(All text bolded and underlined are hyperlinks to my sources.)



Hello everyone, yet again, I have come forth to vomit out my thoughts on a digital space I treat like paper. Let's get straight to the point: I am queer (a lesbian specifically), and this month is meant to celebrate and illuminate queer identities, while also highlighting our history to acknowledge all the effort that our predecessors have made. However, this month is always overshadowed by homophobic individuals who use self-righteous rhetoric. To explain concisely, people who use "men's mental health month" to overwrite pride, talk about how veterans also deserve a month, and how God also deserves a month. This is just ignorant bigotry disguised as "morality".



I wish to emphasize 3 key things. 1) Men's mental health is important, and I am a firm advocate for men seeking out assistance when it comes to their mental health struggles. I believe a lot of the struggles we face are caused by the patriarchy and affect both men and women. But for women, we are the victims of the actions done by men who are conditioned into the patriarchy. If we do not combat the system at its root, the branch will just grow back from where you snapped off the twig. 2) I do not think a majority of people who are preaching this stuff on social media, or even in their real-life interactions with people, are intentionally bigoted. But there is a feeling of dislike, or homophobia, within them that makes them act. Because of this, I cannot stand idly by as their lack of education as to why gay people even have a month causes them to water down the spotlight that queers have after such a long fight. 3) Not all religious people are a part of this story. In regard to the recent trend that has arisen with the "I deserve sunshine," I have seen religious people not only admit that they cannot participate in the trend, but that queer people also deserve sunshine. To that, I wish to say thank you. Although I have no shame in my identity, and that not being a bastard towards those who are of any minority is the bare minimum, seeing that some of these religious folk, who are willing to tarnish their reputation within some part of their community for the sake of spreading their love with the people affected by their own group, is something that I think is worthy of gratitude.



Now that that's out of the way, back to my original train of thought. According to the American University of Washington DC and Britannica, the first Pride parade was a riot against police brutality that occurred at a small dive bar in New York (Stonewall Inn). During that time, there were laws in place that suggested men and women wear certain garments to allude to their gender. Due to this, police used it as an opportunity to intrude on bars to arrest transgender and gender non-conforming people, and Stonewall Inn faced this frequently. However, on June 28th, 1969, the people retaliated. This retaliation has lasted for 5 days via protests by a cohort of individuals. A year after this event, the first parade was held at Stonewall to showcase solidarity to fight back against discrimination and to acknowledge what had transpired a year earlier. However, this is not the entire extent of what queer individuals had to undergo only to be accepted for who they are. Despite ancient works of art (painting, pottery, and the like) depicting same-sex relationships, queer people were often punished for being themselves. They were killed, whipped, sent to prison, or banished. Homosexuality was often labelled as a "sodomy crime" (Sodomy being the act of non-procreative sexual activity). This label has linked homosexuality to the same people who commit acts of bestiality. So many people have died solely because their lover just so happened to have the same sex as them, or didn't conform to the strict boxes that we have in place on gender. And they all died with the persecutors thinking they had done a good thing, that they had maintained the natural world order. In spite of their thoughts, nature has showcased that what we had thought (or still think) as unnatural happens much more frequently (examples on "Wikipedia").



But where do these ideas come from? Well, the New York Times (1990) states that the hostility against homosexuals can be traced to hate-based fear and a sense of self-righteousness in which homosexuality is seen as a threat to the morals of the universe, with the most hostile actions being done towards lesbian and gay individuals. Based on Homophobia: Scientists Find Clues To Its Roots, they stated that religion and the gender stereotypes that the patriarchy and society enforce in us are the driving factors of hostility towards queer individuals. There is a common stereotype that is still ongoing today, that gayness is feminine in nature. Due to the ostracism of traits often associated with femininity, such as passivity, sensitivity, and the like, this causes an extreme amount of fear within men as they are continuously taught what masculinity ought not to be, rather than the definition of it. In addition, a clear expression of their more feminine traits being showcased with a gay individual may make them aware of their more "feminine" traits. Due to the desire to be seen as a man according to the stereotypes we have in place, this causes men to develop homophobia as a push back, which ultimately shows why men are more likely overall to be homophobic in comparison to women.



