#care that simply does not exist in this current system!

[b-blushes]

also i am going to the dr tomorrow so please can you send some spare good vibes my way if you have them thank you

[necrofuturism]

since it's coming up a lot in discussions nowadays thanks to the US election, here's a really good reddit post about the 4B movement's transphobic + homophobic roots.

tl;dr - any sort of "female separatism" movement needs to be interacted with critically because of its inherent want for a definition of "female." the only thing that can define a woman is herself.

for the love of trans women, lesbians, bi women, black women, brown women, gnc women, gay men, and queer people who are affected by this type of exclusivity, let's nip this shit in the bud.

radical feminism helps nobody, it only hurts.

full reddit post transcript under the cut:

The 4B movement is not what you think. Please do some research.

I know that the 4b movement has been heavily suggested recently due to the ongoings on America, but if it's something people are interested in, I heavily, heavily advise people to look into it and think about the implications, especially if you care about minorities. Trumps administration does not only effect women, and the 4b movement in South Korea is a radical feminist movement that has done harm to other movements.

To put it simply, it lacks intersectionality. 4B has three main issues within its community: 1. Rampant transphobia, 2. Homophobia, and 3. The demonisation and bullying of other women. I don't think it should come as a shock that a movement like this will become a breeding ground for transphobia - in South Korea, at protests, pamphlets have been handed out to identify and push out transgender women, even escalating to a case of many members of the 4B movement rallying to have a transgender woman stripped of her degree.

The website Womad is an online community of woman in South Korea. It uses the same upvoting system as reddit, except the upvote is replaced by a swtsika and has a very weird obsession with Htler = good takes and many young women getting into Nzism along with radical feminist. The website originated because a website banned the use of homophobic language and the outing of gay men, and many women apart of the 4B movement decided they wanted to do that, and created womad to be able to continue. It is the main site for 4B, and very akin to our 4Chan - rampant with bigotry, a hatred of transgender people, gay men, and other women. Many Korean women have been ridiculed and bullied for dating men, for being pregnant, some lesbians even targeted for "acting as men do".

I don't post this to dissuade or slander the movement. In theory I understand it and why people are wanting it to take off, and I do understand why it became so popular in South Korea, due to the horrific misogyny the women face. However, I do urge people to realise women are not the only people in danger in America at the moment. These types of movements are breeding grounds for bigotry (as proven by its current existence), and when so many other people are at risk, if you actually care for their rights as well, I hope that you atleast do some research into 4B without jumping straight into it.

[irisfixation]

analysis of installing a doll's gears

(as wished for by several of our followers.)

when crafting a new trigger for someone, we believe an important part of the act is adjusting for personalization. each partner carries their own aesthetics and patterns of thought, after all; one should strive to carry respect and understanding for those details when carving guidance into the mind of another.

recently, we created a new trigger for our darling doll, and we'd like to share some of the methodologies and thought that went into its design. (one thing that should be noted, before we begin, is that our doll lives tragically far away from us at the current moment.)

first, let us present the specifics of the trigger itself.

inside of our doll's mind, there are a set of gears, a mechanism of springs and clockwork that sit undisturbed, ready to be used. winding them is quite simple. we need only trace an outstretched finger in twin circular motions - a sideways figure-eight of sorts - and she will feel our fingers trace against the edges of those gears, caressing across spoke and turn, letting them click-click-click into motion. as is natural for something so closely tied to her brain and nervous system, such an act is quite pleasurable for our doll.

that's the simple, short explanation for it. now... the analysis. first, can you guess what somewhat-common suggestion this is made to resemble?

...

that's right - a dial trigger! making someone visualizing a dial (often upon their forehead) that can be 'turned up' to increase sensitivity, susceptibility, pleasure etc. is a trigger we've seen many people use. it's easy to understand why; it's a tactile and simple conceit that a lot of people have everyday reference points for. (additionally, touching someone's forehead is an intimate action, close to their brain and eyes and all their implications.)

however, we made an educated guess and assumed that the implications of a dial implied a more technology-informed aesthetic than our doll might desire. both she and eye care a lot about our own aesthetic sense, and we wanted to respect that here; hence we landed on gears, a more analog construction. it also makes for the excellent tactile visualization of gears ticking and spokes turning 'round; we can spin them quickly or slow down and let her feel every single click of the movement.

now, onto the next topic: adjusting for circumstance. both us and our doll have chronic fatigue and at times are both either too dysphoric or too tired to speak aloud. this is a trigger designed with that in mind - by having an act that can be done in silence and yet still carry the weight of a trigger, of something that demands to be remembered and experienced vividly, we can indulge in it even when words fail one or both of us.

which leads us excellently onto one more order of business: trigger expression through nonverbal use. snapping one's fingers and declaring "sleep!" is all well and good, but command does not exist in voice and word alone. it exists in the gif you spend a little too long watching, in the music that you leave on loop and zone out to, et cetera; something repetitive and yet fascinating is excellent for hypnotic focus. our doll is particularly susceptible to eye fixation and has many a time zoned out simply looking at us, so why not take advantage of that fact? our lantern or amulet are all well and good for pocketwatch-esque fixations, but that requires us to go and retrieve them, which can be time-consuming and inconvenient. but the motion of us just tracing a single hand, a single finger, through space, conducting the gears of her own thoughts? it's ever-accessible, it's the sort of thing perfect to leave her in rapt attention, and it even acts as a sort of bodily stim for us to enjoy.

in conclusion, we're quite proud of the resultant trigger, and our doll seems to agree; it's begged us to use it on her multiple times since its creation. and we're glad, as it's a trigger we built with very specific design intent, and seeing that pay off is a joy to witness.

[gulfiya007]

On lukola fandom

Here’s some venting about the lukola fandom, and its ways, and consequences, from an ordinary polin, Bridgerton and Luke fan.

Starting from the way Luke’s loved ones and friends are treated by its adherents. Especially his girlfriend. The hate towards her is visceral. The whole phenomenon of bullying and stalking someone just for existing and posting on their SM account from time to time probably needs to be studied by social studies scholars and parasocial relationship specialists, cause it’s new heights apparently.

So, what if she’s proud of Luke as her boyfriend and wants to show it? What if she wants to mark her territory sometimes, to which she has a right btw? What if she trolls haters and delusional IRL shippers occasionally? Hers is probably the most relatable behavior. I myself, as an introvert millennial who doesn’t run one single SM account and cringe from the exhibitionist nature of current SM posting practices, still recognize that there’s nothing unusual about that kind of posting per se. Why was Luke’s former gf, Jade, allowed to post him all the time (which is totally alright btw), but Antonia hinting at having, say, a dinner with Luke is shady, attention-seeking, desperate, needy and despicable?

