Friendly Reminder That Bisexual, Pansexual, Asexual, And Aromantic People Do Not Experience “straight

Frankly I don’t see the point in fussing over the precise gender identities of historical figures and what they would hypothetically describe themselves as were they alive today. They’re not fictional characters—they’re dead people whose opinions on a continuously evolving topic are largely unknowable, but are part of a shared history nonetheless.

For example, whether a historical figure lived secretly as a man because she was a woman in a society where that was her only option to actually do the things she wanted to do, or because he was just more comfortable that way and wanted to be recognized as a man... how can we know? How can we determine that it was not both? How can we look back through history to a world so different from ours and come to conclusions about things that are often complicated and indistinct in our own time?

I just don’t see what is accomplished by trying to sort and separate trans history from GNC history based on factors we can’t truly be certain of. In an earlier generation, I think I may have lived and presented quite differently based on the choices available to me and the ease with which I may have pursued them. The world changes so much in so many ways and I can barely make sense of myself in my own time—it seems more practical to simply say, “Ah. Relatable. I can see much of myself in the record of your life.” and leave it at that. Our history is cultural, not ancestral, and in a hundred years we may be the source of just as much confusion and consternation even if we believe ourselves clear today.

Hey if you're not physically disabled and just ND, please don't say "cr*ppling," or any variations thereon, since it's ableist toward physically disabled people. "Disabling," and "incapacitating," are two better words to use instead.

(It took me a while to figure it out; anon was bothered by this post.)

Okay, sure, I’ll try to do that. That said, I want to encourage people engaged in anti-ableism efforts that take the form of asking people not to use certain words to put their energies elsewhere. Firstly, I think they make the disability advocacy community inaccessible to a lot of people, since having to relearn which words are “allowed” is overwhelming and particularly difficult for people who have limited access to words in the first place.

Secondly, every time I’ve seen this implemented it…hasn’t made anyone less ableist? People who scrupulously remove “crazy” from their vocabulary in favor of “irrational” still treat the people they’re talking about like unpersons. Often the recommended replacement words are just as good at suggesting “less valuable person” as the words they replaced. I think there’s some value in asking “does our use of words surrounding disability to mean ‘bad thing’ come from a place of treating disabled people like tragedies?” and often it does, but that doesn’t mean that challenging that mindset is as easy as changing out the words. Thirdly, I think it emphasizes the wrong concerns. I saw a newspaper headline the other day saying “the president’s plan will be a crippling blow to the economy” and one about the “crippling burden of student debt”. I’d think that the fact the president’s plan includes making it harder to get SSI, or the fact disabled students are way less likely to graduate and likelier to end up in debt, is a much more urgent problem than the turn of phrase used in the headline. 

Lastly, it seems like the anti-words advocacy often pretends at a false consensus in disability activism. There are physically disabled people who are bothered by that newspaper headline and those who are not. There are mentally ill people who are bothered by use of crazy and some who couldn’t care less. But no one ever says “hey, that word bothers me personally because people have used it to be mean to me”, they say “it’s ableist towards physically disabled people,” as if all physically disabled people agree on this (or as if the ones who disagree are just obviously confused poor souls and don’t merit a mention). “There are physically disabled people who dislike the phrase ‘crippling anxiety’ and there are physically disabled people who don’t care and there are physically disabled people who have, themselves, described their anxiety as crippling” is much more accurate, but less compelling.

I come from a culture that has no nudity taboo - nudity is not considered inherently sexual, or somehow traumatising to witness. What that means in practice is that there is a clearly drawn line between sexual and non-sexual nudity. There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about nudity in a sexual context, and nothing wrong or inappropriate about nudity in a non-sexual context. However, it is 100% inappropriate to be nude in a situation where it is not obvious from context whether this is sexual or not.

I've seen random kids who briefly escaped from their parents bolt across a public park buck-ass naked after they were playing in the water fountain and their parents were in the middle of changing their kid from wet clothes to dry clothes when the small nudist escaped. Changing your small kid's clothes right there in public is ok because there is obviously nothing sexual about a child whose clothes got wet. But although people will have baby pictures of their kids in the bath or just running around the house like that because sometimes little apes hate clothes for some reason, it's considered common sense to not share those pictures on facebook mom groups and such, because you have no way of knowing who's seeing them, and that blurs the line of context.

It all boils down to the clearly defined context. Bathing nude in the same sauna with five of your co-workers at the office christmas party? Clearly nonsexual, therefore completely fine. Your friend-with-benefits inviting you to come over and opening the door in nothing but a doggy collar and the most porn-scented perfume? Clearly sexual, therefore completely fine. A woman checking her breasts for lumps in the gym lockers just before or after a shower? Clearly non-sexual, therefore completely fine.

But if you went to the bank today and there's some guy who walks in and immediately strips naked, doing his banking business wearing nothing but a deep smile and being clearly very content with this situation, you have no way of telling whether he's getting kicks out of this or not. There is no contextual reason for him to be nude. Therefore, that is inappropriate.

Then you go home and post on tumblr - as one does - going like "there was some dude completely fucking buck-ass naked in the bank today. That was fucking weird and I wish he had not done that." And someone immediately swoops into inform you that actually nudity is not inherently sexual or inappropriate, and there are cultures out there that have no nudity taboo. It's not fair to call somebody a freak for something like that, maybe that guy was just finnish.

