#but sure. trans president before a cis woman president

[two-calicos-in-a-trenchcoat]

"We might have a trans woman president before we have a female president"

................my parents are...weirdly disconnected from reality.........

[thebluestockingfirefly]

There are a lot of things I could say right now. A lot of emotions roiling and punching and screaming to be vocalized. But I don't have the strength right now to articulate all of that. What I will say is this.

I'm a disabled woman. I've been disabled nearly all of my life. I had severe chronic kidney infections requiring multi-weekly injections from the time I was three months old until I was four and a half, when I had major surgery - without which, I'd be dead by now. I bear scars and an undersized kidney and the gratefulness I didn't almost die from giardia like my sister. I had about a year and a half between recovering from my surgery and starting to get sick again; in that time, I won the Presidential Fitness Award, played soccer, and did gymnastics, and was so skilled at the latter that they wanted to train me privately for competition (terrible at soccer, though. oof). In second grade, the PE teacher called my parents because I was no longer able to participate the way I had before, and she was worried. Took several more years before I was finally diagnosed with what was then called chronic fatigue syndrome. I got progressively sicker from there. My parents didn't think I'd finish fourth grade because I missed so much of the school year due to being sick. No one thought I'd finish high school, and a huge part of the reason I graduated was because I had a 504, and parents who fought for me to get that 504 - and an advisor who dated the expiry date for it past the time I'd graduate, because the administration had nearly refused to grant it to me and she wanted to make sure it wouldn't be taken away.

I've fought every step of the way to achieve what I have, but I absolutely wouldn't have got there if it weren't for the fact that disability rights legislation exists - and it exists because of hard-fought battles by disability rights activists. Disability rights are still a relatively recent thing - the ADA was only passed in 1990 - and people with disabilities are still regularly left out of rights conversations. And, lest you think 'oh, well, I'm not disabled' - guess what? You're going to get old. A split second might change your life. Disability is the one demographic literally anyone could find themselves in at any time, and are increasinbly likely to become a member of as they age. People with disabilities are uniquely vulnerable to the whims of governments, and looking forward, it is an absolute surety that our rights - our very value as human beings deserving of life and respect and love - will be in danger. Our lives will be in danger. Medicaid and Medicare are both at extreme risk. Health insurance coverage in general is almost certainly going to contract and exclude a hell of a lot of us. (I lived in the UK during the 2016 election knowing I was moving back to America in 2017 and sobbed at the results because I was terrified.) Access to care in general is also likely to seep away like toxins into groundwater, leaving far too many without access to vital and necessary means to survive.

To sum up: people with disabilities are going to die. And if you don't care about that, if you can't be bothered, I have only this to say to you: go fucking trip in a pothole and break your neck on the way down.

Moving on to a different topic.

Two of my closest, dearest friends are queer. Very different identities, very different people, both people without whom I'm not sure I'd have survived the last decade. You know who not only doesn't give a shit about people with queer identities but is actively advocating to relegate them to statuses less than human? Yeah. The shithead America just elected as president. It's made trans identities a pointed, specific point of attack, demonizing people who literally only want to be seen as normal so they can carry on with life. The vitriol spewed at trans individuals, at anyone who isn't cis-het, is horrific and disgusting and now has an even greater platform to not only continue to demonize perfectly normal people but also actively legislate to remove their rights, along with those of anyone who doesn't happen to identify with their assigned gender at birth or a strictly heterosexual attraction to others.

As my last futile shriek into the night, for now, I return to the fact that I'm a woman. I've been on birth control since I was 18. I currently have an IUD. I used to have the arm implant thing. For most of the time that I've been using birth control, the goal has been to control, minimize, or largely eliminate my period, but I'm gonna be honest here: I've also used it to keep from getting pregnant (gasp, shock, horror, go fuck yourself if you think this is somehow unacceptable). But guess what? Birth control is a vitally important way in which people are able to exercise autonomy over their bodies. How we are able to choose to be intimate with men without being terrified that doing so will irrevocably alter our lives in a way over which we have no say. How we're able to avoid having to face the decision to have an abortion. When my mother was a young woman, abortion was illegal. Didn't matter the circumstances, didn't matter the timeline; you got pregnant, no matter how, you had almost no options. If you decided to end your pregnancy and were lucky, you might visit a doctor who knew what they were doing and provided competent care without risking your life, and survive to one day have a family, if you wanted. If you weren't, you might end up with permanent damage to your reproductive organs that meant you could never have children. Or dead.

We started a return to this reality several years ago, when Roe v. Wade was repealed by the Supreme Court and states across the country instituted extreme abortion bans that basically said a hearty Fuck You to every woman in this country. Women have died as a result, women who should be alive right now. Children are living without their mothers because doctors are scared to provide necessary care. And now even more women are going to die. I live in a blue state with no restrictions on abortion and I'm fucking terrified because my rights, my autonomy, my ability to make my own fucking decisions about myself, my body, my own damn life are in question despite where I live. I'm a person. Every fucking woman is a person. We deserve to be able to decide what the fuck we want to do with our bodies, without anyone else's input.

[wettestwraith]

So I want to make another analysis post on Barbie bc I saw a post yet again but I didn't want to reblog it my own opinions on it bc that might seem rude and some things in the original post are valid so here we go.

So I am not gonna invalidate trans women's opinions on the gynecologist scene, I am just going to provide my own interpretation of it as a genderqueer demigirl so take it if you will. When I was watching it in cinemas, I was like "oh Barbie got bottom surgery, good for her!" bc I felt this was a natural progression of her arc, Barbie wants to be human, Barbie wants to experience everything good and bad there is to humanity. I feel like saying "oh this movie had Barbie get a vagina bc that would make her a 'real woman'" is kind of diminishing the story here which is that Barbie has become okay with irrepressible thoughts of death, Barbie has become okay with cellulite, Barbie has become okay with aging, she now wants cellulite, to age and to eventually have her ending one day. She kind of reminds me of some trans women I know who want to menstruate if that makes any sense (this isn't out of like some obligation or whatever they just want to do it... pls don't), so when the movie was like "Barbie has a vagina now", I just went "good for her". Like Barbie became a real woman LONG before she had her bottom surgery, when she kept thinking abt death, when she cried, when she began to feel insecure about herself, when she had an existential crisis, when she saw how much love life has to offer. Before Ruth Handler even appeared, Barbie became human, she doesn't act like the other Barbies anymore. But when Ruth appared, she finally became sure, she didn't want to be an idea anymore, it is also bc her human has realised that there's nothing wrong with cellulite, nothing wrong with death and aging. Her bottom surgery did not cement her finally becoming human.

There are also some who did not like the whole meta joke of "Margot Robbie is not the kind of person to cast for this" like I don't like meta jokes either but I thought the whole point of that scene was that no matter what women do, they will never be good enough. Barbie is already so brilliant and beautiful yet she can't see that bc there are other Barbies that have won Nobel prizes, there are other Barbies that are doctors, Barbies that are presidents and if she can't be any of those then what was she made for? And the film says "isn't it good enough to just love yourself? To live? To be human?" Also, it's kind of just to show that women can never be attractive enough (I am thinking abt kpop stars getting plastic surgery and I am just like??? What??? You're already literally impossibly attractive???)

There are also criticisms of the whole "I am a man with no power, does that make me a woman?" being how cis people perceive trans people and yeah that is how they perceive us but this did not feel like a specific jab at trans people to me bc these were the same people who also went "I am not sexist! I am the son of a mother and I have a sister as well" (they also make some jokes like 'I am the mother of a son' but I think that was just Mattel trying to convince Greta to make them silly little guys <they aren't) so there's that. This could be clumsy writing as while yes these guys were funny a lot of their scenes were just kind of flimsy yknow?

There's also criticism abt the teen calling Barbie a fascist being how conservatives see left leaning people and first off I know MANY people who are like this and act EXACTLY like that, some of you reading this post probably act exactly like her. She has valid criticisms of Barbie perpetuating unrealistic body standards but she also doesn't acknowledge that Barbie is unrealistically thin is so that she looks okay and not off-putting with clothes on (since Barbie clothes aren't exactly form-fitting yknow?) but she also uses a lot of terms incorrectly. She calls Barbie, the idea, the concept itself, fascist. The company that owns Barbie, Mattel, is fascistic but Barbie isn't. It kind of reminded me how a lot of children that grew up in the global north will cling on to leftist politics but then won't educate themselves on imperialism, the detrimental effects of communism, colonialism and post-colonialism and many more and will also speak over poc and disabled people a lot (I am side-eyeing you so many of you rn)

At the end of the day, Barbie is not a perfect film by a milestone, it is still a movie approved by Mattel. But to call it a "harsh conservative corporate cash-grab" is to ignore the nuances in it, which I am seeing a lot of with you lot nowadays jfc

[itsbansheebitch]

EXACTLY! Culture changes just like "acceptable items/clothing/behavior for [Group]." I mean, we've literally had Presidents who have worn dresses as kids. Because that's what kids did back then. Life goes on and the standards change.

