Sombyr

Sombyr , 1 day ago

I haven't even hit 30 yet and it's weird to hear Voyager called old. I grew up watching TNG and sometimes TOS with my mom. It was one of the few good parts of my childhood. It took me forever just to stop referring to Voyager and Enterprise as "the new stuff."

Sombyr , 2 days ago

For me, the changes happened really gradually, and some changes didn't happen at all (which is normal, because it's not the same for everyone, not even cis women.) It took around 2 years before I started noticing any changes, and around 4 before I stopped noticing any more changes. It can vary a lot though.

It's also worth noting even once you've experienced all the changes, it won't feel the same every time. For instance, for me, it's only a full body experience if it's a good one. Otherwise it doesn't feel much different in nature from a guy's orgasm. It does definitely last longer usually though. Usually around 15 seconds, but it can go up to... well, actually, I've never felt the need to break out a stop watch.

There's some things that for me never changed though. For instance, it doesn't take any longer to build up, and I almost never can have multiple in a row. Although I'm still responsive to stimulation, it just doesn't go anywhere. On very rare occasions I've had consecutive ones, but it's been that way since even before I transitioned.

Also, I've seen a lot of claims that female orgasms are more intense than male orgasms. For me at least, that is absolutely not the case. They feel different, but intensity wise it's exactly the same. I do react more physically, but not because it feels better, rather just because estrogen did that to me for some reason.

I think honestly the line between "male" and "female" orgasm are a lot blurrier than people think and it's not really a useful way to think about it. Not everyone will even experience changes to their orgasms and that's not because there's something wrong, it's just because there's so much natural variance that many women just naturally experience what is often called a "male" orgasm.

I've seen a lot of trans women get really disappointed thinking something must be wrong because they haven't achieved the fabled "female orgasm." Just know that that's a very idealized version of a female orgasm that not even most cis women, in my experience, meet. It's completely normal for some things to change but not others, or even on occasion for almost nothing to change at all.

Sombyr , 5 days ago

I spend 1/3rd of that on all of my groceries combined per month. If I was spending that much per week I would be over 1000$ in debt after a single month. Is the average person really that rich? And what food are they buying that they need to spend that much?
This is baffling to me as a poor person.

Sombyr , 7 days ago

I hope this doesn't sound aggressive, but unless you're a man, you never had to venture very far on Lemmy to experience misogyny. If you ever mentioned you were a woman in any of the major instances and communities in any context except "I'm a woman and here's what I don't like about other women," you were gonna get misogynistic replies and a shocking amount of downvotes. It's just what happens when any internet community is dominated by a single gender I guess.
Lemmy's always been great about almost every other social issue, except sometimes trans issues and neurodivergence if you stepped out of the communities for it, but women's issues have always been an absolute train wreck around here.

Sombyr , 9 days ago

I keep luring them out by accident just by bringing up any kind of women's issue at all. Thankfully though, a quick report and they get banned from my instance real fast.

Sombyr OP , 10 days ago

...Ooooh. I think that's what she was trying to tell me actually and I just completely misunderstood. That second example is a type of situation I used it a lot in. I didn't realize people needed to know how interested I was. I thought they just needed a quick confirmation.

Sombyr OP , 10 days ago

This is really helpful. I didn't realize there were so many situations people were looking for validation. I just assumed when they said something like that it was just to quickly let me know and "K." was all they needed.

Sombyr OP , 10 days ago

I never use emojis either, except specific ones for specific contexts (I.E. the hug emoji when somebody's having a really bad day.) People have pointed it out, but unlike other things people just view it as an interesting personality quirk of mine instead of off putting.

Sombyr , 15 days ago

Well it is Heathcliff. I'm not sure if I'm too autistic to know if everyone was avoiding pointing that out or if people really didn't know.

Sombyr , 23 days ago

Sounds like somebody's never been to Vermont.

Sombyr , 25 days ago

We don't even know what consciousness is, let alone if it's technically "real" (as in physical in any way.) It's perfectly possible an uploaded brain would be just as conscious as a real brain because there was no physical thing making us conscious, and rather it was just a result of our ability to think at all.
Similarly, I've heard people argue a machine couldn't feel emotions because it doesn't have the physical parts of the brain that allow that, so it could only ever simulate them. That argument has the same hole in that we don't actually know that we need those to feel emotions, or if the final result is all that matters. If we replaced the whole "this happens, release this hormone to cause these changes in behavior and physical function" with a simple statement that said "this happened, change behavior and function," maybe there isn't really enough of a difference to call one simulated and the other real. Just different ways of achieving the same result.