I don't care what your perception of the female body has been warped into by the media and advertising prevalent in culture. eat some goddamn carbs

Behold, a sideblog!

just somewhere to reblog things so that I can bookmark them - and have a better chance of said bookmarks not turning into dead links

(yes I know that still relies on tumblr existing/having consistent urls for posts, but at least my bookmarks won’t become useless just because somebody changed their url or deleted a post?)

Look, I am not Jewish – I was raised Catholic and am now agnostic/atheist (I don’t know what there is but I know for a fact it’s not the Christian God) – but I think it is important to point out that being a leftist, socialist/communist, anti-Semite is absolutely like carefully picking out a gun to protect your family with and then carefully and deliberately lining it up with your foot and pulling the trigger.

Anti-Semitism has been used for at least the last 120 years to deflect the working and impoverished classes’ absolutely justifiable rage against the wealthy elite into attacking another oppressed class, which does nothing at all to improve their situation and, in worst case scenarios, feeds the corporations  blood money. (IBM sold 1940′s-era computers to the Nazis.) By conflating “wealthy elite” (most of whom have always been Christian, in Europe and the US) with “Jews” (most of whom are not wealthy, although their strong emphasis on getting a good education and pursuing careers in fields where the demand is always strong, such as medicine and law, means that they are probably statistically more likely to be middle class than people who were allowed to own farmland, which for centuries Jews were not, who are now suffering because big agribusiness ate all the farms), the actual wealthy elite get to redirect the peasants with pitchforks off their doorstep. We can see it very, very clearly nowadays, where idiots like Marjorie Taylor Greene repeat misinformation about Jewish space lasers instead of demanding accountability from the giant barely-regulated utility that actually caused the California fires, thus attempting to preserve that utility’s stockholders’ fine dividends.

If you exist anywhere left of center in your beliefs, then anti-Semitism is a tool of your ideological enemies, and only helps them. You are not going to improve the situation of the Palestinians by conflating “the government of Israel” with “the Jewish people” (and if you’re American or British you’re a massive fucking hypocrite for doing so, given what Americans and what British colonialism in general has done to indigenous peoples worldwide.) All you are doing is feeding the misinformation machine that keeps poor white Christians – and for that matter, middle-class white Christians – from recognizing who the actual wealthy elites are and what they’re doing. In fact, you make it really hard to even talk about wealthy elites because of the extent to which “wealthy elite” has become an anti-Semitic dog whistle.

The Left can be, and often is, as anti-Semitic as the right… but the problem for the Left is that anti-Semitism is, in itself, a tool of corporatism and right-wing beliefs. Anti-Semitism, like racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc, is wrong because it’s wrong, because it’s morally bankrupt, incorrect, accomplishes nothing positive and causes enormous human misery, etc… but anti-Semites don’t care about that. Well, care about this. If you’re on the left, expressing prejudice against Jews, conflating Jews with the capitalist 1% (or hell, even the bourgeoisie), or conflating Jews with the government of Israel, is actively harming your cause. Actively. Harming.

So get the fuck out of your own way and stop clinging to anti-Semitic beliefs, expressing them, repeating them… just fucking stop, okay? It alienates your allies, it gives aid and comfort to your enemies, and oh yeah, it also makes you a bad person. But even if you don’t give a shit about being a good person, try to at least be a good Leftist, or liberal, or progressive, or whatever you define yourself as.

i keep seeing the increasing amount of antisemitism in leftist circles and as a jewish leftist i don't really like it. i don't like when people refuse to listen to jews when they speak about antisemitism.

nobody is immune to bigotry. just because you are a leftist (or claim to be one) it doesn't mean it's impossible for you to show microaggression.

This is potentially life saving information everyone should know.

Okay so when I got sucked into the phantom zone last week while watching youtube shorts a lot of the content it fed me was ADHD tips and a lot of it was either useless for me or redundant but there was one REALLY good tip about taking breaks that wasn't about taking breaks it was about RETURNING from breaks and the tip is: when you are about to go on a break, before you step away from your task (work, craft project, school stuff) decide what you'll do as the first thing when you sit back down at your task and set up your workspace to do that thing.

That means you've got an easy re-entry point to go back to doing the thing instead of sitting back down and having to make a decision or having to reorient from break mode to task mode. You have pre-reoriented and can just go back into working mode.

I've been doing this by circling what my next task on my tasklist is and bringing up the windows that I'll need for the task before I step away from my desk.

Brilliant hack, works great for me, hope it works great for you as well.

Live theater in the His Dark Materials universe must be wild. Surely an actor's daemon also has lines to recite, so their daemon's form probably also factors into casting decisions. Maybe some plays have vague character descriptions for daemons, but I bet other plays have really specific or central daemon characters. And sure, big-budget theaters can afford to hire a separate actor with a particular daemon to stand backstage while their daemon plays its part onstage, but community theaters don't have those kinds of resources.

Like if you're casting for Julius Caesar, surely the real historical Caesar had a pretty iconic daemon, right? Are you going to cast an actor with a pigeon daemon as Caesar and just have everyone suspend their disbelief that it's Caesar's lioness, ἁμαρτία?