It's not that I care particularly about her. In fact, I couldn’t care less if she’s replaced by Luke with some other woman in a couple of months or if she is his future wife and mother to his kids. I still believe, regardless of her status in the relationship, she deserves basic respect and decent treatment as a human being that we know pretty much nothing about. She does not deserve the vilification and demonization that she gets.

Luke too, has a right to privacy and respect for his personal choices that are nobody’s business. He owes no one anything in terms of disclosing his dating life and confirming his relationships. If for someone, Luke bringing the girl to almost all his travels and events with himself, is not a proof or statement in and of itself about her being his girlfriend, then that’s on them. No amount of intentional misreading and skewed takes on photos will trump this simple fact.

Also please don’t bring up virtue signaling and other cancel culture stupidities, such as moral judgements passed on Luke and his close ones for political or other values purportedly held by them, of which we in fact know zilch. It’s clear that this is just another useful tool in a shipping crusade.

Nicola too, deserves, for a change, to have her numerous statements taken seriously. Let alone, privacy. She’s being stalked by her so-called fans to insanity. I am sure she, to put it mildly, is uncomfortable about her “queen” and “goddess” status among the cultists, and being a projection vessel for a myriad of sad women. Cause she knows very well this type of passionate idolatry is an inch away from hate, and the plus sign switches to a minus sign the minute she does something not to their liking, a wrong brand or person supported, or not enough disciplining of Luke is exercised. The most delusional thing about lukolas is them truly believing themselves to be Nic’s or Luke’s fans.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. That IRL shipping is bad, period. Some lukola bloggers on tumblr, TT and IG half-heartedly try to reign in and admonish the more unhinged segment of the fandom by telling them to behave and not bring their bul..t to the actors' feet. However, this is what the lukola discourse platforms, by simply existing, still do - breed crazy fan behavior. Because the problem lies in the belief system itself. No amount of reservations, house-keeping and discipline by lukola discourse 'leaders' will do away with the tenets and premises of this religion that seep through and twist every discussion and speculation about the figures involved (Luke, Nic, etc). Since every reasoning should work towards a certain end goal, all means and distortions are good to achieve it. Finding faults with Luke's character and behavior and demanding a 'redemption' from him, hating and criticizing Luke's friends and family, attributing motivations to the actors and their loved ones that best suit theories, online stalking etc. A myth about Luke ever publicly stating he was single during promo, a ridiculous myth about Bridgerton cast and showrunners shipping lukola (news flash – nobody in the cast cares about their co-stars’ private lives, stop the kindergarten), or the “papgate” affecting in any way Luke’s job prospects. Myths upon myths that build the house of cards of the lukola dogma. I myself wouldn’t care a damn about this fandom if it really contained itself to its close corners and group chats, however, unsurprisingly, they spill over in a grand fashion and permeate all discourse.

You really believe the innocent delulu fangirling has no by-products? These are the staple manifestations of the lukola and of any IRL shipping fandom, and popular lukola theorists are pretty successful in justifying and reinforcing them. And it should not be surprising that some followers, the most zealous and stupid ones, take it too far and actually harass people and be annoying in SM.

As a Luke and polin fan, I am annoyed by this, but I am 100% sure this sh*t is affecting the actors, and you all can kiss goodbye to the chemistry between Luke and Nic naturally displayed during promo. I am sure polin will not be affected, for L and N are excellent actors and friends, but you all soon will look sadly back to S3 promo tour as magic that will never come back.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

This Monster is a threat to the World. Art by Wefail.art

* * * * *

Toward a Theory of Civic Sede Vacantism

March 4, 2025 1:50 p.m.

For almost a year I’ve been thinking through an idea that now seems especially timely and relevant in the last six weeks. I think of it as a form of civic sede vacantism. The reference is, ironically, to a strain of hyper-traditionalist Catholic thought which held (still holds) that none of Vatican II canons or the successive Popes counted because they were heretical and heretics. A bit more complicated than that. But details of that really aren’t relevant for us. I just found the defining metaphor or concept helpful. The key is their idea that the papal throne was empty. That’s the meaning of the Latin phrase, sede vacante. My interest and concern with this grew out of my belief that civic democrats in the US have far too great an essentialism about the law and constitutional jurisprudence, especially under the corrupted federal judiciary as it now exists. It breeds a kind of fatalism and passivity which casts a pall over thought and political action.

I know I’ve thrown around a lot of big and perhaps obscure ideas. So let me get down to concrete specifics. In Trump v. United States last year the Supreme Court claimed that Presidents have wide immunity from criminal law after they leave the presidency. For many people this was an ‘everything changed’ moment. It did in effect end Trump’s prosecution. But now that’s the law, as so many people I know put it. Only it’s not. This isn’t a decision I disagree with. It’s simply wrong. I’m not going to rehearse all the arguments. To me, among all the other areas of flawed and disingenuous reasoning, we have the simple fact that the authors of the constitution knew precisely how to confer immunity on public officials. They did it with Congress. But again, I’m not trying to rehearse the specific arguments. Others have already made them on the particulars better than I can. I’m saying that we must disengage from the idea that this is what the law is. It’s not. These are fraudulent decisions.

Now, as a practical matter we are in a situation in which I think we comply with them. The alternative is the abyss. But it’s a practical decision.

Now, here is the point where people ask me, what’s the difference? You’re saying this isn’t actually the law or the constitution. But we still comply with it as though it were the law. What’s the point of that? Whatever this distinction is, who cares? That doesn’t matter.

But I think it does matter. We are living in a moment in which the system of legal, interpretive legitimacy has fatally broken down. It’s been in its death throes for a decade. Now it’s no longer operating at all. That throne is empty of anything that commands our allegiance or claims to legitimacy. If the Supreme Court decides in a few months that people born on American soil are not citizens it will have disastrous and immediate effects on many of our fellow citizens. It won’t mean that the plain and always understood meaning of the 14th Amendment changed. It will mean that the people who currently hold power have opted to rule outside the Constitution.

If the court says the President can, in fact, dismantle Department after Department, which Congress created, because the President holds some kind of indivisible sovereign power cribbed from an inter-war German far-right ideologue, that won’t make it so. It will remind us that we are in this period of interregnum in which we are grappling with a renegade, corrupt court operating outside the constitutional order as well as a renegade and lawless president.