Another way this presents itself in the modern day is by the viewing of a man doing anything that is, yet again, associated with femininity, being labeled as "gay" or that the action is "gay" in nature. This especially happens with teenage boys (based on anecdotal evidence). During the period of adolescence, a person is undergoing a large transitional period, not only for their bodies, but for who they are and where they fit into society. Parents and peers play a pivotal role in the life of an adolescent (NIH, 2016, "Links of Adolescents Identity Development and Relationship with Peers: A Systematic Literature Review"). It states that teens are more likely to adopt behavioural norms or standards of the peer group they identify with; this means that, in this context, if their aligned peer group displays traits of homophobia, they are more likely to pick it up as well to fit in. However, another thing can occur. When their peer group is nitpicking at their actions and making fun of them for appearing "gay" or "feminine", they are also likely to develop a hatred towards queer people and anything slightly resembling "gayness" as a way to fit into their peer group better. I have even noticed this behavior with myself. Not that I have ever turned homophobic (I am a lesbian myself after all (remember internalized homophobia is still a very real phenomenon that should be addressed)), but rather staying quiet when people like my classmates would shun gay people and say they are deserving of death. This has made me remain mostly quiet about my identity as a lesbian, because I am afraid of receiving ridicule from my classmates over something I cannot control. After all, based on the Impact of Homophobia on Adolescent Health (2015), 40% out of the 320 people who were surveyed in a Pride parade stated they had been discriminated against in educational institutions (page 668, DISCUSSION, paragraph 4). However, I would find silent ways of advocating for my community by always telling them that I have never minded their existence, and do not think they are deserving of divine punishment or execution over something that has never harmed anyone. Yet, this exact problem is what leads to younger queers developing internalized homophobia.



In Abrahamic religions, homophobia stems from interpretations of holy scriptures as being against homosexuality. While the validity of this depends greatly on different denominations of religious groups, it is still a leading force behind the homophobia that we see today and have witnessed for a while. According to the BYU Undergraduate Journal of Psychology in 2015, a study done in 1991 shows that 72% of Christian institutions viewed homosexuality as an "abomination" (direct quote from page 119, Vol. 11, Iss 2, Art 8). But why is this? Well, based on my own theory, I think it is due to how religion is older than science. Religion, in my theory, is a method of understanding the world through spirituality. To showcase this, Christians at one point were prohibited from consuming pork. This was because of a parasite called Trichinella (a foodborne disease whose infection caused severe abdominal pain, muscle weakness, and at worst, heart or brain issues). This parasite is often found in pigs (Main Groups of Microorganisms of Relevance for Food Safety and Stability, 2018). According to the Analysis of Pork Prohibition in Religious Texts in 2025, it may have influenced the prohibition of pork consumption, and has likely taken the illness as a divine command from God to not consume pork. The way this ties into my theory is that I think the way we see relationships relies on the spiritual notion of the essence of a relationship. The concept of essence, based on the philosophy institute, is what helps us define things. A direct quote states, " A triangle’s essence includes having three sides; this defines it as a triangle and simultaneously prevents it from being a square. Essence does not merely describe; it constitutes. Without essence, a thing would have no determinate identity at all." If we take this into account, while simultaneously considering the role religion had, I believe that the reason for this condemnation of homosexuality derives from the essence of relationships and reproduction. The only way for humans to produce offspring (in a hypothetical scenario, if queer individuals were capable of reproducing, then it would be healthy offspring) is with the merging of a female gamete with a male one. This would make people think that a relationship between 2 people is solely for reproduction, and that the essence of a relationship would consist of traits (such as the presence of a male, female, and the ability to reproduce offspring) that would make them legible for reproduction. Because of this, religion may have considered the ability to reproduce offspring as something divine (Psalm 127:3-5), and thus condemned any relationship in which this is not able to happen. This is proven by the Biblical Counseling Coalition in 2015 with direct quotes, "One of the many purposes of marriage is to have godly offspring (Malachi 2:15)" and "In Genesis 1:28, God says to Adam and Eve: 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.' God commands us to have children. And He does so because it is a good thing. There are many wonderful parts to marriage, one of which is raising kids." These quotes show that one of the leading factors as to why a religious person may have a relationship is the ability to reproduce, which ties into the fact that homosexuality is often criticized by religious groups as "unnatural". However, I wish to pinpoint that not all Christians follow these ideals, and that what I have done is just an attempt at explaining why homosexuality may be disliked by these individuals. What I said does not apply to the entirety of Christians, only a specific group.