This doesn't mean that all men who want to dress more femme are all trans/nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer/etc but it does mean that more men are recognizing how restricted they are in their choices. Of course, a lot of men recognize this as kids, but as an adult you have a better perceptive to reflect on.

I think it's also important to mention that dressing outside the "norm" can get you hurt. I'm sure for a lot of people that want to dress differently, there's the fear of being seen as trans or gay. Not because they think that's a bad thing to be, but because bigots don't care if you actually are what they think you are. You can get hate crimed anyway.

The question of "will I be safe in this outfit" is on the table for EVERYONE. It wasn't that long ago that a tiktok went viral of a transphobe harassing a cis woman because she had short hair.

Transphobes have made everyone feel that they're in danger and call it "Feminism." I though the point of feminism was equality for all and making people feel safer, but I guess bigots would take even the sky if they could.

As someone who is afab and questioning their gender identity, I feel EXTREMELY unsafe around transphobes. Like, I'm pretty sure I might be cis, but transphobes literally make me sweat. Seeing someone stand at attention in a bathroom makes me want to run the other way. I feel more unsafe in bathrooms than I did before transphobes went scorched earth on the queer community.

My point is, culture is going to change no matter what anyone says do do or not to do, and transphobes are the bane of literally everyone.

interesting observation i've made: i'm a genderqueer intersex trans person who's been on T for 9 years. i wear a lot of elaborate makeup and dress in "women's" clothing most of the time. my body is very masculine and i don't hide my "masc" features like my facial and body hair when i go out, i don't try to pass as any given binary gender, i did in the past and it made me miserable, so i just go about my life as the genderqueer person that i am

whenever i'm outside in a skirt or dress and my beard and body hair are fully visible, i do get a lot of compliments from fem people and women, but i actually get a very large portion of my comments from masc people and men. i originally thought that men would be the most hesitant, but i actually get a lot of men who approach me saying things like "i really dig what you're doing" or "keep that up" or even things like "you dress like how i feel on the inside." that one really stuck with me.

if this many men and mascs are willing to approach me- how many more feel the same way and were too shy or scared to say it out loud for fear of judgment from those who may overhear?

we societally groom men and AMAB people to believe they don't want to wear dresses, skirts, and makeup- but they do. whether or not these people were all transfem eggs or gay is not for me to speculate on; what i want people to take away from this is that people of all gender identities want to wear dresses, skirts, and makeup. people of all gender identities want to dress in different ways. we teach each other that women only wear certain clothes and men only wear certain other clothes, but that's just not the reality of it.

people are way more nuanced than that, and i've seen it with my own two eyes. it's beautiful. the world is a lot more open minded than we're taught to believe. we need to start letting everyone dress as they please. it's clear that most people don't fit into this rigid binary we've created. humanity is just too diverse for that.

[maxknightley]

It might just be me as a trans woman reading this in a trans way, but when Henry Day-Eastman talked about how every mirror he saw he was a guy and unhappy and alone. Big trans vibes. Am I reading too much of my own experience into that or was that intended? Love our vampire boy!

This is going to be... a somewhat complicated question to answer, and it'll deal with some spoilers for Eidolon Playtest Season 2, so I'm going to post my thoughts under a readmore.

For those who don't know: Eidolon Playtest is an actual play podcast I'm on where we're testing out a game a couple of my friends wrote. It's very good, you'll like it a lot if you enjoy things like "psychic battles against the President of the United States," "accidentally unionizing a demonic underclass" and "arguing about whether Adam Sandler's Click is a masterpiece in this universe or not." Also I made the soundtrack and people say that it whips ass so who am I to say otherwise?

I think you should listen to it, ideally before reading the rest of this post, because the post is going to make things sound a lot more confusing and unhinged than they actually are. I promise that all this shit makes sense if you're caught up.

So to get into Henry Day-Eastman and Harvey Stoker, I first want to touch on Harvey Godlove.

Originally, I didn't think very much about Harvey Godlove's gender or orientation very much. He started out as a very simple, straightforward character and sort of accumulated more meaningful character traits as time went on. Around 1/2 to 3/4 of the way through season 1, I decided he was bisexual because of dynamics on the show.

1. Harvey Godlove is a trans man, a decision I made in part because I saw a few people in the Discord chat who interpreted him that way, + a close transmasc friend of mine felt like it was a good fit. At first, I wasn't sure whether I wanted to make that Explicitly Canon or not, but as we got into season two, I came to the conclusion that it made a lot of sense, and that it dovetailed well with the other plot beats I wanted to hit for Henry/Harvey's character arc.

2. So, Henry Day-Eastman was created from parts of Harvey Godlove's soul and parts of Dracula's soul; the remaining parts were combined to form Harvey Faustus Stoker.

The Neighborhood works in such a way that their shared universe was created based on both Henry and Stoker's desires and beliefs. You could easily say that this implies Henry is cis; he has the body he "wants," the social role he "wants," other people see him as he "wants to be seen," etc.

But, of course, the whole point of Season Two is that the Neighborhood houses are false utopias. Henry isn't really happy with his life; he's just comfortable enough not to question it, even when he feels like trash.

3. Lisa Fratelli, an alternate version of Harvey created from his friend Christina's mental image of him, is transmasc - or maybe it's more accurate to say she "will be transmasc once she figures shit out?" It's something I don't think I've said explicitly on any of the episodes that have gone live, but I've definitely dropped some Very Heavy Hints. There's a reason she talks about hating the roles her parents pressured her into, there's a reason her Eidolon - the manifestation of her psyche - looks like a man, there's a reason she gets fixated on thoughts like "there's a version of me named Harvey" or "what if I became a cowboy."

The mirror conversation takes place between Henry and Lisa, so there's definitely transgender vibes, if that makes sense. The monologue as I conceived it was "about" a more general sense of depression, purposelessness, and being alone in the world - but like, at the end of the day, I'm a trans woman writing a conversation between two different "reflections" of a trans man. I think a transgender reading of that scene makes sense.

4. Henry ultimately decides to become a part of Harvey Godlove again, but at the end of the day, he still lived a different life. His desires were derived from Harvey's, but they weren't the same as Harvey's. Because of this, I think there's a few different ways you could read Henry!

You could read him as a cisgender man, or as "a trans person's fantasy of being cis," living out an idealized life in which his AGAB matches up with his lived experience - and yet, this life feels emptier than the one in which he transitioned, with all the challenges that entails.

You could read him as a trans man, whose obsession with "normalcy" is partly related to a desire to pass, for nobody to question who or what he is. If he doesn't stick out too much, maybe people will fucking Be Cool about it.

Or you could read him as a trans woman, someone whose desires are at once aligned with and opposed to the desires of the person he "was." Someone trapped in a role that, on paper, provides him with a lot of benefits and security, but in practice just makes him miserable.

TL;DR - I didn't necessarily intend for Henry's mirror vision to carry trans vibes, but I think it makes sense to read it as such. I'm a trans woman, Harvey's a trans man (as are all other versions of him seen in S2), that kind of subtext is going to crop up.

I hope that makes sense and I'm sorry for being so long-winded, lol. This is something I put a lot of thought into and I like to think it shows.

(P.S. Either way, Count Dracula was definitely cisgender, so Harvey still gets to make dumb jokes about how he's technically genderfluid because "sometimes he's a trans man and sometimes he's a cis man")

[theydeservedasoftepilogue]

If you're a Braime shipper, you should check out Y The Last Man

So @hulu has a new show called Y The Last Man, based on a comic series. If you are unfamiliar with the premise, a disease hits the earth that wipes out every animal with a Y chromosome, with the exception of Yorick Brown (the main character) and his pet monkey Ampersand.

In some ways it is a traditional post-apocalyptic TV show (Walking Dead, Battlestar Gallactica, The 100, Jericho), with a heavy dose of explicit gender politics.

(Side note: I really have to complement the show for being smart and nuanced about the way it discusses and frames the issue of biological sex and social gender. The plight of trans men is explored early on, as is the fact that many groups of women have Y chromosomes, and were victims of the disease)

BUT, I wanted to say that one of the main plot lines of the show has a LOT of parallels to Jaime/Brienne's storyline, particularly their journey from the North to King's Landing.

~*~

So the show has basically 3 plot lines that follow different members of the Brown family - Yorick, his sister Hero, and his mother Jennifer (a US congresswoman who gets promoted to being president after virtually everyone in the line of succession is killed).

Yorick's plot line essentially consists of a road trip through apocalyptic America with a genetic scientist, Allison Mann (who is going to do research on him to figure out why he survived the plague) and Agent 355, a member of an elite militarized intelligence force who gets put in charge of guarding Yorick and keeping him safe, so he can be studied.

Allison Mann is a lesbian, but Yorick has a romantic and sexual dynamic with Agent 355, who is charged with protecting him as they go on this hazardous, harrowing journey.