My point is, we treat all these things, consciousness, emotions, etc, like they're special things that can't be replicated, but we have no evidence to suggest this. It's basically the scientific equivalent of mysticism, like the insistence that free will must exist even though all evidence points to the contrary.

Sombyr , 25 days ago

On the contrary, it's not a flaw in my argument, it is my argument. I'm saying we can't be sure a machine could not be conscious because we don't know that our brain is what makes us conscious. Nor do we know where the threshold is where consciousness arises. It's perfectly possible all we need is to upload an exact copy of our brain into a machine, and it'd be conscious by default.

Sombyr , 25 days ago

I think you're a little confused about what observed means and what it does.
When unobserved, elementary particles behave like a wave, but they do not stop existing. A wave is still a physical thing. Additionally, observation does not require consciousness. For instance, a building, such as a house, when nobody is looking at it, does not begin to behave like a wave. It's still a physical building. Therefore, observation is a bit of a misnomer. It really means a complex interaction we don't understand causes particles to behave like a particle and not a wave. It just happens that human observation is one of the possible ways this interaction can take place.
An unobserved black hole will still feed, an unobserved house is still a house.
To be clear, I'm not insulting you or your idea like the other dude, but I wanted to clear that up.

Sombyr , 25 days ago

A building does not actually enter a superposition when unobserved, nor does Schrodinger's cat. The point of that metaphor was to demonstrate, through humor, the difference between quantum objects and non-quantum objects, by pointing out how ridiculous it would be to think a cat could enter a superposition like a particle. In fact, one of the great mysteries of physics right now is why only quantum objects have that property, and in order to figure that out we have to figure out what interaction "observation" actually is.
Additionally, we can observe the effects of waves quite clearly. We can observe how they interact with things, how they interfere with each other, etc. It is only attempting to view the particle itself that causes it to collapse and become a particle and not a wave. We can view, for instance, the interference pattern of photons of light, behaving like a wave. This proves that the wave is in fact real, because we can see the effects of it. It's only if we try to observe the paths of the individual photons that the pattern changes. We didn't make the photons real, we could already see they were real by their effects on reality. We just collapsed the function, forcing them to take a single path.

Sombyr , 25 days ago

There shouldn't be a distinction between quantum and non-quantum objects. That's the mystery. Why can't large objects exhibit quantum properties? Nobody knows, all we know is they don't. We've attempted to figure it out by creating larger and larger objects that still exhibit quantum properties, but we know, at some point, it just stops exhibiting these properties and we don't know why, but it doesn't require an observer to collapse the wave function.
Also, can you define physical for me? It seems we have a misunderstanding here, because I'm defining physical as having a tangible effect on reality. If it wasn't real, it could not interact with reality. It seems you're using a different definition.

Sombyr , 24 days ago

I see, so your definition of "physical" is "made of particles?" In that case, sorta yeah. Particles behave as waves when unobserved, so you could argue that they no longer qualify as particles, and therefore, by your definition, are not physical. But that kinda misses the point, right? Like, all that means is that the observation may have created the particle, not that the observation created reality, because reality is not all particles. Energy, for instance, is not all particles, but it can be. Quantum fields are not particles, but they can give rise to them. Both those things are clearly real, but they aren't made of particles.
On the second point, that's kinda trespassing out of science territory and into "if a tree falls in the forest" territory. We can't prove that a truly unobserved macroscopic object wouldn't display quantum properties if we just didn't check if it was, but that's kinda a useless thing to think about. It's kinda similar to what our theories are though, in that the best theory we have is that the bigger the object is, the more likely the interaction we call "observation" just happens spontaneously without the need for interaction. Too big, and it's so unlikely in any moment for it not to happen that the chances of the wave function not being collapsed in any given moment is so close to zero there's no meaningful distinction between the actual odds and zero.