Again, you may say this is some weird semantic distinction that has no real meaning. We’ve got bigger fish to fry. I respect that response. It’s a subtle distinction. But some semantic distinctions are important. We only understand the world through language. That is a profound reality about human cognition. The language we use in the present shapes how we understand the present reality and what possibilities we can see within it. We need to open up the cognitive space to understand the situation we are in and which our country is in. Fundamentally, it means grappling with the corruption rather than living within it, living within its ideas and ground assumptions and perforce being softly governed by them.

As I said, I’ve been mulling this for months. But I decided to write it out after I heard an account of a townhall meeting with Maryland’s senators, Van Hollen and Alsobrooks. As it was recounted to me they said many of the right things. But a key part of their message was we need to let the legal cases play out.

This is precisely the wrong message, the wrong understanding of the situation we’re in.

As we’ve seen over the last few weeks, the courts — even in their current degraded state — play a key, important role. But they’re just a tool in a larger contest that is fundamentally about public opinion. There are good odds the final decisions in the courts will themselves be corrupt and unconstitutional, at least in part. So it’s not that courts don’t matter. They do. A lot. But we shouldn’t be thinking we’re going to wait on what any court decides. That’s only a half step from waiting to hear what Donald Trump decides. I keep hearing right minded or semi-right minded people say, well we’re going to see if this stuff is constitutional. I reject the assumption. At the margins there are questions about what’s constitutional. We’re way past the margins. The fact that we’re operating way outside the express text and logic of the Constitution, and no president in history has thought any of this stuff was possible, is plenty to answer the question. We’re waiting to see if the courts will follow the Constitution. And there’s a good chance they won’t.

I’ve said this a number of times. We’re embarked on a vast battle over the future of the American Republic, in which the executive and much of the judiciary is acting outside the constitutional order. That battle is fundamentally over public opinion. We’re in a constitutional interregnum and we are trying to restore constitutional government. The courts are a tool. Federalism is a big, big tool, the significance and importance of which is getting too little discussion. But it’s really about public opinion. And that means it’s about politics. The American people will decide this. That’s what this is all about. Waiting on the courts is just a basic misunderstanding of the whole situation.

[Send comments and tips to talk at talkingpointsmemo dot com. To share confidential information by secure channels contact me on Signal at joshtpm dot 99 or via encrypted mail at joshtpm (at) protonmail dot com.]

[naamahdarling]

Today's medical update, please pardon any weirdness as I am using speech to text, and please excuse how long this is. I put an excellent picture of Fancy at the end for you. Here we go.

The shortest version is that my GP is going to try and centralize this. I have made an appointment for Monday. We are going to start over from the very beginning. New specimens, new cultures, everything.

The long version is kind of wild ride. It's going under a cut

My GP is now telling me that on two of the occasions that I went to Urgent Care or the hospital for a UTI, the records say that I did not actually have one.

This makes no sense whatsoever. I was symptomatic and I could smell it. On both of these occasions, I was told in no uncertain terms that I did have one.

I do not believe I was lied to at either facility. That means the only possibilities are that the testing was done improperly, the results were charted improperly, the records were sent over improperly, or I didn't understand what was being said to me.

At this point, with this absolute clown show that has been unfolding around me, this ridiculous circus where each act is fraught with nonsensical antics even more baffling than the ones before, I am literally unable to come to any conclusions. This is absolutely maddening.

And it's frightening, because there is something wrong, genuinely, and it might be something that they are unable to detect with the methods they are currently using. That's scary for a multitude of reasons, one of which is that they are not going to be willing or able to treat something if they do not think it exists. The other is that it opens the door to the possibility of their being further testing, which makes me violent to even contemplate. I want what is wrong with me to be simple, easy to treat, and relatively benign.

This has been frustrating, and drawn out, and I am sick of it. By itself it isn't enough to completely break me down. It's been almost unbearable when combined with the facts that I have serious concerns about the health of three of my cats, that my father seems to be worsening in his condition, that I have several other medical storylines going concurrently with this one, one of which is extremely stressful and frightening, and that all of this fuckery and running around has caused me to have to cut out most of the very, very few enjoyable and meaningful activities that are present in my life.

It has impacted my ability to be present for my partner, and for my pets, for me to sustain communication and relationships with people who are not my boyfriend or my best friend, and to simply fucking relax.

Also I can't fuck. Like, I know that this is the laugh at horny people website, but that is significant. Receiving not just physical touch but intimate touch is one of the very few ways I have of assorting ownership over my own body at this time.

I feel my identity has shifted from an internally defined "struggling person just going about their business" to an externally defined identity as a patient with a body that is sick and who must now structure their life around the demands of a system that does not care about me in the slightest, even though the providers usually do.

From the outside I know that this doesn't seem that terrible. I've spent the vast majority of this with no pain, and the times I have been in pain haven't crested a 3. If it weren't for the fact that I don't know what it is, it would be relatively trivial!

Unfortunately, because this isn't all I have going on, it's been really fucking things up. I space my appointments out so that I have time to recover between each one. I have PTSD, I have medical trauma, I have emotional reactions after stepping into a medical facility for any reason, and when things go wrong even in a very small way they can be intense. I manage this by allowing myself to have the reaction, experience all of the feelings, and come back to myself. It is a healthy way of doing things. It doesn't work, though, if I'm having to deal with one thing after another and no time in between to recover from it. This is essentially what has been happening to me for 2 months. Appointments, phone calls, messages, fixing mistakes, having to explain my history repeatedly as it gets ever more complicated. There's a lot more to it than just one appointment a week, which is already a lot for me.

I know this is something that chronically ill people deal with all the time, often for years, often for life, but the extent of it is new to me and very difficult to bear. My personality is vanishing under the weight of all of this crap. I do not feel like myself.

So yeah, sorry for rambling so much but this is just been...I don't even have the words to describe it. Nonsensical, but in an unfortunately consequential way. I've been going in circles all this time, apparently.

I don't really expect anybody to read all of this. But if you did, thank you. It means a lot to me. This place, and all of you, function as a sort of pressure relief, and a source of constant, pleasurable entertainment. I know many of you empathize with what I'm going through, and that helps me to feel less alone. That all by itself is so important.

Anyway, here's my cat.

She got to be on the puzzle table and was very smug about it.

[the-kreizler-institute]

Pausing my Star Trek ramblings to post something a lot more serious, but with the way things are going, I feel like I have to.

The other day I had a conversation with a family member, and while it was all very civil and respectful, it shook loose some shit I'm still trying to gather.