Agent 355 has a lot of Brienne in her. She is an incredibly skilled and competent warrior, and would lay down her life for this mission. She is very serious, and treats the mission with deadly seriousness. She also has a troubled past that the show is clearly going to explore more as time goes on. She is VERY closed-off and secretive at the beginning, but it is clear that Yorick is going to slowly break down her emotional barriers as they bond along their journey. (Sound familiar?)

Yorick is less like Jaime than Agent 355 is like Brienne. He is not a warrior of any variety. However, he does cause Agent 355 a great deal of trouble along the way, more through incompetence than through any deliberate effort. Her effort to try to keep him in line reminds me more than a little of Brienne's efforts to stop Jaime from causing problems early on in their journey.

But the strongest parallels between Jaime and Yorick actually have more to do with their circumstances than their character traits. Yorick is the son of a powerful political figure who has a lot of enemies, and a lot of people plotting against her (one of the other main plot threads of the show). He is an important asset, but he's also in danger partly because of who his mother is, and his connection her. Hiding that Yorick is a cis man is important, but hiding his familial connection to Jennifer Brown is debatably even more important in keeping him alive.

Additionally, Yorick in the beginning is most concerned with trying to track down his girlfriend, whom he was separated from just before the plague struck. He still holds a lingering attachment to her in early episodes. However, it is pretty obvious he is starting to develop feelings for Agent 355, and I suspect one of the conflicts he's going to have to wrestle with as the series continues is his feelings for the woman he was in love with before, and the woman he is growing more attached to as she protects him through their treacherous journey.

~*~

Obviously, it's not an exact parallel. There are significant differences, for sure. But I realized recently as I was watching the show that it was starting to fill that same gap for me that Braime does/did. So i thought I would share that with you all, if you are looking for something new in that same broad vein.

(Also, just generally, I think the show is well written and well-done. Not perfect, but solid B+ work most of the time. And it has occasional glimmers of greatness that I think could be expanded if the show is allowed to continue and really find its footing)

[catboybiologist]

I'm bringing this back in light of recent events. This applies to political movements.

I've posted a lot about HRT, but I have also posted about birth control. Anyone with a functioning uterus should make sure that they have a solution to maintaining steady birth control if their supply is disrupted. From the other side, consider a vasectomy as well, especially if you have a steady partner that you don't want to have kids with.

Cis women's reproductive freedom is, in my mind, a unified cause with transgender healthcare. The infringement of women's bodies, cis and trans, is established through the same oppressive logic, through the same oppressive institutions, and directed at those who are seen as anything less than cishet men- a category which includes any woman and any trans person.

There is a reason that TERFs largely do not talk about reproductive freedoms. Arguing for bodily autonomy would also result in a precedent that secures transgender healthcare. The United States legal system is heavily based on court precedent argued on fundamental rights. Yes, the courts are conservative right now. But that only drives home the point that these causes need to be unified and need to be argued as one.

Feminism will not find victories by eliminating trans people, and trans liberation will not find victories without cis feminist allies. We are stronger together.

As I've said many, many times before: universal, permanent bans on birth control or HRT, written into law, are unlikely. However, the only reason I am saying this is because people fight. And people fight together. The American Right is constantly, actively infringing on people's rights, and then being beaten back. More often than not, those fights are won. But they have to be fought. If the first Trump presidency felt "okay" to you, this was why. Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and more will need unified support in the coming years.

Do I have a playbook to support and activism? God no. I'd love to hear other people's advice, though. But keep an eye on which fights are happening, and support the organizations fighting them.

We'll be okay. We'll be tired. But we'll be okay.

Hey I know we're all tranny supreme here but transfemmes, do NOT let terfs turn cis women against you

[whitehotharlots]

Previewing the 2024 Democrat Primary

Within a couple weeks of his being sworn in, just about every person on earth will wish Joe Biden was no longer president. Sure, the few surviving John B. Anderson voters will be thrilled to see 4 years of crushing austerity and half-assed attempts at Keynesian stimulus. But most people will begin dreaming about a brighter future.

Good news! The 2024 Democratic primary field is going to contain dozens of options. Bad news! They are all going to be disgusting piles of shit. 

The “top tier”

While it’s too early to do any handicapping, these are the candidates the media will treat as having the most realistic chances of securing the nomination. 

Kamala Harris

Kamala did not win a single primary delegate in 2020. This is because she dropped out before the first primary, and that was because no one likes her. She has no base beyond a few thousand of twitter’s most violent psychos. Her disingenuousness approaches John Edwards levels: any halfway incredulous person can see immediately beyond her bullshit. She has no principles whatsoever, and while that may be par for the course for Democrats, she lacks even the basic politician’s ability to intuit anything that might, hypothetically, constitute a principle. 

Even better: she is an awful public speaker. She sounds like how a talking dog would speak if he were just caught stealing people food off the kitchen table. She communicates in weird grunts and faux sassy squeaks, which is how she imagines real black women sound like, but something about her is unable to sell the bit. She begins her sentences in halfhearted AAVE, stops and panics halfway through as she realizes that maybe this sounds fake and offensive, and then reminds herself oh wait, no, this is okay since I’m black. This doesn’t happen once or twice per speech. This is how every single sentence sounds. 

Kamala is like Nancy Pelosi in that no sketch show will ever impersonate her correctly, because anything that came close to authenticity would be considered far too cruel. This might benefit her in the primaries, as she exists in the minds of Democrats as someone and something she absolutely is not in reality. Nominating her would be like allowing your child’s imaginary friend to attempt to drive you to the store. 

Andrew Cuomo

Easily one of the 50 worst people alive, Cuomo has a solid chance because Democrats, same as Republicans, are unable to differentiate between electability and self-serving ruthlessness. Cuomo used the deadliest public health crisis in American history as a pretext for cutting Medicaid and firing 5,000 MTA workers, and his approval rating increased. New York Dems are little piggies who love eating shit. If we assume that the political media will continue their habit of refusing to discuss the legislative history of right wing Democrats, Cuomo might well cruise to the nomination and then lose to literally any human being the GOP nominates by an historic margin. 

Joe Biden

The party loves him because he is a right wing racist. “Progressives” tolerate him because black primary voters over 40 supported him, and their opinion is supposedly a magic window into god’s truth. Everyone else can tell he is manifestly senile. I don’t put it above the DNC to pick a candidate who is in horrible health, dying, or even dead--whatever the financial sector wants, they’ll get. But I would be shocked if his approval rating is above 39% by mid-2023, and by that point deep fake technology will be advanced enough they’ll put out a very lifelike video in which the Max Headroom version of Joe explains he’s proud of his accomplishments--that budget’s almost balanced already--but, man, I gotta abd--I gotta abdica--, uhh, I gotta, I, uhh, I gotta move down, man. 

Wild Cards

These candidates would have all have a chance if they ran, but they could all much more easily retire to Little Saint James off of kickbacks they’ve gotten from Citibank and I.G. Farben. 

Rahm Emanuel

Rahm is going to receive some hugely influential post in the Biden administration. Let’s say he becomes Secretary of Education. His signature achievement will be replacing all elementary school teachers with Amazon’s Alexa, which saved the taxpayers so much money we were able to quadruple the number of armed police officers we put into high schools. This will give him several thousand positive profiles on network news programs and the near-universal support of the Silicon Valley vampires who will own 99% of the country by the time Biden’s term ends. They will use their fancy mind control devices to convince geriatic primary voters that Rahm’s the one who will bring Decency back to the white house. His candidacy will be the paragon of wokeness, as expressing concern toward the fact that he covered up the police murder of a black guy will get you called a racist. 

Rahm has a bonus in that Jewish men are now Schrodeniger’s PoC. When they are decent human beings, they are basic, cis white men who are stealing attention from disabled trans candidates of color. When they love austerity and apartheid, they become the most vulnerable people of color on earth and criticizing them in any way is genocide. No one will be able to mention a single thing Rahm has ever done or said without opening themselves to accusations of antisemitism, and that gives him a strong edge against the rest of the field. The good news is that an Emmanuel candidacy would result in over 50% of black voters choosing the GOP candidate--which, I guess that’s not really good but it would certainly be funny. 

Gavin Newsom

Newsom is every bit as feckless as Cuomo, but he doesn’t put off the same “bad guy in an early Steven Segal movie” vibes. He will mention climate change 50 times per speech and no one will bother to mention how he keeps signing fracking contracts even though his state is now on fire 11 months of the year. If anything, this will be spun into an argument about how he’s actually the candidate best suited to handle all the water refugees gathering on the southern border. Look for his plan to curb emissions by 10% by the year 2150 to get high marks from Sierra Club nerds. He’s also a celebate librarian’s idea of what constitutes a handsome man, so he’ll have some support from the type of women who claim to hate all men. 