Sombyr , 24 days ago

I suppose I was overly vague about what I meant by "exact copy." I mean all of the knowledge, memories, and an exact map of the state of our neurons at the time of upload being uploaded to a computer, and then the functions being simulated from there. Many people believe that even if we could simulate it so perfectly that it matched a human brain's functions exactly, it still wouldn't be conscious because it's still not a real human brain. That's the point I was arguing against. My argument was that if we could mimic human brain functions closely enough, there's no reason to believe the brain is so special that a simulation could not achieve consciousness too.
And you're right, it may not be conscious in the same way. We have no reason to believe either way that it would or wouldn't be, because the only thing we can actually verify is conscious is ourself. Not humans in general, just you, individually. Therefore, how conscious something is is more of a philosophical debate than a scientific one because we simply cannot test if it's true. We couldn't even test if it was conscious at all, and my point wasn't that it would be, my point is that we have no reason to believe it's possible or impossible.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

https://lemmy.zip/pictrs/image/b0f91861-8357-4673-befe-1ccd1a257386.webp

Sombyr , 1 month ago

According to the quantum mechanical totalitarian principle, everything not forbidden is compulsory, so it must have happened. It’s physics.

Sombyr OP , 1 month ago

I tried to find examples but turns out I’m really bad at googling. Quotes of ancient Greek philosophers is one example though. Surely not all of them spoke formally, and I’ve heard some even spoke rather rudely, and yet when they’re translated they’re still translated into really formal, old timey language. There’s been some nice explanations here of why that is though, so I understand a lot better.

Sombyr OP , 1 month ago

I don’t have direct examples because I suck at googling, but what I saw that made me think of this was an ancient Greek philosopher insulting another, presumably in a rude tone, but still translated to look super polite and old timey. The explanations people have given here have really shed a lot of light for me on why that is though, so it makes sense to me now.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

Older gen Z here, I remember these really strongly.
People always forget gen Z was alive for these kind of things and I'm starting to think nobody realizes how old we actually are. Most people you think of as gen Z are only really on the younger end of gen Z. Some of us are in our late 20s now and also struggling to understand kids these days.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

Gen Z is 1997-2012. The oldest of us are 27.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

The generations are determined by what the biggest common experience they all have is (at least, that's how it's supposed to be.)
Millennials are millennials because they all remember the turn of the millennium. anyone born 1997 or later wouldn't remember it, which is why the generation line was drawn where it was.
There are people who find that weird and prefer to call anybody born after 2000 gen Z because they were born after the turn of the millennium, so there's a sizable amount of people who've taken to calling anybody born 1996-2000 a "zillennial" as a compromise. I use the term sometimes, but only when I need to demonstrate to somebody that there's no clear difference between a young millennial and an older gen Z.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

lmao, this is unironically the reason one of my exs stared using Linux. Because I kept hyping it up so he figured it was a good bonding activity to learn it. To my knowledge he still uses it.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

Then allow me to introduce myself.
Not that I’m a Linux pro, but I at least know how to copy and paste terminal commands until I fix whatever problem I caused by copying and pasting terminal commands.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

I’ve learned the dumb way going for married people is always a bad idea regardless of the status of the marriage, so I must politely decline.
I’m an Ubuntu user anyway, so I’m unfortunately unfit for marriage in the first place.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

It is in fact really easy to tell the difference, you just hear more about the times people make the mistake because it’s not noteworthy when somebody goes “that guy’s just staring off into space” and is right. You also likely have a bigger emotional reaction, assuming you’re a guy, to a woman mistakenly thinking a guy is staring at her and being wrong than you do the knowledge that women get stared at a lot, so it makes the first seem like it’s happening more often.
I’ve lived on both sides (trans) and can tell you I didn’t realize it was this common to get really obviously stared at by older men. And the older they are the more likely they are to do it, which is lucky, because I’m much less afraid of a 70 year old man doing anything to me than a 20-40 year old. I find the only thing I can do in that situation is to avoid looking them directly in the eyes, because they take that as a sign to approach.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

Agreed. And older women being creeps too needs to be talked about more. Pretransition, in 7th grade, I had a math teacher who tried to flirt with me and it made me horribly uncomfortable, but I could never talk to anybody about it because people would act like that was a good thing and I should feel good for it, and those who acknowledged it was a problem still told me I must have imagined it. I can say one good thing about being a woman is despite encountering creeps way more often, at least I’m allowed to be upset about it now.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

