FANDOM

A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • All of this information is from a "How I understand it"-point of view and is to be taken with a grain of doubt, 'kay?

    So, Inters*x discribes a person that, biologically speaking, is neither male or female. The s*x of a person depends on a variety of factors, such as internal and external organs, hormones, neurons, etc. If your brain structure,, your chromosomes, your physical appearance (including the unmentionable parts), your bodychemistry and general anatomy all align with one of the, say, traditional genders, male or female, you are asigned accordingly.

    For a variety of reasons, it might happen that all those things do not align. A "common" one (Common is a bit of a stretch, since Inters are very rare), is that you are born with XY chromosomes but somehow your body developes female, to some degree. This is because all babies are a proto-version of a female at first and then slowly shift into male one, should the chromosomes say so. That's also why men have nipples, by the way. So, the chromosomes say male, but certain parts, that are typical for male specimen, don't get the memo (I am not a biologist, don't ask me how that happens! Let's just go with the umbrella-term 'mutations'.) and develope female.

    Now, calling Inter a gender isn't quite right. First of, gender is currently associated with the concept of social gender, which is another can of worms entirely, whereas Inters*x is nothing but biology. Many inters grow up as a gender they identify with and don't exactly wear their biological situation on the sleeve. Second of, there is no clear definition what combination of traits makes you inter. Maybe you have a combination of male and female... err... parts and you, being inter, is phyiscally visible, or maybe your brain and parts of your hormone levels correspond to female, even though your body seems all male. There is a probably limitless variety of 'combinations'. Inter is an umbrella-term for everything that isn't biologically male or female.

    I don't know what the fourth 'gender' you where talking about would be. Transmen or transwomen are just men and women, respectively (Which, on a biological level, is also an interesting topic, but still highly debated), if that's what you mean.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Yayyy, I'm un-banned again!! :) :D

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • The Waukesha Wisconsin incident was something entirely tragic and regrettable that occurred. Calling it "canon" will not be tolerated on this wiki. The event was not some story, it was an actual crime that greatly affected the wiki and the mythos, and even moreso affected an entire state.

    I do not care about your opinion on the matter, do not make such statements again.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • So, I asked Pyro on what she thinks about your response to her video and, as you may have noticed, you have been banned.

    If you're planning on coming back after the ban, I'd suggest to maybe not openly challenge an admin to ban you.

    I just wanted to let you know that I really did enjoy some of our conversations. But you knew it would end this way, right? :b

    Well...

    I guess I'll see you. Or not, in case you're never returning.

    Have a nice year!

    Love, Implord! <3

      Loading editor
    • No homo, though.

        Loading editor
    • Actually, I think I'm going to reduce it to a month, but let this be a lesson learned: Do not challenge the admins with the equivelent of "Come at me, bro"

      But I'm only doing it this time. Next time, I will not reduce your block time. 

      So, see you next month, I guess.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • This is regarding your reaction to Pyros video.

    I'm not gonna ban you just yet, mostly because I really don't feel like you are the kind of person I usually have to ban, also because you use an account, whichfore you deserve an offical warning. This one.

    Try to formulate your points a bit more carefully. If you want help with that, I can provide that, wording is the one thing I am really, really good at.

    Sincerely,

    Implord

      Loading editor
    • View all 6 replies
    • Because I was wondering what kind of legal system your country has, like if it treats kids as adults? Most US jurisdictions do, most central European do not.

      And I don't want to be encouraging you to ban me either just do give you something to do :)

        Loading editor
    • I'm from Germany.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Yo! It's me.

    So, I thought I could at least explain to you why I have to shoot a  lot of your theories down:

    Because people are idiots.

    For example, if we admitted Ticci Toby or Jeff the Killer to be part of canonical discussions, we'd have to extent the "Stating fake"-rule to them, which means we could do less against those very annoying people that keep claiming those figures are real and also tragic heroes and in love with what appears to be a majority of all anonymous users that ever came across our Wikis.

    Also, while Slenderman is ambiguous enough so he, or, to be precise, something related to him in some far-fetched way, could be real. If there is something supernatural in this world, why not him?

    Jeff and Toby, however, are absolutely fake and have been proven so by multiple sources, so that'd also ruin the whole "It could be real"-atmosphere, on the long run.

    But those are peanuts, annoying but not lethal. Unless you're really allergic to peanuts, which I don't mean to disrespect.

    Now about Morgan Geyser, her psychotic girlfriend and all stuff related... The thing is, as I said, people are idiots. And idiots are unpleasantly dangerous if left to their own devices. If we allowed the possibillity that Morgan could even be remotely connected to Slenderman in an actual way, which is not the case, by the way, I have been REALLY carefull with my research and I have autism, so if I say I am sufficingly informed, believe me that I am... Anyway, if we allowed that kind of suggestion, some mentally challended nutcase could see that as confirmation, or lack of clear denial, which is arguably the same thing, that Slenderman could want them to stab someone with a knife. And that'd be our fault. Which, mildy put, would be a bad thing. Slenderman doesn't behave this way and we have to make ourselves very clear about that, so there won't be any psychopaths that use anything we said as an excuse.

    I'm not sorry if I sound harsh towards you, at times, but I don't do it because I enjoy it, or because I am some stuck-up conservative that likes to spoil all the fun, but because it's kinda my duty, okay?

    Feel free to post your other theories, that could not be very dangerous in the wrong brain, as you see fit and I will gladly debate you until I get bored or distracted by shiny objects.

    Signed,

    Implord

      Loading editor
    • View all 32 replies
    • Implord wrote:
      I wanted to ban you, too, she just got you first.

      Oh, that's so kind of you to tell me that lol. Well, maybe better luck next time I post something inappropriate again :)

        Loading editor
    • Don't.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi, welcome to The Slender Man Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Is Slenderman not being "softened up" too much since the mythos is being criticised due to the stabbing crime? page.

    Please leave me a message if I can help with anything! Also, while you are not forced to read them, you are required to read and are bound by the Terms of Service by utilizing this website.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.