Larry Summers

I mean, why not? Larry, like most members of the Obama administration, has politics that are eerily similar to those of Jordan Peterson. In normal circumstances, this makes a person a dangerous fascist who should not be platformed. But if that person has a D next to their name this makes them a realistic pragmatist who has what it takes to bring suburban bankers into our tent. If current trends in Woke Phrenology continue apace, Larry’s belief that women are inherently bad at STEM will be liberal orthodoxy by 2023, and his dedication to the Laffer Curve could see him rake in massive donations. Seriously, I’m not kidding: cultural liberalism is now fully dedicated to identity essentialism and balanced budgets. Larry is their ideal candidate. If he were black and/or a woman, I’d put him in the very top tier. 

Jay Inslee

Unlike Newsom, Inslee’s attempt to crown himself the King of Global Warming won’t be immediately derailed, since his state is only on fire because of protestors. This, however, poses a different problem. He’s going to be a good test case for the Democrat’s uneasy peace with the ever increasing share of the electorate who become catatonic upon hearing a pronoun. On the one hand, you need to take their votes for granted. On the other hand, they’re not like black people or regular gays: most voters actively, consciously despise wokies, and associating yourself with them will ruin a campaign even in deep blue areas. There’s still gonna be riots in a year. Biden’s gonna announce the sale of all our nation’s potable water to the good folks at Nestle and some trans freak named Sasha-Malia DeBalzac is going to use that as an opportunity to sell their new pamphlet about how it’s fascist to not burn down small businesses. No matter what Inslee does in response, it’ll end his career. 

AOC

I’m not one of those “AOC is a secret conservative” weirdos, but I am aware enough of basic reality to know she has zero chance of coming close to the nomination. The right and the center both regard her as a literal demon. The party is already blaming her for the fact that a handful of faceless Reagan acolytes failed to flip their suburban districts even though they ran on sensible pragmatic proposals like euthanizing the homeless. The recriminations will only get more unhinged when the Dems eat shit in the 2022 midterms. She will be a Russian, she will be white male, she will be a communist, she will be a homophobe: any insult or conspiracy theory you can name, MSNBC will spend hours discussing. Her house seat challenger will receive a record amount of support from the DNC in 2024 and it’ll be all she can do to remain in congress.

Larry Hogan

Don’t be dissuaded by the fact that he’s a Republican. Larry is the DNC’s ideal candidate: a physically repulsive conservative who owes his entire career to appealing to the most spiteful desires of suburban white people. He’s an open racist in a material sense--if you’re old-school enough to think racism is a matter of beliefs and actions, rather than the presence of cultural signifiers--but his is the beloved “never Trump” style of racism that Dems covet. He’s also a Proven Leader who thinks the role of government should be to finance the construction of investment property and give police the resources they need to run successful drug trafficking operations. Few people embody the Democrat worldview more than Larry. 

The Losers Bracket

These people will have at least a small chance due solely to the fact that the Democrats love losing. They have lost in the past, and in the Democrat Mind that makes them especially qualified.

Joe Kennedy

The man looks like a mushroom-human hybrid from a JRPG. Trump proved that physical hideousness need not doom a presidential bid, but a candidate still needs some kind of charm or oratorical abilities or, god forbid, a decent platform. Joe aggressively lacks all of these things. A vanity campaign would be a good way to raise money and perhaps secure an MSNBC gig, so Joe might still run. 

Mayor Pete 

I am 100% convinced that Pete’s 2020 run was a CIA plot meant to prevent working class Americans from ever having a chance of living decent lives. I am also 100% aware that Democrats are dumb enough to enthusiastically support a CIA plot meant to prevent working class Americans from ever having a chance of living decent lives. If we have some sort of military or terror disaster between now and 2023 the Dems are sure to want a TROOP, and wait wait wait you’re telling me this one is a gay troop? Holy hell there’s no way that could lose!

Stacy Abrams

Never underestimate the power of white guilt. She lost the gubernatorial race to Gomer Pyle’s grandson, and her spiritual guidance of the Dems saw the party lose black voters in Georgia in 2020. Nonetheless, she is regarded as a magic font of fierceness within the DNC. She might stand a chance if she can establish herself as the most conservative non-white candidate in the field, but there’s going to be stiff competition for that honor.

Elizabeth Warren

Liz is probably angry that the party so shamelessly sold her out even after she was a good little girl and sabatoged Bernie’s campaign for them--yet another example of high ranking US government officials reneging on their promises to the Native American community. Smdh. The fact that this woman hasn’t been bankrupted a dozen times over by various Wallet Inspectors genuinely astounds me. So Liz is probably going to run again, and her campaign will be even sadder the second time around. 

It might surprise you to hear this if you don’t work at a college or NGO, but Liz diehards actually do exist. She’ll get even less support this time because there will be no viable leftist in the field for her to spoil, but she’ll still hang in long enough to make sure the very worst possible candidate beats out the second worst possible candidate. Maybe she’ll fabricate a rape accusation against Sherrod Brown. Maybe she’ll spend her entire allotted debate time doing a land acknowledgment. With Liz, anything is possible--so long as it ends in failure. 

Amy Klobuchar 

Amy was the most bloodthirsty of the 2020 also rans. She will double down on the unpopular failures of the Biden administration, explaining that if you weren’t such a selfish idiot you’d love the higher social security retirement age and oh my god are so such a moron you think you shouldn’t go bankrupt to get a COVID vaccine? There’s a non-unsubstantial segment of the Democratic base that’s self-hating enough to find this appealing, but it won’t be enough to make her viable. 

Martha Coakley

She lost Ted Kennedy’s senate seat to a retarded man who was pretending to be even more retarded than he actually was. Then she lost a gubernatorial race to a guy who openly promised Massachusetts voters that he would punish them for electing him. Her record of failure is unparalleled, making her perhaps the ideal Democrat standard bearer for the twenty twenties. 

[coochiequeens]

White House press secretary Jen Psaki cut off a Fox News Radio reporter who asked about the president’s gender discrimination order at Tuesday’s daily media briefing.

The exchange with Fox News Radio White House correspondent Rachel Sutherland comes a day after Psaki mocked another reporter from the same network who asked about “green jobs” creation in the wake of the canceled Keystone XL pipeline.

Sutherland asked about concerns voiced by some critics of the order, who say it will allow school-aged transgender girls to participate in girl’s sports leagues — potentially presenting an unlevel playing field.

“What message would the White House have to trans girls and cis girls who may end up competing against each other,” Sutherland asked. “It’s sparking some lawsuits and concern among parents, so does this administration have guidance for schools in dealing with the issue arising over trans girls competing against and with cis girls?”

“I’m not sure what your question is,” Psaki replied.

Sutherland then continued, “The president’s executive order has…” before being cut short by Psaki.

“I’m familiar with the order, but what was your question about it?” the press secretary shot back.

“The question is, does the president have a message for local school officials in dealing with these kinds of disputes that are already starting to arise between trans girls who are competing against cis girls, and a level playing field, particularly in high school sports when it leads to college scholarships,” Sutherland said.

“Is there any kind of messaging or clarification that the White House wants to give on the executive order?” she added.

“I would just say that the president’s belief is that trans rights are human rights, and that’s why he signed that executive order,” Psaki said. “In terms of the determinations by universities and colleges I would certainly defer to them.”

I don't like Fox "News" but I glad one correspondent asked how the order will impact women. Of course the woman who cut her off went to school while Title IX was in place so she didn't have to compete with men, if Psaki ever played women's sports. But why should Psaki care about girls losing sports scholarships when she attended schools in Greenwich, Connecticut, one of the wealthiest school systems in the nation. And her parents sent her to a private elementary school so I don't think she was stressed about affording college.

[gettin-bi-bi-bi]

so, I've been idenfying as a lesbian for almost one year, I'm just 15 and I probably don't know anything but I'm completely sure about my attraction to women and about my lack of attraction to men who look/are cis straight, i don't want to be transphobic or biphobic with my labels and the word I feel the most comfortable with is lesbian but im sometimes attracted to nb people/trans men(who don't look cis) and i don't know if it's hurtful for trans people to call myself a lesbian if my attraction is sometimes like that, should I call myself bi ? also, if I said bi, everyone would understand "she likes men and women" and i don't like men, I mean, if you look/act like a man im surely not attracted to you and right now I'm kind of confused about what the labels even mean

I appreciate your concern about these things and trying to find answers. I’m not going to tell you what label you can or should be using but there are some things you should know and be aware of when picking a label for yourself.

Regarding non-binary people: some nb people would not mind a lesbian being attracted to them, whereas other non-binary people would feel misgendered by that. So when you find yourself attracted to a non-binary person and you two actually get close then there needs to be a conversation about this. How do they feel about you identifying as a lesbian? Are they okay with it or does it constantly feel like you think of them as a woman? If your friends/family know you as a lesbian does that by extension mean they will always assume your non-binary partner is a woman? and so on.... Also note that bisexuality does NOT mean “attraction to men and women”. It means “attraction to more than one gender”. So someone who is attracted to women and non-binary genders (but not to men) can still identify as bisexual. Unfortunately there are many misconceptions about bisexuality and a lot of people still think it means just men and woman or just cis people. But you should choose a label based on what describes your sexuality well and makes you feel good - regardless of what false ideas the mainstream society has of that label. If we would have to wait for society to catch up on the right definitions of all our labels before we could use them then we’d all never get to pick a label. Not to mention that meanings can change over time. But I get that you don’t want people to assume you are attracted to men, some people identify as “bi lesbian” to express that they are attracted to multiple genders but not to men. Maybe that’d be an option for you. Or just saying you are “queer” which is a nice vague label that can mean any kinds of things along the line of “not straight” (or “not cis”).