But what does this homophobia cause to homosexual individuals, especially younger ones around my age? Well, for adolescent queers, according to "The Impact of Homophobia on Adolescent Health" in 2015, actions of homophobia are often perceived as "disciplinary" done by a person of some level of authority (parents, peers, communities) to correct, change, or rewrite a behavior that is viewed as "wrong." However, these actions of "re-correction" often leaned into abuse, physical, verbal, and sometimes even sexual. This hostility, according to the same source, has led young queers to develop poorer mental health, displayed through behaviors of depression or anxiety, suicidal ideation and attempts, and teens developing internalized homophobia. But before we delve deeper, the definition of internalized homophobia, based on the NIH in 2009, "Internalized Homophobia and Relationship Quality among Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals", it states directly that, "Internalized homophobia represents 'the gay person’s direction of negative social attitudes toward the self' (Meyer & Dean, 1998, p. 161) and in its extreme forms, it can lead to the rejection of one’s sexual orientation. Internalized homophobia is further characterized by an intrapsychic conflict (a conflict undergone in a person's mind) between experiences of same-sex affection or desire and feeling a need to be heterosexual." This internalized homophobia can lead to a worsening in lifestyle habits within adolescents, such as a lack of concern towards their health, worsening sleep habits, and notable risk-taking behavior because they think that they are wrong in some way and are undeserving.



To provide my own experience, I once internalized the homophobia I heard. Although I was not out yet, seeing all my classmates, the internet, and even some talk between my family, has led me to believe that what I had with my girlfriend at the time was something worth being ashamed of. I would feel immense shame telling someone I was a lesbian and in a relationship with a girl, to the point that I was frequently depressed. Luckily, I was able to get out of this mindset, and have later come out to my immediate family, who were supportive. Even though I occasionally receive bigotry, I am one of the lucky ones who have people who accept me. Others, like my girlfriend at the time, are not so lucky, with many of them fearing the public reactions to their sexuality and relationships (or gender identity).



What does Pride Month and the spotlight on queers during June change? According to "The History and Mental Health Impact of LGBTQ Pride Month" 2025, the visibility of LGBTQ identities, along with affirmation that these identities are completely normal, can drastically improve self-confidence and acceptance of oneself. Although the behavior within Pride Parades may differ from person to person, and they still face their own issues (such as erasure of bisexuality and the bisexual experience based on the gender of the partner they are currently dating, transphobia, and the like), they still act as a spotlight upon queer identities to not only acknowledge our trouble-ridden history, but to also show to others who may still deal with internalized homophobia that they are not alone; that they too, deserve sunshine. While our community may not be perfect, nor our parades, I still wish to support everyone within my community and wish them all a happy Pride; you are seen. So please, a way to love thy neighbor, and to showcase your humanity (not conditional masculinity, but humanity) is to let them have the spotlight they deserve. Let the sunshine graze the skin of those who have been in the harsh cold for way too long, thinking that nobody would love them because they are a freak of nature.



If you are a queer person reading this, happy Pride. It doesn't matter what you are, who you're dating, or what others think of you; you deserve sunshine.



I have stumbled across a video that entailed the author's opinion on the concept of yumeshipping (another term for self shipping). The creator's arguments were:

P(1) Yumeshipping is parasocial and is bad

P(2) Yumeshipping is linked to pedophilia

1. If P(2) is true, calling the dislike towards yumeshipping ableist is ableist as it enforces harmful stereotypes on disabled demographics.