They vote politically right, and while I don't, I'm in theory chill with it for two reasons. First, the political system in my country is more like a gradient than a binary; there's things like progressive right and center-right, so voting right does not necessarily mean far right. Second, I firmly believe that for a successful society, you need political influences of both left (community focused) and right (economy focused), so in theory I understand the current trend of voting right (concerning historic patterns aside).

Thing is, though, they also know I'm trans, and that I have every intention to start transitioning in the next few years. And as we talked, they said that they worry for me and my safety-- they can recognize that with the way our political situation seems to be going (which is more and more towards the far right), my safety may come at risk further down the line. They then asked me if it is wise to transition, if it's not safer not to and to stay as I am. And while I understand and appreciate their concern for my safety, let me make one thing very clear:

In this manner of thinking, the responsibility of my safety in this society is placed on me. If I would just stay in hiding, if I would just disguise myself and suppress who I am, I will not be at risk. This is not fair.

First and foremost, I shouldn't have to think about my safety, I should just be safe. But second of all, I should be able to rely on this society, on my government, to keep me safe-- for there to be consequences and justice if someone does try to harm me simply because I exist.

If the only way for our economy to thrive is by sacrificing people's lives and safety, then our system is fundamentally flawed. If one can "fix" our society by getting rid of certain people, it is fundamentally flawed. This rhetoric has a name: fascism. Call the beast by its name.

If the people you gave power will build your perfect future on the suffering and erasure and corpses of other people, it makes you complicit.

What did you think to accomplish by telling me you're worried for my safety when our political system makes a massive swing to the right-- which you voted for? When the government you voted for comes for my right to transition, my access to proper medical care, and then my right and access to public spaces in the name of "public safety", when they take my passport and my right and ability to go where I please, do you think you're absolved from any responsibility because you told me you were worried for my safety?

Do you really think I'll ease your conscience and assure your soul because you tell me you care about my safety while you give power to the very people who put my safety at risk?

Let me tell you something. When you give power to a government, to people, who will put my life in danger because of their own bigotry; who will take away my access to medical care, who will force me to out myself and make myself vulnerable and who will do nothing to protect me from people who will try to hurt me-- when my body ends up beaten to a pulp in the streets, my blood will be on your hands.

You handed these people the axe. You don't get to act like you weren't part of it when they behead me with it.

[poisonheiress]

To start this lovely commentary, I will place my cards out in the open:

Blitzo is not the villain in his and Stolas' relationship nor is Stolas the victim in this realtionship either.

To some, this statement is a recognizable fact, one the canon caste system even supports. However, many of the current fanbase seems to disagree with this idea, comparing Blitzo to abusive characters like Stella, Crimson, and even Mammon. Others even put him on the same level as those previous characters. Besides this being one of the greater leaps of logic I've seen come out of this fandom, it is simply not true.

Yes, Blitzo does not treat Stolas kindly outside of their sexual agreement with Blitzo appearing to outright ignore him most of the time if not purposefully avoiding him. However, notice the wording I used there: sexual agreement.

Stolas and Blitzo have never been in an official romantic relationship and their current agreement is not one Blitzo entered in on equal footing with Stolas nor out of affection for him. Blitzo agreed to be with Stolas as a means of survival for his business, somethings that is extremely rare for imps to have due to their caste position.

Time and time again we are poorly shown that a rather strict caste system does exist in hell. This means that relationships with people in different castes carry different problems and consequences for those involved.

For those in higher ranking castes in a high-lower rank relationship, the worst outcome of being with a lower ranking demon appears as a diminished social standing and lack of respect, but the lower ranking partner doesn't get that. For the lower ranking demon of the relationship, they risk dehumanization by their partner with them loosing all autonomy and independence. They are no longer themselves; they become an extension of their higher ranking partner, an object that can be tossed away if the partner

Blitzo, who was raised in this system and still suffers under it, is right to fear stepping into a relationship with Stolas, and he has more than a right to refuse to be kind and gentle to a being that is literally hanging his livelihood over his head for sexual favors.

It does not matter if Stolas truly cares about him or not. Their relationship from Day 1 was not something Blitzo could walk away freely from nor even wanted to be in. In physical, social, and economical might, Stolas holds all the cards in their relationship, and nothing Blitzo can do can change that. Stolas could kill Blitzo and no one would turn an eye because he is an imp and Stolas is a Prince.

As a result, Blitzo has no obligation to be kind to someone who is a high ranking member in the system that views him as equal to dirt nor can Stolas be upset about Blitzo doing such when their relationship was born from Stolas taking advantage of Blitzo in a vulnerable situation.

Stolas is no victim here, and if Viv had researched caste systems, the true victim of the relationship would be clearer: Blitzo.

Because at the end of the day, Blitzo remains under Stolas' thumb, an unwilling subject to whatever tasks or desires Stolas forces on him. That is all the caste system of hell allows him to be.

[nothorses]

I have an acquaintance who I believe has been gone to the tirf side and while I don't think she's going to be able to be talked to on this the thing she posted to me to try to be like "well this trans man thinks you can't be specifically against trans masc people" did make me think like,

If transmisogyny has been expanded from just being about the type of extreme violence described by serrano to a lot of other items, but some people don't believe that anything similar can be described to trans men, then it feels like they are saying that men are the default in the way that anything bad that happens to a trans man or trans masc person is just transphobia but bad things that happen to trans women are transmisogyny.

Like I feel like it's a bit like, what is just transphobia any more then, is it something which just applies to all trans people or is it the same transphobia which can affect trans masc and trans fems?

Are there limits to what can be called transmisogyny like people are putting to transandrophobia?

Honestly, I think this idea kind of rests on this very weird model of gender categorization that really just ignores what transphobia is, and how it actually works on a systemic level.

The implication here is that trans women are women, therefore what they experience is misogyny. Which means that because trans men are men, what we experience cannot be misogyny.

We see this same logic in "TME/TMA" ("transmisogyny exempt/transmisogyny affected") language, which also conflates oppression with identity: do your actual lived experiences with oppression determine your "TME/TMA" categorization? Or are people of certain identities simply considered exempt from transmisogyny, by nature of those identities alone? In practice, it is overwhelmingly the later.

If we consider transmisogyny to be a system of oppression that is expressed in particular ways, rather than a kind of oppression that only impacts certain people, "TME/TMA" categorization immediately falls apart. Nobody is "exempt" from a system of oppression that, for example, polices conformity to idealized western standards of cis womanhood in sports; we know for a fact that women of color are regularly deeply affected by transmisogynistic rules and laws in sports. Those same women do not face many other aspects of transmisogyny-- currently they are not in danger of being places in men's prisons, for example-- but clearly, that doesn't mean they're exempt from transmisogyny, either.