Regarding trans men I honestly think you should educate yourself further on trans issues and gender. Because you say you are attracted to “trans men who don’t look cis” and that you are not attracted to people who “act/look like men”. I’m sure you don’t mean to harm anyone or to offend. But in saying those things you pretty much imply that you don’t think of trans men as real men. Even if they look feminine or are closeted - they are still men. And unless a trans man has a lot of internalised transphobia, I don’t see how any of them would really be okay with a lesbian saying she’s attracted to them. (There are trans men who date lesbians but those relationships are basically existing on a foundation of misgendering the trans man which is not a good thing.) Whatever a trans man “acts” like, that is the behaviour and personality of a man. Whatever a trans man looks like, that is the look of a man. And that being said: not all cis men look the same or act the same; some cis men have feminine features and not all cis men are the stereotypical fuckboi president of toxic masculinity-ville. But you only make this distinction regarding trans men? That ends up sounding like you don’t view trans men as men. You cannot say “I am not attracted to men” and then follow it up with “but I am sometimes attracted to trans men”. Those two statements cannot co-exist. Either you are attracted to men or you are not. By saying you are attracted to trans men but not cis men you are basically saying that trans men and cis men aren’t the same gender and you still think trans men are women.

Again, I know you mean well, so don’t take this as me talking down on you. I’m just trying to explain where you should dig a little deeper and learn more because I assume a lot of this is just coming from a lack of knowledge. It’s normal to not ~know~ all these things right away and we all sometimes make mistakes. Labels, sexuality, gender... those can all be complicated and sometimes even seem contradictory.

Always keep in mind that a label is supposed to fit you - not the other way round. If “lesbian” is the one word that seems right to you then by all means - keep it! But know that you can’t expect every non-binary person to be okay with this and if a non-binary person expresses that they are not comfortable with a lesbian being attracted to them then you either gotta change your label (to bi, for example) or not make any more advances towards that person and move on. And you should rethink how you view trans men and transness in general.

Maddie

[radfem-moira]

This never happens

I’m 19, back from a year abroad, ready for a fresh new start after a bout of depression. I spent my whole summer coming out to be people. It’s not that coming to a sudden realization during my depression made me want to scream it from the rooftops. It’s that literally every single of my parents friends’, my relatives, the neighbours, my high school friends, keep making that same joke. “Did you meet a nice foreign boy over there?” No. No I didn’t. I met a nice foreign girl. It didn’t go anywhere. I regret being such a coward. But I’m not a coward anymore.

I start college again, with a new direction. I’m a brand new person now. I know where I’m going in life (or so I think). I know what I can and cannot do. I know what I want and what I don’t want. I feel so self-confident, so done with this pushover doormat bullshit I used to pull as a way to avoid responsibility.

It takes a full semester before I try joining the GSA again, like I did before my gap year abroad. I'm apprehensive, but since I know most of the old members have graduated, including the one who’s been haunting my nightmares for over a year now, I feel relatively okay going in. I meet new people. New friends. New friends-of-friends.

Some of those friends-of-friends are trans. There were only three trans people in the GSA back when I left, but now almost a third of the membership identifies that way. Mostly “AFAB” nonbinary people and transmen. I think nothing of it. My LGBT etiquette is decent, I think. I know what’s fashionable to say and what’s not. The first time I hear someone call one of our members, a lesbian, a “TERF” for stating that she could not have sex with someone who has a penis, I stay quiet. I don’t think the other lesbian ever came back.

-

I’m 20. One of our senior executives at the GSA is another lesbian. But then one day, at an educational panel which I’ve organized (I was elected president by that time) at the request of a teacher, she suddenly declares, to an auditorium of over 100 people, that she’s actually “homoflexible”. She tells the whole 100 people that lesbian is the label that she’s “most comfortable with”, because most people “understand it right away”, and anyway she doesn’t think it’s likely she’ll ever date a man again, but she likes to “keep an open mind”, because ���you never know”.

A cold feeling of betrayal invades me. I ask myself why. Why? Why not “bisexual”? What’s wrong with “bisexual”? Why do you have to do this to me, and to other lesbians? Why do you have to launch yourself on a diatribe explaining why you, as a bisexual woman, feel more comfortable telling everyone that you’re a lesbian? When actually, you’re perfectly aware that you’ll be a lesbian until the right man comes along? You’re literally playing right into dangerous stereotypes that make existing as an actual homosexual woman a living hell!

Three years later, I’m 23, I have a minor disagreement with a bisexual friend on Facebook, over some unimportant semantics. We’re settling it quite calmly, like adults. Enter homoflexible girl, barging in, berating me for saying something she perceives as “biphobic”, accusing me of “transphobia”. Through that interaction, I learn that homoflexible girl is now dating a “pre-operative trans woman”. Her friends join in for a good old-fashioned dogpile. Eventually, I have to block all of them.

-

I’m 19 again. One of the friends-of-a-friend I’ve met through the GSA is a transwoman. Well, our GSA has two transwomen. But the other one is different, and we don’t interact much. She’s “straight”, for one (as in, she’s a transwoman who dates men), and lived as a gay man for years before starting her transition. She passes better (because she’s been transitioning for longer, and also because she’s very invested in replicating femininity), and I feel like I relate more to her, although I can’t put my finger on why. I now know that it’s because I related to her same-sex attraction and experiences of homophobia.

The other transwoman is a “lesbian” - she only likes women. Specifically, she likes lesbians. Particularly cis lesbians. I don’t really know how to respond to her awkward, even creepy attempts at flirting (she follows me to the train station multiple times). She’s clearly very nerdy and very socially awkward, and so am I. But beyond that, I can’t find it in me to return the affection. I know I should be able to experience it, but I never could. I just can’t do it. No amount of reading about terfs and genital fetishism and transphobia and how wrong and sick and worthy of death all this is can make me right. I desperately want to want her. I know I should be able to.

The school year ends. Summer comes. I meet my first girlfriend on some dating app. By the time I’m back to school, I’m unavailable. The transwoman switches her attention to someone else, to a new, younger lesbian. I say nothing.

-

I’m 23 again. Every single girl who called herself a lesbian back in my GSA day is either dating a man, dating a transwoman, or is now openly calling herself pan/bi. One of them berates me on Facebook for objecting her demands that we relabel the LGBT community as the “Queer” community. Continues to call me queer and dyke throughout the discussion despite my repeated expressions of distaste for the slurs. One of her friends jumps in and calls me “privileged” for being a "cis lesbian”. The former lesbian blocks me after I deadname her - that’s right, she identifies as a “him” now. I didn’t even know until someone else told me later. A small loss.

-

I’m 22. It’s Pride and we’re at a gay club, so while the club is full, I’m perfectly aware that the actual ratio of gay to straight is not typical of the establishment. I’m also very aware of how I look on a clubbing night. It’s fine if someone is attracted to me, if they try to flirt with me, even if they’re male. I get it. But once I’ve stated obvious disinterest, and once you see me clearly trying to hook up with someone else, you should leave me the fuck alone.

The transwoman who shows up with my friend - apparently she’s her roommate - doesn’t understand this simple rule of etiquette. She tries to hit on me in the most awkward, pathetic way, while I’m desperately trying to wriggle away. I don’t want to hurt her feelings. Tonight is a night of celebration, and I’m not actually mean, contrary to popular belief. I’m also drunk, and I’m not sure how drunk she is, but I really don’t want to anger her. And finally, there’s this other girl. Ex of an ex. She’s a cutie. I want to tap that. But it’s hard when a scrawny boy wearing a choker and eyeliner keeps trying to get between the two of you.

All night long, the transwoman interferes in the other lesbian and I’s attempts at finding some time alone. She follows us to the atm. She sits between us when we find a table on the rooftop. She keeps trying to talk to me about the most absurdly uninteresting things while I desperately try to stay in group conversations. She’s so obsessed with herself, talking about her job, her parents, hell, even her hormones, and I’m not even sure if she even asked me anything about myself at any point, or if I ever got to spontaneously share. It may have been the alcohol, but throughout this whole ordeal, all I could think of was how heterosexual our rapport felt. She, the male, talking at me, apparently not seeing utter disinterest in my silence. Me, the female, not wanting to hurt her male feelings, quietly enduring.