Before I begin, I wish to emphasize not to attack or harass the author of the video, nor yumeshippers. This is just a piece of work written to defend the concept of yumeshipping with minimal formal resources and only utilizing informal ones, along with my own understanding of logic. If any behavior of hate is sent to either party, I will not hesitate to stand my ground. I will block, along with personally apologizing to anyone attacked on behalf of the attackers. So please, be as cordial as possible to everyone involved.



In addition, I wish to highlight the lack of formal sources and evidence for all the claims brought forth. The situation and concept I am discussing is of an informal nature, meaning there is a lack of what I am capable of providing to ensure utmost credibility as a non-yumeshipper. I will only be utilizing what has been personally witnessed by other people and me, along with using whatever knowledge I have on logic to form an argument. Please take this into account as you read this.



Firstly, we should define what yumeshipping is exactly to gain broader knowledge on what it is and how it functions. Based on several informal references, yumeshipping is the act of shipping oneself (in the form of a persona, oc, or the like) with a fictional character, whom they call their fictional other, or F/O. According to Aprasi's article "What is Yumeshipping" in 2026, the term originated from a Japanese style of fan fiction called "yume shosetsu" (dream novels) since the 1990s. This type of fiction would allow readers to place their own names as the main character, where the stories would directly involve the viewer. Western communities later discovered this in the 2010s, dubbed as "reader-insert" and where the term "Y/N" began as well.



There are several types of yumeshippers, each of them with its distinct labels. Yumejoshi is the Japanese term for a woman or woman-adjacent individual who engages in yumeshipping; while yumedanshi is its male counterpart. More terminology utilized by this community is: Double (someone who ships themselves with the same F/O as someone else), Sharing NG (someone who doesn't wish to interact with doubles. More commonly known as "non-sharing"), Doutan Kangei (someone who is willing to interact with doubles), and Gachikoi (someone who treats their yumeshipping as functionally equivalent to a romantic relationship).



The author in the post, along with other people who are against the topic of yumeshipping, are particularly referring to non-sharing Gachikois. So throughout the entirety of this entry, I will try my best to only refer to this demographic of people to retain accuracy while simultaneously explaining why it is wrong to bring in the entire community.



In P(1), the author defines parasocial as "relating to or involving a one-sided emotional connection with someone (especially a celebrity or fictional character) whom one does not know personally." While I do agree that it is parasocial, the immorality of it stems from the negative connotation of the word "parasocial" rather than the "sins" of yumeshipping. "...we all partake in parasocial interactions. We mentally interact with characters we watch on TV, or the characters in books we're reading, or podcasts we listen to." - Shayla Love (Shayla Love is a journalist who writes about health, the mind, and the interaction of science in culture and philosophy). Parasociality is a normal and frequent phenomenon. An individual having a celebrity crush is parasocial; feeling sad when your favorite character dies is parasocial. However, the reason they use it in their video is, allegedly, a sign of bias towards these individuals, as the word "parasocial" has a negative connotation, and is a word most commonly used when talking about individuals who have committed immoral actions and were parasocial. Yet, just because one is parasocial doesn't mean that they are immoral, doing something unjust, or will do something of that nature; making this argument more of an assumption.



Parasociality can lead to harmful consequences. There have been testimonial accounts from individuals with their yumeshipping peers expressing and displaying aggression due to their parasocial relationship with their f/o. While this is indeed harmful behavior and not okay, the actions of a minority do not define the majority. We should help those with unhealthy parasociality to seek out assistance and reroute their attachment into much healthier alternatives.



P(2) states that yumeshippers tend to use terminology and excuses that are similar to those of pedophiles (phrases like "it is only fiction"). It is understandable where this user is coming from, as there have been cohorts of people who, when viewing a child-like character, would use the excuse that it is fictional to justify attraction towards them. However, while two things may be similar, that doesn't mean they are the same. It is like saying that enjoying anime, because some people from the alt-right love anime, that you must be alt-right too. The author is just utilizing the similarity between 2 communities and stating that they are somehow linked to each other or are in the same boat. An overlap is not sufficient evidence to conclude a link between 2 things, especially when one doesn't take into account the background behind the overlap. Pedophiles will use the excuse that it is only fiction to justify the romantic or sexual attraction towards characters that appear like children; meanwhile, yumeshippers use it to justify the act of shipping themselves with a fictional character, typically of age. The difference between the 2 is that one uses it to deflect responsibility and moral accountability, while the other justifies a consensual hobby or imaginative roleplay.