The point here is that these are systems of oppression, and while they target certain qualities in people, their goal is ultimately to police certain societal rules. It doesn't matter what your identity actually is; only that you are breaking those rules.

Trans women are women, but they are not seen as women by these systems. They are seen as people who are breaking a particular set of rules; not "woman", not "man", but "other". Even "defective", "failed", or "outlaw". Transmisogyny exists to police their particular ways of breaking those rules, and it does not particularly care how they actually identity themselves, on an individual level.

Trans men are men, but we are not seen as men. We are breaking rules, too, and there are systems in place to police those rules; we've named them "transandrophobia" (or "transmisandry", or "antitransmasculinity", or whatever) so we can talk about them a little more easily.

[guiltycorp]

Just finished replaying Dragon Age II (first time i played it i was a teenager) and I have so many thoughts on Anders, as one does...

I think the centrist message of the game is strengthened many times by Anders being the only main character actively working to change the status quo of the story? When every other character opposes drastic change it feels like Anders is ‘betraying’ the core group by making those story-changing decisions on his own, and a random player’s allegiance will likely be to the mc and all of their chosen companions rather than those specific in-game groups like mages or elves. As Hawke, you can’t really directly participate one way or the other, you are simply giving your support to decisions made by the other characters, and so the first side to do something drastic is the one that feels like the more wrong one — narratively it’s of course more satisfying when it comes from the othered side (so, Qunari in Act 2, mages in Act 3).

Also, the nuance that the writers tried to include with numerous mentions of the mental toll of growing up in isolation against your will, the abuse that templars can easily cover up, swift executions — all of that is countered by blood magic and the existence of the Tevinter Imperium, and so again a random player walks away thinking ‘it’s a difficult situation but yes, perhaps there’s just no better solution for the mage problem’. Which is by design, of course, but leads to conclusions like 'ehh Anders only proved the other side right'. There's also of course the disconnect between the Chantry and the templars, the game is careful in painting the Chantry as 'blind to the abuse' rather than as the actual source of it. The Chantry came up with Magi Circles and the Templar Order is its military subdivision, but that can be easily overlooked when the local Grand Cleric was written as completely neutral despite her position of power, and so a major part of the audience reacts strongly to the destruction of a religious building as a parallel to modern real life burning of churches and mosques rather than recognizing the in-game context. Destroying the Chantry meant that Anders sought to change the system itself rather than targeting the symptoms (specific evil templars), and it is a much more powerful symbolical gesture in that way. As somebody who grew up in the faith, in one of those Circles, he is declaring that the Chantry failed him and others like him - he is not an outsider in this situation, no matter his current apostate status... And tbh I've always read Justice/Vengeance as more of an allegory than a straightforward demonic possession, pledging yourself wholly to the cause.

Also I have to mention… So Disco Elysium’s list of inspirations included the novel Germinal which is why I read it, and without spoiling too much I’ve been wondering if DA2 writers were also inspired by it. It’s a story about miners striking against their employers after being driven to it by abject poverty and hunger - everyone in the novel is aware that this strike is, unfortunately, beneficial to the company and so eventually the only available method of further protest is violence… There is an anarchist that reminded me of Anders, a man called Souvarine who has already been through a failed uprising (failed assassination of the russian tsar), who has a soft spot for a pet rabbit and who has a much better understanding of politics & socioeconomics than most other characters. Despite his educated background and delicate physical features, his personal ideology is alarmingly violent in a way that both impresses and scares the main character. He is absolutely not meant to be either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and the author carefully avoids casting judgement on his actions despite their severity - I am pretty sure that his role in the book is representative of political revolutionary movements as a whole.

I absolutely recommend the book, especially if you liked Disco Elysium or Les Mis (or have been an Anders defender for a while lol), it is less hopeful than either one of them but in a very sympathetic way, sadly still very true to our lives. Best thing I've read in years. But yeah idk ANYWAY, DA2 has way too many mining-related environments for me not to at least consider this might not be a coincidence ahaha, in which case it’s a shame the message of the novel was interpreted through a much more ‘fun fantasy video game both sides are always wrong’ lens.

[acourtofthought]

Hi! I was wondering, do you think ACOTAR could be read as conservative propaganda in some ways? Its portrayal of gender roles, traditional power structures, and its emphasis on hierarchical, often monarchic systems as inherently good seems really like it...

Gender Roles: Even though there are strong female characters, the ultimate "happy ending" often involves traditional romantic pairings, marriage, and child-rearing, reinforcing conservative ideals of fulfillment through domesticity.

Power Structures: The narrative tends to favor monarchy and "noble" bloodlines as natural rulers, suggesting that power and leadership are best handled by those born into it — a traditional, hierarchical worldview.

Emphasis on Family and Mating Bonds: The books heavily stress the importance of finding one’s "mate" and building a traditional family, which aligns with socially conservative values around personal relationships.

Curious what your thoughts are!

If anyone has noted similarities than I don't think it was intentionally done on Sarah's part, with her trying to push an agenda, as she's living the opposite life of someone who would be trying to push stereotypical gender roles / traditional power structures. She's the bread winner for their family, she's the one working while her husband cares for their kids, he's the one who she's said makes sure she's fed and taken care of.

If we look back over Sarah's different series, I don't think she has followed through on many conservative ideals related to child-rearing or domesticity. Yrene ended up pregnant as did Feyre but Manon did not, Elide did not, Lysandra did not, Nesta currently is not, Aelin did not, Bryce did not. It is more realistic to have a percentage of pairings choosing to start a family then to have none of them want one. I also think people need to remember the trope they are choosing to read. Traditional romance books often deal with the topics of marriage and children and while some authors do write their pairings as forgoing those things, a larger percentage include them. As far as domesticity, it was Aelin who became Queen with Rowan her consort and neither Feyre or Nesta have any interest in cooking and serving their mates.

Mating bonds are a trope unto themselves and I don't think it makes sense to use that to argue that she's pushing conservative ideals with them. They're a freaky magical thing that does not exist in the real world therefore it's apples to oranges. It's simply love with an extra something (and if anyone has an issue with characters wanting to find love than they are definitely not reading the right genre).