Finally, we all decide to call it a night. We all need to take the last subway to go home. But as I’m about to join my friends, the girl I’ve been trying to hit on holds me back. “Wanna go dance?” She asks. She knows I’ve been wanting to, but no one else would, so I didn’t. I’m elated. I say yes.

The transwoman turns around. Looks at us. And says “you know what? I think I’ll stay.”

I don’t remember ever feeling this angry at someone in my life. By this time, she was more drunk than anyone else - she’d even been sick (in the women’s bathroom, naturally). We were responsible for her. But all we wanted was to go dance and then go home and have good old fashioned gay sex.

The night had a happy ending regardless of this “woman”’s interference. I regret not simply telling her, at the subway station “sorry, but we’re going home after this and we’re going to have sex and you’re not invited”. But there’s something terrifying about saying no to someone who is supposed to be oppressed, but still behaves like they have privilege. You know others will quickly jump to their defense if you don’t handle their feelings like they’re made of glass. And at the same time, they still have the power to seriously harm you.

-

This was just a collection of ramblings about the modern LGBT movement. There’s no conclusion to it. This is just it.

[sugurushimura]

Could you do a small headcannon for the yotsu's parents? Please I need more content of them on the internet

i sure can! it’s under the cut bc i uhh talk a lot. “small” headcanon... sorry.

we know that higuchi’s father is jiro higuchi, president of yotsuba heavy industry. i assume that this is some sort of subsidiary of the yotsuba corporation, although i honestly don’t know much about that kind of thing? either way, it deals with the manufacturing of large items in bulk. i don’t see his father as very involved with kyosuke’s life at all, especially when he was younger; he was more concerned with kyosuke’s decorum than anything else, but was never very involved in his upbringing. his mother was more involved. she was a temperamental woman with a bit of a drinking issue; she was also younger than jiro and married him primarily for money. kyosuke isn’t particularly close to either of them and secretly wishes he could’ve been more rebellious as a teenager.

namikawa’s father is the head of the u.s. division of yotsuba, and that’s all we know about his family. i imagine that his parents were actually fairly close and did have a genuine relationship (wow)! they pretty much trusted him to handle himself, so he had a fair degree of freedom as a child and teenager. reiji came out to them as trans when he was very young (probably towards the end of middle school), and his parents were very supportive; in fact, it’s partially due to his father’s influence that very few people in the company (or the world at large) are aware that reiji isn’t a cis man. despite this, reiji doesn’t have very much respect for his parents, his father in particular, and more or less ignores his parents’ existence when he can.

ooi’s father works for the ministry of defense according to the manga, but i actually headcanon this to be his step-father. his biological father was a morally rigid man who passed away when ooi was in junior high. his mother remarried not long afterwards to takeshi’s step-father, who was already a close friend of hers; she mainly did this to give takeshi another parental figure and to keep the family financially stable. she and takeshi are very close – probably the closest out of any of the yotsubas and their parents. he’s on good terms with his step-father, but they’re not close.

i’m going to refer to mido w she/her pronouns and the name ayame bc this is a headcanon post and i will headcanon as i please. her father, eigo mido, is a member of the house of councillors, so basically a politician; this is actually referred to outside of their manga profiles, when higuchi asks ayame to call him up and get him to stop the sakura tv broadcast. ayame gives him a decisive no on that and looks a bit annoyed – and in the context of canon, she’s really just annoyed about higuchi calling her up to ask this of her, but i do also headcanon that her relationship with her parents isn’t that great. they pushed her very hard to succeed throughout her childhood and were more focused on her academics and future career than actually being good parents, so their relationship with her was cold and distant. she never felt like she could live up to their expectations and they were never very understanding people; she isn’t out to them in any capacity and their relationships as adults is extremely muted. she’s not fond of them and they don’t reach out to her.

takahashi’s father, karazo takahashi, is the president of the japan financial times, which i assume is some sort of financial journal / newspaper? aside from ooi, eiichi probably has the best relationship with his parents overall. karazo and his mother had a bit of a rocky relationship when eiichi was growing up, but he gets along with each of them and they’ve mostly resolved their issues. karazo has a bit of a smoking habit and talks too loudly; his mother is more soft-spoken and perceptive. they’re very traditional people, but they’re decent company.

shimura is a bit of an exception to the rule here in that we’re given absolutely no information about his father aside from the fact that he wasn’t raised by one; according to the manga profiles, he was raised by a single mother. my headcanon is that his parents were unmarried and, in fact, not in a very committed relationship; he was never really supposed to happen. his mother was a somewhat unstable individual with a lot of unhealthy habits and an addictive personality, and his father bailed on her a few months into the pregnancy. suguru’s mother was extremely unprepared for motherhood, especially on her own. she was able to bring in enough money to keep them afloat, and her family (especially her sister) contributed as well, but they still had a difficult time keeping food on the table, and she treated suguru very poorly. like, very poorly. he cut off contact with her almost entirely when he left for college, and she passed away around when he began working at yotsuba.

both of kida’s parents are anatomy professors! that’s all we know about them. i headcanon that they actually met because they were studying at the same college and took a lot of classes together. they’re very logically-minded people; his father is a bit more sentimental than his mother, but even he isn’t very. masahiko was exposed to a lot of things about their field of study when he was little, so he was pretty impervious to “gross” stuff as a child and learned not to be freaked out by gore. they were also very strict with him, though, and really a bit repressive. he isn’t close to either of them anymore, but their relationship with him is certainly not the worst of the yotsubas.

and now we get to hatori’s parents. his dad, dainosuke yotsuba, is the big man himself, the president of the yotsuba group! since his name is also the name of the company, i’d imagine that he inherited his position from his father or … something like that. arayoshi is also canonically an illegitimate child, however, so we know that mr. yotsuba is a bit saucy himself. i’d imagine he’s married, but not to arayoshi’s mother, and had sired a child with his wife before arayoshi was born, although they didn’t go into the business field. his presence in arayoshi’s childhood was practically zero, although he kept him and his mother provided for financially; he has far more interaction with him as an adult than he did when he was a child, and that’s only because arayoshi works for him. their relationship is professional and pretty damn painful to watch because of how stilted it is. yotsuba also never really stopped with the whole extramarital affair thing and is having a bit of a fling with reiji right now, oops. as for arayoshi’s mother, she was pretty distant from arayoshi; she never really planned to have kids and mostly let him do his own thing. they’re still in touch; she finally married while hatori was in college, and her husband is a decent guy.

[evilkitten3]

so... i’ve mentioned before a couple of times that i’m slowly (very, very, very slowly) working on my own original stories. and... well, the cast is pretty diverse (which makes sense, since i want to be a diverse fantasy author, duh). since i am but one person, i haven’t lived all of their experiences, and i’d love it if anyone had tips? hell, even for the experiences i have lived; i’m not turning down any advice.

anyway, here are the main characters:

Lev Abulafia– 15; half-Ashkenazi, half-Sephardi; raised in a fairly secular household (mom wears a tichel because she wants to, not because she’s super orthodox; they only really go to the local synagogue for Rosh Hashanah; etc.); autistic; has a crush on Aabir; lives with his mom and sometimes with the Wen family, who’ve essentially been actual family since before Lev was born

Meiling Wen– 15; at least half-Chinese (only met her dad); Lev’s sister and best friend; has known she was a girl since she was two; mentally ill (haven’t quite decided on a diagnosis yet, for multiple reasons, but psychosis is involved); celebrates the Jewish holidays but is uncomfortable calling herself Jewish; pretty nice but also lowkey loves sassing her siblings

Xiuying Wen– 22; half-Chinese (shares a dad with Meiling); Olympic gymnast and martial artist; diagnosed with ASPD at age 19; is the only person allowed to call Meiling “Mei” (because Meiling was afraid to ask her not to when she was younger and now she’s just used to it); likes partying and booze; stopped doing anything beyond weed at 21; pansexual and polyamorous; not super reliable but relatively self-aware; unlike Meiling, she does consider herself Jewish, since she was raised with Jewish holidays and culture as a major part of her life, even though she isn’t religiously or ethnically Jewish

Aabir ibn Isaiah al-Hashimi– 15; father is Sunni and mother is Shia (may change this bc I definitely don’t want to start anything and I’m not super educated on Sunni-Shia relations yet); has an older sister; bisexual; best friends with Thomas, even though no one can figure out why; believes that there is good in everyone, which leads to him trying to help people he sees “going down the wrong path” (like Thomas); plays basketball

Sandhya Ghatak– 16; born in Tripura, India and moved to the States at age 5 because her doctor was moving; has four arms (hence why her parents moved with her doctor); speaks Bengali, Hindi, English, and a little bit of Kokborok; closeted lesbian; dating Alex; fire powers (have to learn more about Hinduism and Agni before I go into more detail about that tbh); really loves makeup but is also very aware of where she buys it from, and is very, very clear about why she wears it (for herself, no one else); student council vice-president; straight-A student; very popular and probably the prettiest girl in the school; high anxiety and probably some other mental illness but I haven’t decided what yet

