I think the most compassionate thing in the world is compassion. I'm very cautious about touching on the debate about "free speech" because I think many of us haven't been taught how to have those conversations, and how to actually listen. Free speech often looks like two people yelling their opinions at each other, neither person hearing or understanding each other, and both leaving more frustrated, upset, and feeling misunderstood than they started. To be able to actually honor free speech I believe there needs to be a massive shift in education of communication and empathy. There's also so much to be discussed around the reach and impact of free speech, for example a billionaire bought one of the biggest social media platforms in the world and has used that tech to promote certain ideas and minimize others (or if he hasn't done that, he could, and that still displays my point). I also think that some speech itself can be harmful, I have experienced plenty of those instances myself which I won't repeat on this platform. Do I think people should be jailed for saying certain things? Overwhelmingly not. But I've also lived with the literal impact of hate speech, and that's not ok. It's not about be sensitive as much as it is certain things are threatening to life and safety, even if they're not direct threats. Does that make sense? I also think we need to critically examine the way that money influences what's considered "free speech" and what's considered "vandalism". If someone pays for a billboard to go up that argues for one positions, and another person spray paints on a wall something that supports a different position, the spray paint will be removed but the paid-for billboard won't. Which means a lot of powerful impactful free speech isn't free at all, it's rich people speech.

I like that you used the word "uncomfortable". When I'm having this conversation with you right now, I notice myself feeling a bit uncomfortable. I recognize that that's my own stuff, that it has nothing to do with what you've written or the way you've shown up in this conversation, I recognize that it's my own responsibility to just breathe and lean into that discomfort, and I can continue to have this conversation with you. I will contrast that with a lie that certain people here in Aotearoa have been spreading, online, verbally, and with placards. This is the lie that trans people want to hurt children. It is false. Every piece of research, studies, and anecdotes show that this is not true. When I hear people saying in public that trans people want to harm children, it is not discomfort I feel, it is terror. Because I know that some people are hearing this lie and believe it. I'd like to invite you to imagine yourself in a position where some people who know you began to truly believe that you meant to harm their children. What would that mean for you? Would you feel safe? Or would you expect to experience actual bodily harm? I'd like to ask you what your opinion is of people using free speech to spread blatant lies that might lead to increased bodily harm of another person or group? Where does that fall under your definition of compassion?

@@BodeRiis I truly appreciate the depth and honesty with which you’ve shared your thoughts. These are difficult and complex matters, and I sense the weight of your experiences in every word. The balance between upholding free speech and recognising the harm that speech can cause is, as you’ve rightly pointed out, incredibly delicate. I agree with you that empathy and the ability to listen are fundamental to meaningful conversations, especially on topics like free speech. Without empathy, it’s easy for discussions to degenerate into shouting matches where no one truly hears each other. But it’s also important to recognise that free speech isn’t just about the civility of the conversation - it’s about ensuring that ideas, even ones we find offensive, have space to be expressed, challenged, and refined. The challenge then becomes how to have these difficult conversations without resorting to harm, without exacerbating the already-existing pain of others. While it’s clear that some speech can cause genuine harm, I think it’s important to critically evaluate what constitutes harm, and how we can navigate this without silencing debate entirely. Hate speech, for instance, is a real and damaging force, but the idea that we should curtail speech simply because it is offensive can become a slippery slope. If we allow the government or powerful entities to dictate what is offensive or harmful, where does it stop? We’ve seen throughout history how such power can be misused. So while I agree with you that speech can be harmful, I would urge caution in how we regulate or restrict it, because the very freedoms we cherish are easily undermined when we let others define what we are allowed to say. In your example of a billionaire buying a social media platform and using it to promote certain ideas, I see the tension you’re highlighting: money distorts the true power of speech. In this way, free speech becomes, as you say, “rich people speech.” This is a real concern. We should be aware of how economic power influences not only the message but also the accessibility of different voices. However, I would argue that the solution isn’t to curtail free speech or restrict platforms, but to work towards a more equitable space where the voices of those without such resources can also be amplified. It's about creating alternative channels, fostering diverse platforms where the balance of power doesn't tip so easily into the hands of a few. As for the particular lies that you’ve mentioned, such as the harmful, false notion that trans people want to hurt children - I can see how deeply distressing that is. The spread of dangerous misinformation can lead to real-world harm, as we’ve seen with instances of violence against marginalized communities. But even here, I think we must recognise that allowing free speech to be unrestricted is part of the process by which lies are eventually exposed and debunked. If we stifle such speech, even when it’s clearly false or harmful, we risk creating an environment where people are afraid to speak at all, and that fear, over time, can be as dangerous as any lie. While I agree that we must protect people from real harm, I think the responsibility lies with us, as individuals and communities, to use our voices to combat these lies, not to silence them. The truth, as painful as it can be, often requires that we confront and engage with these hard ideas head-on. If we truly want to protect the vulnerable, we must ensure that there is always room for the exchange of ideas - for bad ideas to be challenged and for good ideas to be given the space to grow. Compassion in the face of disagreement isn’t just about silencing the speech we find uncomfortable or harmful; it’s about engaging with it, critically and thoughtfully, to ensure it doesn’t dominate. We must have the courage to counter hatred, even when it’s difficult and uncomfortable. By doing so, we honour the very essence of compassion - not as a passive avoidance of discomfort, but as an active engagement with the world’s most painful and pressing issues. I think that is the true power of free speech: it’s not just about expressing any thought we like, but about fostering an environment where we can engage with difficult and painful truths, to ultimately create a more just and compassionate society. This doesn’t mean we condone or excuse harmful speech, but we recognise that by allowing it to be heard, we also allow ourselves the opportunity to refute it, to offer counter-narratives, and to protect those who might be harmed. And in this, we honour free speech as a tool of progress, not just a right. In closing, I know this is not an easy balance to strike. But I believe that if we’re truly committed to compassion, we must trust in our collective ability to engage in difficult conversations, even when they are uncomfortable. It’s only through this engagement that we can create meaningful change and ensure that we are not simply speaking over each other, but listening and learning from each other, even in the most challenging of times.