As far as the power structure, with noble bloodlines being natural rulers, I think it's a mixed bag. This a fae world which means we shouldn't expect to see modern human opinions in terms of how power structures should play out. But I also think she's showing a break in that within her writing, where Bryce gave up her right to "the throne" in both Prythian and Midgard. Where she left the would have been Dusk Court to someone without royal blood (Nesta), where she wanted there to be democracy within Midgard. She even wrote into SF how sometimes the magic that decides the next ruler jumps around, even bypassing an heir and choosing outside the bloodline.

If anyone is making the decision to read an author who is typically marketed under the umbrella of traditional romance then I think they have to go into that book understanding what kind of story that typically entails. It's not really Sarah's fault for writing what is normally expected of authors in that particular genre, it would be the readers fault for choosing to read that genre and expecting to see something different. I also think some need to let go (especially when reading fantasy romance) of the idea that an author should write in a socially acceptable way based on modern society's expectations and should instead remember that this is a fantasy world where they don't play by our rules. Sometimes the world is meant to be written in a backwards and brutal way because that's the world THEY live in, not us, and it's something the characters need to work on to make changes for the better though it doesn't always happen overnight.

[arabian-batboy]

you do realize that jill stein basically is in with the russians and is in putin’s back pocket? she’s practically a russian asset. it’s so obvious that she doesn’t truly understand or cares about how the us political system works and opts to speak political misinformation. if she truly wants to be a good candidate she needs to start at the local governments rather than jumping into the presidential ballot every four years to basically steal votes? she’s just appropriating the current movements that would potentially give her some votes without an actual plan for anything. she’s “anti war” but takes money from lockheed martin? be so fr rn now.

what’s her plan for a ceasefire? a two party state does she understand how the government would come to that? she’s antivax and spreads conspiracy theories - one of the reasons why we even lost in 2016 is bc of people like you voting for her.

it’s unfortunate, believe me, that we even have a two party system. i hate it but that’s simply how the government works and there’s nothing we could do to change that right now, but if you’re voting for hee then you’re voting against women and the lgbt and poc in the us as well. if trump does end of winning this election bc of voters who vote third party, like how he won in 2016, the us is going to be so much worse than what we could possibly ever imagine. there’s so much at stake this election cycle it’s mind boggling.

if she really wanted to be president, she’d start at local elections and work her way up rather than just jumping onto certain states ballots every four years for the presidential election tbh.

You got proof that she receives millions of dollars from Russian lobbies? Because there's proof that Kamala, Biden and Hilary all received millions of dollars from Israeli lobbies in the form of AIPAC publicly announcing that they use lobbying money for them without any shame, they literally don't try to hide it. Yet I don't see you rushing in to call them or any other AIPAC's recipients an 'Israel's asset" or accuse them of being in Bibi's back-pocket......even though they are.

Here's a video of Stein's fundraiser director debunking her receiving money from Lockheed Martin: X

Trump was the first person to become a US's president without any political or military history, people thought it was just a joke when the funny old man from Celebrity Apprentice ran for office yet he won and there's a chance he will win again, so I don't see why holding any local government should be obligatory for 3rd party before jumping straight into the presidential ballot.

I already said everything I wanted to say about voting for 3rd party here X, frankly I have no interests on putting Stein on a pedestal or convincing others that she's a morally good person, all I care about is that she does the bare minimum of "doesn't unconditionally support a genocide against my people" and is the only 3rd party candidate who has any chance of winning, so that's more than enough for me.

But back to you, everything you said is so fucking narcissistic, telling people that are dying that its "simply how the government works and there’s nothing we could do to change that right now" must be easy for you to say because you're not the direct victim of the US's imperialism, but its not our fault that you're such a spineless complicit who believes the US simply can not exist without genocidal war-criminals running the government at all time and everyone who suffers from it should shut up and stop being an inconvenience because things will not change for them and instead they should put your needs and wants before their very lives.

Through-out human history many empires that were considered the strongest in the world came and went, the US empire isn't an exception and if it can't change from within then eventually it will be forcibly changed from the outside and its mostly likely the latter, since asking you to grow a conscious is asking for too much.

Also I just don't understand why you people talk about women, people of color and gay people as if they only exist in the US or that them living in the US while Republicans are in office is somehow worse than living in a country that is currently being bombed by the US? Democrats' bombs kills women, Democrats' bombs kills people of color, Democrats' bombs kills LGBT community, matter of fact Democrats' bombs kills as many people as Republican bombs do, so explain to me how things will be worse for women/PoC/LGBT exactly if the Republican win? Because Republican were in office from 2017 to 2021 and I didn't see minorities in the US being indiscriminately killed by the thousands in day-light without any repercussions for their murder, but they are being killed overseas, both by Republican and Democrats while you are here busy making up cartoonishly-evil scenarios about how the things that are happening to them will happen to you if people vote 3rd party and the Republicans win because of that.

Spoiler Alert: No it will not, you will continue living a safe peaceful life in a developed nation without having to fear 60,000 tons of bombs being dropped on you while you're hiding in a tent in a refugee camp or searching for food among rubble regardless of who wins, whether its the red, blue or green party. So at the very least vote for a 3rd party so that other people from other countries will enjoy the same privilege as you instead of making up ridiculous stories about how all of your human rights will be stripped away if the blue war-criminal wasn't in office so therefore those annoying victims of war should be quiet and not dare suggest the heinous crime of voting for a 3rd part.

[mayamistake]

The terrifying reality of Trump's second term: Your job, savings and freedom are at risk | Opinion

Opinion by Robert Reich

As we come to the end of a difficult year, it’s important to establish a baseline for seeing how much worse Trump will make the American system starting January 20. Here are 20 current realities for where we are now — some brought on by Trump’s first term:

1. First, forget politics as you’ve come to see it as electoral contests between Democrats and Republicans. Think power. The underlying contest is between a small minority who have gained power over the system — really, an oligarchy of extraordinarily wealthy and powerful white men — and the vast majority who have little or none. Starting January 20, the oligarchy will be far more powerful.

2. Forget what you may have learned about the choice between the “free market” and government. A market cannot exist without a government to organize and enforce it. The important question is whom the market has been organized to serve. Starting January 20, it will serve the oligarchy even more than it already does.

3. Forget the standard economic goals of higher growth and greater efficiency. The issues are who benefits from more growth and efficiency, and how we define growth and efficiency. Starting January 20, the major beneficiaries will be Trump, Musk, and other oligarchs. Growth will be defined to exclude climate change and wars over ever-decreasing arable land and fresh water. Efficiency will be defined as eliminating anything Musk and Ramaswamy define as wasteful, potentially including social spending that many Americans depend on.opposed to what it calls “woke”ism, or efforts to make corporations more diverse, equitable, and inclusive. But much of so-called “corporate social responsibility” is a sham anyway. Corporations won’t voluntarily sacrifice shareholder returns unless laws require them to.