Alex(a) Howe– 16; closeted trans lesbian; was raised by super liberal parents and is hyper aware of his privileges; only out to Sandhya, so mostly uses he/him pronouns; doesn’t have a transphobic family but is choosing to remain closeted because he wants to be a professional football player; doesn’t like spicy food but is trying to increase his tolerance to impress Sandhya’s parents; had trouble saying Sandhya’s name at first so he practiced over and over again until he got it right; doesn’t use makeup himself but is pretty knowledgeable about it bc of how much his girlfriend likes it; pretty intimidating at first sight but honestly a giant teddy bear; learning Bengali; became friends with Sandhya in kindergarten and started dating her in high school

Jess Cooper– 15; nonbinary black teen; lives with their father and younger brothers; older half-‘sister’ went missing seven years ago; spends a lot of time working with their pastor helping out charities; PTSD from the death of their mother and SPD (Schizoid Personality Disorder - a “secret schizoid”); befriends Thomas after he learns why Aabir befriended him and tries to help him become a better person; doesn’t bind bc they can’t afford a binder; works two part-time jobs to help pay for younger brother’s medical expenses; sexuality currently undecided (I was going to have them be asexual, but I want to make sure I’m not stereotyping people with SPD before I finalize their sexuality)

Thomas Weaver– 15; lives with his abusive dad and younger half-sister Sarah; cis, white, poor, straight, Catholic, and super bigoted; only friend is Aabir; starts off as antagonistic until he overhears Aabir telling Lev and Meiling that he only befriended Thomas because he realized that Thomas fit the profile of a potential school shooter; becomes depressed and lashes out until Jess confronts him and he breaks down in front of them; character arc revolves around unlearning toxic behaviors, accepting others, and open-mindedness; develops a crush on Jess which leads to internal conflict when he realizes he sees them as a girl and therefore hasn’t come as far as he’d first thought

Sarah García Weaver– 6; Thomas’s younger half-sister; has lived with Thomas and his dad for since she was 3 when her parents died in a car accident; half-Mexican on her father’s side; often used by father and brother as “I can’t be racist” playing card; too young to really understand much; likes cars but plays with dolls bc her stepdad thinks cars are for boys only; wants to be a train conductor when she grows up

Riley Cooper– 21; Jess’s older half-brother who ended up in another dimension when he went to what was supposed to be a meeting for closeted trans teens; left before either he or Jess came out, so both referred to the other as “my sister” until they met up again; mother was a white woman from a racist family who got disowned for dating a black man and was hit by a car during a panic attack when Riley was 4; considered Jess’s mom to be like a second mother and was heartbroken to learn she’d died while he was gone; bisexual; ends up in a relationship with Xiuying and Luca; transitioned via magic while missing and worked as a soldier so he kinda looks like he can bench-press a tank

Luca Finley– 21; half-Romani, half-Native Hawaiian; was raised by Roma mother after other mom (I think the word is ‘Māhū’?) was killed in a hate crime; wants to learn about Shaktism but doesn’t have the resources to do so; bisexual; works as a bartender in a club Xiuying likes to go to; ends up in an open relationship with Xiuying, which Riley eventually becomes part of

there are other characters as well (Mr. Wen, Ms. Abulafia, Joe Weaver, Mr. Cooper, Pastor Kim, Pastor Kim’s wife, etc., but these guys are the main characters + Sarah - I’d put Jess’s younger brothers here too, but... this is already a lot of words, and also Marcus and Antoin are both walking spoilers)

[infiniteglitterfall]

Found this Time Magazine cover story in the waiting room for our (queer) family doctor (and lots of other doctors) (next to the trans clinic though, where our cousin is about to get their first T shot!!!!!!!).... It starts out, "In Park City, Utah, students are lining up at a local high school to get their locker assignments for the semester. "Extracurricular clubs have set up tables to attract new members. It's only midday, but the Gay-Straight Alliance, a group with outposts at about a quarter of American secondary schools, already has 47 names on its sign-up list. "Sitting behind piles of rainbow-colored paper cranes -- a hot fundraising item -- the group leaders are counting the different identity labels they've encountered. "Sure, there's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender. But there are more. Way more. "'There are people who are pan,' says 17-year-old club president Grace Mason, meaning pansexual. There's also aromantic, asexual, genderqueer, two-spirit, and on and on." Other amazing nuggets: * Bud Light did an ad saying that beer was for "people of all genders" * GLAAD did a survey just for Time Magazine that said 20% of millennials identify as something other than straight-and-cis, compared with 7% of baby boomers (which just goes to show how important visibility and education are) * the study also said that millennials were about twice as likely as boomers to know someone who is "bisexual, asexual, queer or questioning" (it's not clear to me whether that included gay, or whether that question was looking specifically at the less visible sexual orientations -- and clearly not looking at gender) * it includes very brief profiles of a bunch of people who talk about why they see gender and sexuality as fluid * (which I also love because it's a message that most often comes from the bi, pan, and ace communities, including in these profiles) * Tumblr shout-out: "Marie McGwier, 26, started selling 'GENDER IS OVER! IF YOU WANT IT' shirts online... for about $20 apiece. (Proceeds go to charity.).... Before anyone can purchase one of the T-shirts, they're asked to send a message saying what the statement means to them. McGwier [who is queer and gender nonconforming], publishes the responses on Tumblr." * Weird fun fact: "Back in Kinsey's day, many men felt more free to engage in same-sex behavior, even if they didn't talk about it," because fewer people thought of being queer as a separate identity that you had to avoid being associated with. * This is a very white American view tbh, there are still a lot of communities where doing it is fine and doesn't mean you're queer, as long as you don't make it a part of Who You Are. * also weird: they talk about Kinsey and mention trans author Julia Serano, but don't mention that they're both bi * in addition to demonstrating how normalized ace and aro inclusion is in the larger queer community, the article demonstrates how normalized being nonbinary is in the larger trans community. * one example: Nick Teich, 34, a trans man who started the first summer camp in the US for transgender youth, talks about how a lot more campers now check the "other" box for gender on their intake forms. * "We have a growing number of kids who identify as genderqueer, non-binary, gender variant. People put 'demigirl,' 'genderless,' 'no gender,' 'all genders,' 'pangender.' We get things all the time, and I'm like, 'What is this? I have to look this up.'" * they also quote Tyler Ford, who is agender, they/them pronouns, who identified as a trans man for a bit, took T until their body was where they wanted it to be, and then stopped. * This is important to me because that's true for a lot of nb people, and too many people characterize that as "detransitioning". It's not. * And for a while, years after transitioning, I presented as a femme woman, and it really bothered me to think that my trans friends would see that on Facebook or in person and think I wasn't trans anymore. Like how people will think you're not bi anymore when you get into a relationship with a binary-gendered person. * They quote one gender fluid high schooler who has been abused at school for being nb, called an " it" and "creature." Which is important to me because a lot of cissexists and truscum claim that nb people don't experience that and aren't oppressed. * They close the piece with a quote from that same bi senior GSA president: "I know it's one of those things in life that could be easier, but I know who I am. And I'd rather be who I am and be authentically me than try to fit into one of those crappy little boxes. I have a great box that I have made for myself." * anyway I'm kind of in love with this article and I've never seen an article from Time that didn't seriously piss me off at some point so that's amazing * I especially love how it parallels bi and trans experiences around fluidity, being liminal people, without spelling that out. Showing, not just telling.

[kamalamackerel]

dear fierté montréal: do better!

Photo credit: Valérie Bah i have been engaging with fierté montréal for a few of years now: writing letters, planning interventions, debating the vice-president of pride on cbc daybreak (!); i showed up to their community consultations and i made sure that concerns from local queer and trans communities of colour were being voiced, that our demands were being heard. a few months ago, fierté montréal invited me to be grand marshal at this year's pride; an offer which i declined for personal and political reasons, including that i did not want to have my Black trans woman identity be instrumentalized to cover up fierté's ongoing racist and transphobic actions and positions. yes, fierté montréal hired two staff of color (in an office of 30+ white people) to do outreach to marginalized communities, but as far as i was concerned: this was just the beginning of a very long process; fierté still has everything to prove, particularly given our history.

some of our demands had been met: there would be a POC-only safer space with an active listener on-site throughout the duration of pride, more artists and djs of colour would be booked for the festival, there would be a QTBIPOC bbq, but more excitedly: there would be a POC stage FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER!!

as an arts facilitator whose primary purpose in life is to create art and performance spaces for marginalized folks, i was beyond thrilled! a couple of years ago, having a by-and-for- POC stage at fierté montréal was unimaginable. it took a very long time and many generations of resistance to be able to have this stage: we earned it through protests, interventions, organizing and call-outs. but again, fierté montréal still had everything to prove: while we had claimed these spaces, would we be tokenized, fetishized, instrumentalized or harmed in in the process? on showing up for monday's QTBIPOC bbq (which was supposed to be POC-only, right?), we found out that the QTBIPOC bbq had been merged with the youth bbq (which was supposed to be youth only), to make space for a mainstream gay men's magazine, and defeating the purpose of having these "safer" spaces in the first place. we munched on our hot-dogs disappointed and disgruntled, but we also made the most out of the evening: there was still EXCELLENCE to come, the QTBIPOC stage! as the artists were gathering backstage, minutes before the show was about to start, we learnt that the spvm (montréal's police) HAD ENTERED THE POC SAFER SPACE (!!!), arrested a Black youth for smoking a joint while the park was full of white folks also smoking weed at that very moment. the police intimidated other trans folks of colour who were trying to engage with them, and they dragged the Black youth all the way across the park in handcuffs, all the while being physically and verbally abusive.