@@BodeRiis When free speech is used to spread blatant lies with the potential to cause harm, it puts compassion to the test. For me, compassion in this context involves a commitment to both protecting individuals from harm and upholding the freedoms that allow open discourse. Lies that incite harm stand at the edge of what society considers acceptable, often challenging us to question how we balance freedom with responsibility. In these cases, compassion calls for more than tolerance; it demands active engagement. This could mean using our speech to counteract misinformation, educate others, and dispel harmful myths publicly, rather than restricting speech itself. Compassion here isn't passive but rather a commitment to fostering an environment where truth and safety coexist. While I don’t believe that suppressing speech is the answer, I do believe that compassion involves a proactive approach - one that ensures lies don’t go unchallenged, and that those targeted have the protection and solidarity of a truthful, informed community.

In your opinion then, whose responsibility is it to do that work, that active engagement, that ensures that lies don't go unchallenged? Because it is a lot to ask of minority groups to have to try and defend themselves from lies and misinformation about their community when they're trying so hard to take care of their communities and just survive. Is that the roll of active allyship? I can also think of plenty of things that you can't just go around saying in public. Age-inappropriate things in front of or at children, for example. And I don't mean "trans people exist" and "gay people exist." I mean actual adult content. There's a good reason some movies, audio and visual content are age restricted. A kid should be able to exist in public without being exposed to adult content. And I really really don't think that pride parades, queer people holding hands and kissing, drag queens reading library books, or even non-seggusual kink-wear in public, falls into that category. I wont say what I do think falls into that category because it's not appropriate for KZbin, but I think we all have some idea of what that could be. So starting from that point; no we can't just have anybody saying anything they want anywhere any time. In the broad scheme of things, I think there are so many social and cultural shifts that foster care, compassion, connection, and autonomy, other than free speech. Sure it's an important conversation, but it's not at the top of my priority list. I'd much rather teach people empathy, loving communication, self-esteem, how to heal from their own trauma, and how to see and honor other people's humanity. Once we have a culture that centres values of wanting to understand each other, and respecting our mutual humanity, then I don't think free speech will be as hotly debated of a topic because less people will be using their speech as a weapon, because we will (hopefully) all be starting from a place of mutual curiosity, and not fear.

Correct, you can't store it.

No, this cannot. Oral testosterone in a pill form did exist for a while, but they tend not to give it out any more as it's harsh on the liver.

Why is that important to you? Marshall had a vision of expanding peace and love in the world. He founded NVC so that people could take his framework, add their own wisdom and experiential knowledge, and share compassionate communication with the world. NVC has become what it is today in part because of hundreds, if not thousands, of other practitioners sharing and evolving and adding to the form. Knowing what I know of Rosenberg, I don't think he'd care one bit about whether he was mentioned in every single video on NVC. This is not a standalone resource. I encourage everyone to find more resources on NVC and expand your learnings on the topic.

​@BodeRiis I agree what I really loved about rosenberg's ideas and concepts is that they stood on their own and still held true without him in the picture. Methods and tenchiques tied to one individual are generally a huge red flag for me.