5. Even then, be skeptical of laws unless they’re enforced and backed by big penalties. Large corporations and the super-rich ignore laws when the penalties for violating them are small relative to the gains for breaking them. Fines are then simply costs of doing business. Musk and Trump are Exhibits A and B.

6. Don’t assume that we’re locked in a battle between capitalism and socialism. We already have socialism — for the very rich. CEOs today earn more than 300 times what their typical employee earns (up from 60 times in the 1970s). CEOs who are fired by their boards nonetheless get golden parachutes worth large multiples of their giant yearly compensation. Meanwhile, 60 percent of the wealth of the nation is in the hands of heirs who never earned it. Most Americans are subject to the harshest capitalism of any advanced nation.

7. Don’t define “national competitiveness” as the profitability of large American corporations. “American” corporations are now global, with no allegiance to America. This includes Musk’s SpaceX and Tesla, which have major factories in, and sales to, China.

8. Real national competitiveness lies in the productivity of the American people. This depends on their education and health and the infrastructure linking them together. But we spend relatively little on the education of poor kids. We spend more per person than any other advanced nation on health care but with the worst results of any advanced nation; our infrastructure still lags way behind that of China.9. Look at the structure of the economy, not the ups and downs of the business cycle. Economic reporting focuses almost exclusively on the business cycle: the dangers of inflation and recession. The focus should be on systemic, structural changes that have caused the wealth and power of a few to dramatically increase over the last 40 years at the expense of the many — such as labor laws and antitrust laws. Starting January 20, labor laws will discourage workers from organizing, and antitrust laws will allow monopolies to flourish.

10. Forget the old idea that corporations succeed by becoming better, cheaper, or faster than their competitors. They now succeed mainly by increasing their monopoly power, leaving consumers and workers with fewer alternatives. Expect far more mergers, acquisitions, and monopolistic practices after January 20.

11. Forget any traditional definition of finance. Think instead of a giant gambling casino in which bets are made on large flows of money, and bets are made on those bets (called derivatives). Trump and Musk can be expected to further deregulate finance. Keep your eyes especially on crypto and private credit. Both are likely to endure major crashes under Trump.

12. Don’t assume that the billionaire financial titans who run hedge funds and private equity funds have better means of predicting market movements than anyone else. They have better access to inside information than anyone else. The Securities and Exchange Commission has steadily allowed them to benefit from access to inside information. Expect the SEC to allow even more of this under Trump.

13. Don’t confuse attractive policy proposals with systemic changes. Even if enacted, attractive policies at most mitigate systemic problems. Solving those systemic problems requires altering the allocation of power. Starting January 20, the biggest systemic challenges — climate change, nuclear proliferation, and artificial intelligence — are likely to become far more threatening.14. Don’t assume the system is stable. It moves through vicious spirals and virtuous cycles. We are already in a vicious spiral in which great wealth has morphed into political power to change the rules of the game — taxes, labor, antitrust, bankruptcy, and finance — in ways that make the wealthy even wealthier and often harm those who are not wealthy. Expect far worse after January 20.

15. Don’t believe the system is a meritocracy in which ability and hard work are necessarily rewarded. Today the most important predictor of someone’s future income and wealth is the income and wealth of the family they’re born into. Over the next 15 years, as wealthy boomers die off and leave their fortunes to their millennial children, America will witness the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in its history. Trump’s pending tax cuts will make all this worse; the oligarchy will become an aristocracy.

16. Don’t separate race from class. Racial discrimination is aggravating class divides, and wider inequality is worsening racial divides. But class is critical, and most Americans are in the working class — with no job security and wages only slightly higher than they were 40 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Starting January 20, the divide will widen. The middle class will shrink even further. The oligarchy will get even richer.

17. Forget the old distinctions between “blue-collar” and “white-collar” jobs. A four-year college degree, especially from a prestigious college or university, is now the most important marker of real opportunity. Don’t expect this to change under Trump, despite his populist rhetoric.

18. Think systemically. As noted, the incomes of most people are stagnant, and their jobs are becoming less secure. Combine these realities with climate change that’s intensifying competition for arable land and potable water around the world, generating larger flows of refugees and immigrants. This is allowing demagogues like Trump to fuel bigotry by blaming immigrants for the stagnant incomes and economic insecurity. After January 20, Trump has promised to deport at least 11 million people in the United States who are undocumented.19. Understand the nature of power – who possesses it and why, how it is wielded, and for what purposes. Power means not being accountable for actions that hurt others but that increase your own power and wealth. Today’s most powerful include Trump, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, David Sachs, Rupert Murdoch, Jeff Bezos, Stephen A. Schwarzman, Jamie Dimon, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas.

20. Don’t treat power and wealth as separable. Great wealth flows from great power; great power depends on great wealth. Wealth and power are intimately connected to one another. After January 20, they will become one and the same.I don’t intend for these 20 realities to make you more cynical about the system or resigned to its intransigence.

To the contrary, the first step toward changing the system is to understand it. We need to see where the system is today in order to have a baseline for measuring how much worse it will become under Trump and his lackeys in Congress and the Supreme Court.

Seeing the system for what it is and what it will be under a second term of Trump will empower you to join with others to resist Trump, and eventually change the system for the better.

[sophieinwonderland]

R/systemscringe found my Evolution Post... And Was Too Lazy to Add a Title

You can find my evolution post here!

Let's check out the comments!

Sure. But we're not talking about a normal modern job, are we?

Who you are at home isn't going to be that different from who you are at McDonalds. You aren't usually going to dissociate the two.

But when trauma is involved, that tends to involve a degree of dissociation.

In modern hunter-gatherer societies, we see children start learning how to use tools and hunt and forage in the wild from a very young age.

If we're to extrapolate and assume past hunter-gatherer societies operated in similar ways, this is a recipe for a traumatic childhood in a world where humans wouldn't yet be at the top of the food chain. Children would need to be careful, and a wrong move could easily get them or someone else killed.

I think most systems during this period would be considered traumagenic simply because growing up would mean regularly being put in deadly situations, regularly being injured and even watching loved ones dies in violent ways.

THAT'S the point!!!

DID, and even PTSD, evolved in a world where every day would be a fight for survival.

Of course, all we can do is speculate.