This seems to be the attitude of most I encounter nowadays. I think every friend I have who I’ve asked about their sexuality tend to reply “I dunno, I just like what I like.”
It seems the labels are slowly starting to lose their use, which to me is a good thing. It means we’re getting to the point where we don’t need it to feel normal anymore because it’s just normal by default. We’re not quite there yet, but it shows we’re moving in the right direction.
Not that people can’t use labels if it makes them more comfortable, I’m just glad more people are starting not to need them because they’re already accepted.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

Don’t really need photoshop. It’s not all that hard to get a setup like this working with cheap converters from Amazon. It’s whether somebody’s grandma who refuses to upgrade from a TV that old would know how to do it that’s the questionable part, but it’s not impossible somebody set it up for her.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

Gen Z here.
People liked being part of in jokes nobody else understood. Eventually it evolved into creating jokes even you yourself weren’t in on just to confuse the fuck out of people. Brings the satisfaction of seeing people not understanding the “in” joke and the additional satisfaction that they never will be in on it either.
The “that explains nothing” feeling when you see the origin is part of the joke.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

I’m bi and every relationship I’ve had was like this. Drooling over people and characters together is just something I like to do in relationships. It’s a fun bonding activity. Plus it’s weirdly good for my self confidence for somebody to be drooling over somebody else who even I know is hot as fuck but they still clearly want to be with me more.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

The most cathartic moment of my entire life was when I encountered that exact thing in a thread from over a decade ago expecting that to be it and lost all hope, only to find somebody replied calling them out and telling them to share their solution or future googlers were gonna be very upset. They posted their solution and it did, indeed, work.
Don’t even remember what the issue was, but the wave of relief was amazing enough that I still remember the feeling to this day.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

It is when I do it.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

I’m the “guess I’m crying now” kind of drunk.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

I’ve only properly been a woman for like, 5 years now, but I’ve honestly only had one dude ever attempt the fourth panel. Most dudes who try to flirt with me do it by talking about their interests and relentlessly complimenting me every time I know something about it or have something to add. That said, it does work on me.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

I listen to metal to fall asleep. Weird as it may sound, listening to something that’s higher energy than me is straight up exhausting to the point that it saps all my remaining energy and I just conk right out.
I especially like Japanese metal for it, because not being able to understand the words means I don’t get focused on the meaning of the song and stay up thinking about it.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

Probably, just haven’t found any I’m super fond of.

Sombyr , 1 month ago

As a member of gen Z, you likely don’t notice it because you’re not part of the generation being made fun of. It’s a pretty constant issue and it didn’t magically stop with millennials. It’s to the point where many older members of gen Z insist they’re actually millennials in an attempt to gain bownie points with the older generations by not being part of the generation they hate (which never works BTW.)

Sombyr , 2 months ago

I do this, but to myself. I decide I’m gonna make a specific meal, and if I don’t want it I’ll inevitably find something I want more and make that instead.

Sombyr , 2 months ago

Breaking Benjamin - Torn in Two with a Boner

Sombyr OP , 2 months ago

That’s definitely a factor. I dated somebody for a while who wasn’t just okay with the idea of me keeping it, but was even enthusiastic about it, and for that time I was a lot more comfortable with it, but I still wanted surgery, just not as badly as I did before. I think it’s not so much the “I need to get the surgery to be a real woman” though, and more “I need to get the surgery to feel complete.” Like I feel like I haven’t finished everything I wanted for so long to do and just deciding not to now would feel like, why was I concerned about it for so long?
But there is also an aspect of what I have just feeling wrong. I know what I’d want if it was possible, but it literally isn’t physically possible. I’d want female anatomy that can grow into male functioning anatomy when needed. That’s technically possible in a satisfactory way with some surgeries, but it’s not something that’s an option for me. I’m on medicaid, so I can only get what’s covered, and that isn’t. I have to choose one or the other.

Sombyr OP , 2 months ago

That is kinda what I’d want if I could get it, but unfortunately, it’s not covered by medicaid. Gotta choose one or the other. If I could I’d just want to have female anatomy that has the capability of functioning similarly to male anatomy. That’d be perfect.

Sombyr OP , 2 months ago

My only supportive family is on my mom’s side, and all of us live in complete poverty. My dad’s side has money, but is incredibly religious to the point where they view any surgery on genitals at all as an affront to god. So in other words, it’s just straight up not possible unfortunately.
I gotta pick one or the other, and at the moment I’m leaning toward keeping what I have because I can undo that decision, but my medicaid will not cover undoing the surgery if I choose to get it.