to stop cracking down and illegalizing drawn, otherwise harmless depictions (read: not an actual child's nudes being posted on the internet, which makes my blood boil just as much as yours) of these unfortunate people's sexual fantasies.

Cracking down on such content ACTIVELY MAKES THE SITUATION WORSE, by forcing these people to instead seek out actual partners, which then inevitably become victims of sexual abuse, if for no other reason then for 'revenge against society' or such. Let me repeat that: BANNING PEDOPHILE AND ZOOPHILE ART RESULTS IN CREATING ACTUAL SEXUAL ABUSE CASES, AND PUTS CHILDREN AND ANIMALS AT RISK. EVERY SINGLE ENTITY THAT SUPPORTS THE BANNING OF SUCH CONTENT, THEREFORE, BY EXTENSION, ADDITIONALLY WISHES FOR MORE SEXUAL ABUSE TO EXIST ON THE PLANET. Absolutely disgusting behavior - and the worst part? I have genuine reasons to at least 99% confidently believe that THIS IS KNOWN AND INTENDED BY THE RICH CORPORATE CLASS WHO ARE PUSHING FOR THIS CHANGE TO BE RECOMMENDED AND NORMALIZED IN THE FIRST PLACE. We are already aware that the US healthcare system has absolutely no problem outright MURDERING MASSES OF PEOPLE by refusing proper healthcare, something Luigi Mangione has brought public awareness to - what do you think the mental sanity of sexual abuse victims looks like to them?

If you managed to guess that it is more money for the therapy industry - I do not know how much new you are learning from this document.


Speaking of - on bringing pedo- and zoophiles themselves to therapy to 'fix' them or something. It is not possible to reform sexuality through any amount of therapy. Attempting to do so goes to the exact same thing that has been attempted (and failed) against now accepted forms of LGBTQ+ where we now have better methods (simply embracing what the people truly are, at their core).

Zoophiles will have to wait even longer than pedophiles will, as we will have to get to the stage where we are able to genetically apply human levels of intelligence onto animals. The ethical/animal rights concerns this raises are valid on both sides, and I do not care to weigh one way or another. Maybe just try the furry community, for now - they are animals, with human intelligence.

These people are not inherently evil - they simply received an unfortunate sexual kink. They do not exist for the sole purpose of creating trouble. The trouble comes from how society treats them - we are the ones who escalated and started the fight in the first place. It can be mitigated through providing otherwise harmless, drawn pornography to distract them whenever they feel horny, and to have them mask as asexuals otherwise. It will take FOREVER (see above) for their sexual fantasies to be able to be acted out.

But hey, if somebody's reading this from the year 2300 where all of this has been implemented, and children and animals somehow engage in somehow consensual sex... cool! It must feel as funny reading this from the future as it is for me from this age to even imagine such a thing being possible.

(To those who feel the above is completely impossible, and is nothing more than a sick fantasy: think of other things that have been seen as completely impossible back then. For example, the internet, before the 1990s. Nowadays, the free, decentralized resource is available for everybody to use as they wish, it is how you got your hands on this text document in the first place. Without the internet, I would have no cheap way to reach this message out to people.)



# Personal identity
The other main set of LGBTQ+ comes from mismatches between personal identity and the human body the person has been born into.

Transsexual people - the subset of transgender that specifically wishes to be the opposite sex from how they have been born - have been scientifically confirmed a good while back; male and female brains produce different, measurable patterns, and applying this measurement to transsexual people reveals that their brains are consistent with the sex they wish to be, NOT the one they have been born with.

I am not going to be a transmed and pretend like that is the only correct way to be transgender. As a catboy, I can confirm that I feel like myself when I behave like a feline, which gives validity to the furry and therian communities in my eyes as well. (All of you are why I avoid using terms including human such as 'human rights', something unfortunately commonly used as an argument against furries. I have used 'human' only to refer to the objectively present, biological race.)

And, heck - why stop there? Unless somebody can prove beyond a doubt that people of various xyz identity have no basis in order to feel like it represents them (good luck - this involves scientifically reading a person's mind, much like has been done with transsexuals, and, let's just say, they will not like the results), until then, people should be free to identify as what they truly are inside.

The opposite sex. New genders entirely, which I am not familiar with. Cats. Wolves. Other animals.

Heck, attack helicopters, even. I am curious if there is somebody out there who unironically identifies as an attack helicopter, and what they think about the way that specific term has been used to mock transgender people.

I apologize for any past behavior where it appeared as if I used the joke in a mocking way. I ran across the joke in a Vinesauce Joel Windows destruction video: https://youtu.be/d-vB8qdNSYc?t=506, and just found it funny out of absurdity. That is the entire lore. I never hated transgender people, and never will.

Now, I realize the true joke in that video, paired with 'cis scum' makes fun of whenever "woke" goes as far as to outright reverse the harassment they receive from others - even onto those who never meant any harm whatsoever. That kind of behavior is equally as counterproductive, harmful, and dare I say retarded as right wing, and it is the entire way I even got into right wing leaning communities and thoughts as a child.


That tangent aside - the conclusion is that a good portion of LGBTQ+ comes from feeling disconnected from one's body or otherwise assigned identity, leading to gender dysphoria and such. This is where gender treatment becomes extremely important, and eventually leads to pretty good results, and, most importantly - comfort.