I switched to 25g recently, and that's working but it's very slow. I can't imagine how much slower the injection speed would be with an even smaller needle. I guess it doesn't matter as long as the liquid can get through! I'm glad 27g is working for you :)

Can't do every other day because this vial is not resealable. I'm switching to Depo-T subcutaneous weekly, but the pharmacy is out of stock until the end of April. I've ordered a 25 gauge for my next shot to see what that's like.

Thanks! Let me know how it goes :)

🙌🙌🙌 Yes to deconstructing and dismantling white supremacy and colonialism! In terms of ADHD, what I do know is that a lot of what I thought were ADHD symptoms were childhood trauma symptoms, and once I've worked through a lot of my childhood trauma, the impact my ADHD has had on my life has significantly lessened. It's for sure still there, but yes mostly managed without medication now.

In your opinion, in what way does your care for people look different from the way most people's care looks?

i can experience empathy if i really go super hard on understanding the other person. it's pretty magical when it happens but it usually isn't necessary. i operate without empathy nearly all of the time and i do just fine - arguably very well - by the people around me. i agree about being sussed by books on empathy/etc. i have a friend who teaches a how to be empathetic course and i always kind of cringe when they mention it. presumably it is very helpful for some people and i'm glad of that but it doesn't make much sense to me and makes me sort of uncomfortable.

@@BodeRiisI hope I understand the question: I am very bad at comforting my friends. I don't know how they're feeling or how to move myself into that space. I don't get it. I am, however, action oriented and wanting to offer solutions to the problem that they're facing. It takes practice figuring out when each person responds best to that, and I hate how long it can take some people to be ready for the most obvious way forward, but I know my emotional range is both erratic and stunted so it's not fair to rush them just because I don't care. And that's another part isn't it. I'm only able to process empathy through the lens of myself. It doesn't have super bad outcomes per se, but it's not normative empathy. It's the acute awareness that the way i behave and feel is not normative, and reacting to that knowing i need to be patient or ill end up hurting somebody even of that person is me. I care about not hurting people anymore. Watching my tone and the way I move. Making sure everybody is comfortable and safe. Putting as little pain out into the world as possible and focusing on some people I think are cool and hot and think I'm cool and hot because I don't like people, but I like a Person. Sometimes Persons are okay. Bad idea to write this while super sleepy. Hope a little bit made sense. It's hard to know how to say that because I don't know how anybody else cares. I know what I do and why I do it(mostly) but I have no perfect understanding of the difference between me and others. That which requires traumadumping remains private.

@@flightwithtools I get this. It takes so much effort. If they're not exactly like me it's monumental time and effort to get a twinge of real feeling, otherwise I'm just performing a socially necessary act. I'm fine with it most of the time. The way I am, I want the attention. But it DOES feel better when I finally really get somebody. Takes so long though. They have to be really cool and good to me. Not waste my time. Can you tell which end of the B cluster I'm on lol

If I may offer my perspective on empathy (which lines up with a lot of Brené Brown's work)-- You don't need to know how your friends are feeling without them telling you. We're human, we're not mind readers. We're allowed to ask how our friends are feeling, and if they don't tell us and we don't know, that doesn't mean we lack empathy. We also can't feel other people's feelings. This is a misunderstanding. If someone expresses sadness and we then feel sad, our feeling of sadness is our own. It's impossible to feel somebody else's feelings. Our brains can sometimes mirror a feeling someone else is having if we're familiar with that feeling, but then it is our own. In my experience, most people are action-oriented; we want to help other people! Empathy is often about letting the other person have autonomy in the type of support you offer, so asking; "What are you needing right now? Do you need solutions, or do you just want to be heard?" And learning this empathy takes practice! We're not all taught how to empathise. It's about learning what that looks like, what types of empathy feels good for our friends, and practicing that. It is about feeling our gut-reaction -- to help solve the problem-- and taking a breath, setting it aside, and asking "What do you need from me in this moment?"

How would you observe when someone is using a louder volume than they normally do? I understand what you're saying but I think the point is that observations must be nonjudgmental, and I interpret "yelling" to be value-neutral. What are your thoughts?

Interesting. I do remember “yelling” was described as an evaluation by Marshall in a workshop. I interpret the purpose of that is to keep in mind something that one person feel is loud may not be to another. Maybe to avoid miscommunications like if I ask someone to not yell but they continue yelling because they don’t actually feel they are yelling 😊

Yup that’s the point :) Someone being nonbinary doesn’t make them anything other than being nonbinary. It doesn’t make them kinder, or meaner, or nicer, or crueler, or anything additional other than them being nonbinary.

RIP

I’m doing great! Yes I can no longer get my periods because I don’t have a uterus any more.

@@BodeRiis wow good to know you're doing great.. please make a video including cost and some tips of the process..

Why did you have a hysterectomy ?