(the Black youth is safe now. with a strong support network. we are also raising funds to support this person as they take the time to heal: you can donate here or through e-tranfers to lamackerel[at]gmail[dot]com) this was not how we expected the evening to unfold. most of the artists backstage were Black and quickly staged an intervention to openly address what had happened and demand that our needs be heard and that our lives and bodies be treated with dignity. we were given a stage, we were given a mic, and we used it to voice the reality of our lived experiences and re-articulate that our needs and demands are dire. fierté montréal reacted immediately: they spoke with the spvm agents so that the youth be released without charges, and they issued a public apology, openly condemning the spvm for their action, blaming them for hindering pride's process of reconciliation with QTBIPOC communities. this was the very least fierté could do. backstage, everyone felt tense, broken, shaky, defeated, which was not the spirit in which we expected to be performing. and then there were all the QTBIPOCs who were in the audience, particularly those who had to witness a Black youth be arrested and dragged across the parc des faubourgs. [AND on top of all that, my co-host (also a Black woman) and I got harassed and bullied by a white cis male staff of fierté montréal backstage towards the end of the show!!!]

so fierté claims to want a process of reconciliation with QTBIPOC communities: when will fierté actually start listening to what we are saying? how many more incidents will it take? just a few weeks ago, fierté's vice-president said that he was excited that the military would be marching in the parade in uniform this year; everybody will feel safe because they will not be carrying any weapons.

two days ago, in presence of the mayor of montreal and the president of pride, the spvm apologized for the police raids on montreal gay spaces in the 70s, 80s and 90s. fierté montréal gracefully accepted the apology framing it as a positive step in the relationship between the police and lgbt communities, without naming or acknowledging that earlier this week a Black queer youth was arrested and mistreated by the police at a pride event, BECAUSE OF RACIAL PROFILING. 

if fierté montréal is really listening to the demands of queer and trans people of colour, how come they still have not taken position on trans migrant rights in québec? (québec is presently the only province in canada that does not allow trans migrants to change their names or gender markers, not unless they become canadian citizens). montréal's trans pride, euphorie dans le genre, a grassroots by and for initiative, was dedicated to trans migrant rights. since pride started, i have witnessed at least 6 interventions at pride events from grassroots trans migrant organizers asking fierté to take a position in support of bill 895. how come fierté montréal still has not taken position? isn't fierté supposed to be advocating for all of us?

Photo credit: Adrianna Diaz

what happened at fierté montréal over the past few days is shameful and deeply harmful to QTBIPOC communities. we had to fight and beg, for years, to claim the small spaces that we did, to finally have our marginalized voices be heard. and even these small spaces that were supposed to be safe for us were rife with violence. so i urge fierté montréal to do better. if the organization claims to genuinely want a process of reconciliation with queer and trans indigenous, black, people of colour communities, then do better. and actually listen to us. and believe us. [i want to express my gratitude to my co-host, Tasheka Lavann, to the artists who shared the stage and allowed the Black Lives Matter intervention to happen, Lucas Charlie Rose, Ms Holmes, Karine Constant-Déjean, Panthera Whyz, The House of Mugler, Hua Li, Shawnee, Jason Maek & Zaena. gratitude to the QTBIPOC friends and volunteers who handled the situation, supported us and each other in that process. 

Jodie-Ann and Naja for being such fierce and resilient warriors. 

Ed, Dalia, Betty and all the other queer and trans folks of colour leading the trans migrant rights campaign. of course, gratitude to all the QTBIPOCs in this city holding it down, and to all our elders without whom our lives would not be possible.]

[silver-and-ivory]

I’ve noticed a not unsubstantial number of people reblogging this post about a bill to deprive transgender people of our rights, often without critique. Seebs has provided an explanation of why it’s not as worrying as it initially seems.

I don’t really understand their argument about gender identity versus sex, but I do have separate reasons that I’m not too worried.

First of all, the bill in question is still in subcomittee. It’s vaguely important that you call the representatives listed, but I promise, there will be time before it gets out of subcommittee, if it even does. A lot of bills don’t ever make it out of subcommittee. After that it will go to the House to be voted on. I don’t think it will be approved if it remains in its current form, but even if it does it will go to the Senate after that. There are lots of steps before things become laws and don’t worry too much about this particular bill.

If it’s really as important as all that, major organizations will care about it, even if only because it’s in their interest.

The fact that they haven’t - at least if the tweets are accurate - says more about how important this bill is than about how terf-infested the major organizations are.

Second of all, the legislative branch doesn’t get to control the judicial branch like that. One of the commenters - common to most of the reblogs I’ve seen - references this bit of the sketchily screenshotted bill-

The proper constitutional authority for social transformation belongs to the legislative branch.

and alleges that-

That bit about “belongs to the legislative branch” – if that passes as it stands, it sets precedent to ignore Roe v Wade, to ignore gay marriage, to ignore Brown v Board of Education. Every fucking advance we’ve made in the last sixty years has come through the Supreme Court first.

This is absolute alarmist bullshit, and if the commenter knows half of what they are posturing to know, they’re flat out lying. Or they haven’t laid out their reasoning enough, since it’s completely nonobvious based on my knowledge of the federal government.

The judicial branch has the power of judicial review. This means they get to interpret how the Constitution works. The legislative branch doesn’t get to decide how the Constitution works. The legislative branch doesn’t get to decide how the Constitution works.

Even and especially conservative judges will not accept the infringement on the legislative branch implied here. There is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about ~social transformation~. Even if it was, it’s the Supreme Court’s power to interpret it.

Also, this person is using fancy language to lie or at least misrepresent. There is no such thing as a law “setting precedent” for judicial decisions. Past judicial decisions won’t be changed based on newer ones unless the Supreme Court rules on a new case. Past judicial decisions are the only thing that set precedent in a relevant way.

But even assuming that somehow the legislature makes it so that the Supreme Court ~can’t make social transformation~, the Supreme Court cases will still be there, based on the Constitution.

Gay marriage was legalized under Obergefell v Hodges. Wiki says (some emphasis mine)-

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (/ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2][3]

Roe v. Wade:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.

Brown v Board of Education of Topeka:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation, insofar as it applied to public education. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jureracial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the Civil Rights Movement,[1] and a model for many future impact litigation cases.[2] However, the decision's fourteen pages did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in Brown II, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".

DO YOU NOTICE HOW ALL OF THESE REFERENCE THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT IS THE FINAL FINAL FINAL AUTHORITY ON and which OUR GOVERNMENT IS BASED ON? These decisions are protected and the only thing that can undo them is another Supreme Court case and decision, which is not going to happen.

If the Constitution fails and we no longer have separation of powers and the Supreme Court can’t just murder this bullshit law, then I’d say we have more to worry about than just trans people or minorities. Our government would actually be becoming a dictatorship.

This is a ridiculous, contrived, downright STUPID scenario that will virtually never occur. It is not occurring and you do not have to be afraid it is occurring.

Ahem. Anyway. Quoting next bit because it amused me:

It is *absolutely* deliberate that this is attached to a bill about trans rights, because that gives them the maximum “oh well that doesn’t affect me” safety from progressive activists as well as the maximum “yeah fuck those tr*nnies back to hell” coverage from conservatives. Very few cis people give a shit about trans rights, and a LOT of cis people care a hell of a lot about hurting trans people.

This is where TWEFs kill feminism. You don’t get up in arms against this bill, you lose your birth control, your reproductive freedom, your right to work, everything. But hating trans women is more important.

hon. sorry to break it to you, but those conservative old men don’t know what a terf is. they have zero knowledge of “divisions in progressive alliances”. a gay looks like a trans from where they’re standing.

also, terfs are not that prevalent! they just aren’t! Other queer people and minorities are willing to fight for trans people.

Also do you think they just don’t have any sense of preservation? The NAACP, I’m sure, will be sad they accidentally missed an immense reversal of civil rights just because they didn’t care enough about trans people.

You are safe. This bill is just another piece of bullshit legislation that doesn’t matter yet, and the threat to the Supreme Court doesn’t real.

Be careful not to believe what some rando tells you, especially if it plays into your worst fears.

Our Constitution is strong, our government is strong, and we can get through this awful presidency if we stick together, don’t believe bullshit, and don’t deliberately sensationalize  bullshit.

Thanks.