In addition, the act of yumeshipping is not exactly harmful, unlike how pedophilia can be. Pedophilia as an act hurts vulnerable children, while the paraphiliac disorder can have the possibility to affect children along with the person who has the disorder, as they can experience massive distress due to it. This contributes to the title of paraphilic disorder. As for yumeshipping, the act itself does not actually affect anyone, but rather the actions of the yumeshipper, especially if unhealthy. Because of this, it furthers the link between pedophilia and yumeshipping, which makes P(2) not stand due to insufficient evidence and illogical correlation.



I believe that the reason the author has linked yumeshipping with pedophilia like this was mostly an unintentional faulty-association fallacy (If I am being generous). However, it may show, yet again, an alleged strong bias against yumeshippers as it takes yumeshippers and correlates them to something as deplorable as pedophilia. This, whether a mistake or not, elicits a strong negative reaction in the viewer, which could lead to unjust harassment of these individuals over faulty logic.



In connection with P(2), (1.), they state that because of P(2), if one claims that the hate towards yumeshipping is ableist, they themselves are ableist, because it is tying disabled people with something as bad and unjust as pedophilia. However, P(2) (1) is reliant on P(2) being true. Because we have already established that P(2) is based on a false equivalence between yumeshipping and pedophilia regarding their terminology, along with how the difference in how the concepts actually affect those around them, this makes P(2) (1) a moot point. One cannot call something ableism if it is centered around an unfair and non-existent link between 2 concepts.



I have mentioned earlier that I will brush on the topic as to why the indirect focus on non-sharing Gachikois is inappropriate when speaking about yumeshipping as a whole. The reason why is that it excludes the other ways in which yumeshipping can present itself and groups a diverse community into 1 idea or definition. Yumeshipping has a plethora of labels, and based on websites designated for these individuals, these labels showcase that yumeshippers can also be sharing or even be platonic. The videos or claims against yumeshippers never bring up the other forms of yumeshipping and their apparent immorality to support their argument. Instead, they maintain focus only on those who are non-sharing or prefer to treat their yumeship as a romantic relationship. Because of this, their arguments against the concept as a whole are incomplete and incapable of standing outside of this zoomed lens.



However, what I am doing is only defending the concept and its existence as a whole. There have been, based on my own anecdotal experience, yumeshippers who will take the extent of their attachment to extremes where harm can be fostered. For instance, the attacking of doubles or the addition of problematic dynamics between the yume and their F/O (such as inclusion of both familiar and romantic circumstances within the dynamic of their yumeship, power imbalances, and the like). This is a genuine problem that exists in certain corners of the yumeshipping community, ones that require proper attention to be placed on them. But the reason I am bringing this up is to talk about how the difference between the concept of yumeshipping, and the individuals who utilize it.



In philosophy, this is known as separating the system from the agent. The system in itself can be a harmless concept, but the agents may use it for malicious purposes or cause harm by using the system (intentional or not). Because of this, the issues that I have brought forth with the yumeshipping community aren't immoralities with yumeshipping as a concept or a system, but rather improper use of a system in controversial ways by the agents. Yet, this doesn't undermine the real accountability that should be held up to those agents. The impact left by their actions can be detrimental, as harassment campaigns can lead to a hostile environment within the community, and the inclusion of problematic dynamics may be normalized when we already know the harm they can cause. Yet, this is an issue that exists within the agents, not the concept as a whole; and attacking the concept rather than holding the agents accountable will not solve the issues from existing, just redirecting them elsewhere.



If you ever meet a yumeshipper who displays such behaviours, please do not harass them, but rather educate them about the harm of their actions and encourage they seek help of any kind.