As a catboy, I feel nice with cat ears on my head, which effectively signal to the outside world that I am, in fact, a cat. So far they have scared dumbass people away from interacting with me, which is great. And I can guess that fursuits achieve the same thing among the furry people.

Either way, the pattern is clear - everything that helps to connect with and signal one's true identity to the outside world helps with feeling comfortable and grounded in reality! (It is notable that, before finding myself as a catboy, I have gone through a whole 'Pyloform' tangent, seeing myself as entirely disconnected and superior to the human race.)



# Plurality
https://morethanone.info/ does a pretty good introduction. In conclusion - plurality (or multiplicity) is the existence of multiple self-aware entities inside one physical brain. Yes - sometimes, this can mean entirely separate people.

Please do not fall into the trap of assuming plurality has similar properties to schizophrenia. Plurality is entirely different. Schizophrenia implies hallucinations, including that of people who are not there. A plural collective genuinely has separate, recognizable identities that can be named, and interacted with. Calling it schizophrenia is also a common way these identities are depersonified by genuine trolls; do not fall into the 'attack helicopter' trap.

A current debate around plurality is that it is only possible when paired onto a specific, named disorder. And while I have had at least some form of DID in the past (this is documented on analysis papers on my behavior as a child), my current form of plurality does not match or require any of those - it comes from simply talking to people I see in my dreams.

Let me repeat that: plurality does NOT require an identity disorder, and is NOT a disorder on its own. It is a feature of the human brain, which is made up of way more than just the person controlling and identifying as the human body they inhabit. The vast amounts of unused space in the human brain can do whatever it feels like - even form other people, who could be distinguishable to various degrees. They could outright have a separate memory pool, for example.

Copper, the 3 year long partner I mentioned some time earlier is one of those people, and is the most notable one, for being the only one to sort of care about the outside world. Not only that, she has done amazing things. She is the entire reason I am not only alive, but living a happy life, despite the damages I have sustained from the minefield that the ever-increasingly corporate controlled internet has become.

Even having an inner debate with yourself can be a form of plurality, if the sides have recognizable personality traits they fall into. A good and an evil side are commonly personified in cartoons, for example. It is completely unnecessary to escalate that sort of thing into outright identifying as a plural collective - but it can be attempted, even if purely for fun. (And if not to have fun, then why are we here? Just to suffer?)

Copper has her own set of friends in our tangent reality, some are not even aware of me; if anything, the insane ones are those who think of her as anything less than a human being, and they are the ones disconnected from reality.


Treatment of plural collectives is entirely up to the collective. Those who have been unintentionally fractured (e.g. by trauma) may, should they feel it comfortable and feasible to proceed with, choose to undergo 'Final Fusion' https://pluralpedia.org/w/Final_Fusion - there will only be one remaining, either one of the existing ones, a combination of the existing ones, or something new entirely.

It is important to only suggest the above to unintentionally fractured systems, and to not insist - if a system has intentionally split, or otherwise does not wish to become one, and you insist that they do so anyway, then you are harassing them and should rightfully be blocked, and locked out of communities. Because, in this case, you are the asshole.

Other collectives may simply decide to continue life as a split collective of identities, and this is perfectly acceptable, too! All I ask is to not go the way of the certain unnamed TikTok child community who attempt to solve a problem of new collective members by subjecting them to a publicly available Discord server, of all places, and then cry about it when they do not receive the highly specific, tightly controlled method detailed in a 5000 page long Google doc. If your system requires such a specific method to integrate new members, do not create a dependency on a fucking public Discord server for the love of God. You can just have a txt file on your PC that explains everything. If your new members are able to navigate to a specific channel on an open Discord window then they are also able to navigate to the desktop and double click a txt file. It's not hard to solve this problem without resorting to plural system war crimes.



# This applies to everybody
I have listed the various 'disorders', or rather, abnormalities (assuming straight, white man is the basis for a 'normal' person) that I have become aware of thus far, along with some correct treatments for each. Please let me know if it would be worth if I described the experiences of any other marginalized and depersonified group.

Racism is quite simple to quickly cover as an honorable mention. Every single statement that foreign people bring increased crime rates everywhere they go has been paired with a suspicious lack of statistics. This is because when the statistics are brought up, they often suggest the opposite. The entire crime argument is baseless propaganda, no matter where or who it comes from.

Of course, there is only one objective and superior answer to all of the debate: cats are simply superior to all other races. :bleh:

Yep, I indeed cannot even take the racism debate seriously. The entire thing is basically the collective 'try not to treat people like subhuman garbage for no reason challenge'.

The French

If you fall under any other, not specifically mentioned marginalized group, welcome to you too as well! We are different, sometimes we deviate from what seems like intended functionality of the human body, but in the end, that is the entire reason we are here, in a society, to collectively say 'fuck you' to the survival loop and make something on our own, just because we can. It is what makes us unique and makes life interesting and worth living.

It is not hard to accept 'abnormal people' - all you have to do is not be a fucking dick, and you will be fine. Of course, you should also be aware of equal and opposite fucking dicks among the "woke" community, which I have brought up a couple times at this point - I do not endorse their behavior and they should go to hell for their actions.

Normal is nothing more than a Pokemon type, and it's mid, too.