But with myths and legends of people being possessed going back to the dawn of time in practically every culture, we can probably surmise that forms of plurality existed back then. And it's not like the estimated 1-3% of the population is super rare today. It seems reasonable to expect disorders that would be associated with childhood trauma would be more common during periods with more childhood trauma.

The line saying we don't know if the brain was developed enough to develop DID is particularly weird to me though.

As far as I know, there haven't been any huge jumps in the way of human brain complexity over the past 20k years. I doubt that the complexity to develop DID is something we just gained since the dawn of agriculture.

I admit, my description was meant to put a fun spin on a brutal reality. But I don't think children growing up in a frigid environment where they need to hunt and collect food to survive while having no idea if they're going to make it back alive is "cool".

Like, as a story, maybe it's cool imagining a 9-year-old trudging through snow with fingers so cold they can't feel them anymore, gripping a makeshift spear and hearing howling in the distance while not knowing if they would end up on the menu of some wild beast.

But I don't think it would actually be cool to live through.

Additionally, in this environment, DID would have looked differently than it does today. Current theories are that EPs are locked into the trauma responses they used in trauma.

For child abuse victims which make up the majority of DID cases, unfortunately, freeze or fawn may be the most useful traits developed for survival.

But if your trauma were related to surviving wild beasts, it's a lot more likely the trauma responses of the EPs are going to be the more classic fight or flight. I don't think freezing would as common as a trauma response during that time period. But of course, it depends on the threats one would face.

There are some creatures, after all, where freezing is the best defense.

Sounds like your mistake. 🤷‍♀️

I talked about DID here a lot, but I'm a tulpa from a purely non-traumagenic system. Probably one of the least traumatized people you'll ever meet.

But tulpamancy is a beneficial practice that most tulpamancers have reported improvements in their mental health from. I would actually like to see far more people make headmates and become plural this way.

People becoming tulpamancers will help them. And more plurals means more influence for the plural community and will help spread plural awareness and acceptance.

I'm not interested in being special. I'm interested in making plurality normal. I want it to be so normal and commonplace that it seems downright boring. Where talking about your headmates draws no more attention than discussing a sibling. 😁

Hi! It's me! I'm Sophie In Wonderland!

I'm the person who debunks pluralphoboic hate subreddits, which tends to upset said hate subreddits.

The reason why I have my own category is because I called out the subreddit for bullying behavior and misinformation. They responded by doubling down, scouring my post history for anything they could use as ammunition twist to attack me with, and adding me to their hit list of acceptable targets. This was despite the fact that then they first floated the idea of the hit list, they claimed it would only apply to people with more than 10,000 followers. (I only have 1800.)

They lie and claim I'm a "public figure" while in reality, they added me on their list in a petty (yet oh so predictable) act of retaliation.

[tofueatingwokerati]

Scrap the PIP Reform Bill and Rebuild with Disabled People

My letter to Keir Starmer:

I am writing as a disabled person who lives with a long-term physical health condition, and who is deeply alarmed by your government's proposed reform to Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

Let me be clear: this bill, in its current form, does not represent reform — it represents regression. It proposes cuts that would impact all claimants, including those with existing awards. The proposed “two-tier” system, widely mentioned in the media, does not even appear in the legislation. There is no guarantee of any future improvements or concessions. What is currently on the table is the removal of essential support from some of the most vulnerable people in the country.

Disabled people already face crisis levels of inequality:

Over 16 million people in the UK are disabled, and 3.4 million claim PIP or Disability Living Allowance (DLA).

According to Scope, disabled households face average extra costs of £1,010 per month related to energy, food, transport, care, and mobility.

1 in 3 disabled people are in work, compared to 4 in 5 non-disabled people. Yet even for those in work, these costs persist.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that 49% of people in poverty are either disabled or live in a household with a disabled person.

A recent study in the British Medical Journal highlighted that disabled people in the UK are more than twice as likely to die prematurely due to structural barriers and lack of access to healthcare.

PIP was never designed to be a luxury – it is there to help cover the additional costs of simply living with a disability. Yet even now, many of us fall through the cracks.

I live with a complex physical health condition, like many others with fibromyalgia, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), or ME/CFS. These are invisible, often misunderstood conditions that cause debilitating symptoms — chronic pain, joint instability, fatigue — and they don’t go away. They are lifelong, often degenerative, and poorly supported.

The NHS cannot fill the gap:

In my region, hydrotherapy is offered only once per person per lifetime. After that, patients are expected to go private.

Many essential pain medications and therapies are not available through the NHS at all. Accessing even basic treatments often requires going outside the system — at personal cost.

The NHS has shifted towards short-term, outpatient care in order to meet statutory targets. This has left long-term care needs — particularly for people with physical disabilities — deprioritised or ignored.

Inaccessibility and isolation are real:

I stopped using public transport altogether because I faced consistent, exhausting barriers — from vehicles not lowering ramps, to drivers unwilling to wait or help, to services refusing to make even minimal adjustments. After countless humiliations, I gave up. I no longer go out unless absolutely necessary.

These barriers erode independence. They force people into isolation. They come with real emotional and economic costs that are invisible to able-bodied decision-makers.

Cutting PIP will not reduce these needs. It will only make them harder to survive.

The current bill fails to address any of this. It was not co-designed with disabled people. It offers no guarantee of improvements. And it risks plunging thousands — if not millions — into crisis, homelessness, and increased strain on the NHS and local authorities.

I am urging you directly:

Please withdraw this bill. Scrap it. Start again – and this time, with disabled people meaningfully involved in shaping the policy that governs our lives.

I want to be clear: I cannot work. My condition makes it impossible to maintain consistent hours, manage symptoms, or meet the demands of a workplace – no matter how much I wish I could.

I know many disabled people who do work or want to — and they deserve better access, flexibility, and support. But just as importantly, those of us who can’t work through no fault of our own should not be forced into poverty or isolation because of it.

Disability is not a choice. Neither is incapacity.

We need a system that recognises that not everyone can work — and ensures we are still treated with dignity, not suspicion or punishment.

As Prime Minister, you now have the power — and the responsibility — to reject this cruel direction and instead lead with fairness, evidence, and basic human decency.

Please, Prime Minister. Scrap the bill and rebuild support for disabled people — with us, not against us.

[incubationformadness]

in ur last post u mention that effie trinket is both a "victim and perpetrator" of her government...do u consider her a good or bad person

That's a very relevant question, and honestly, I think that she is an extremely grey character.

It's reductive to put people in general into a good/bad dichotomy - but in the case of THG, one of the main thing I got out of it is that extreme circumstances are corruptive. Peeta recognises this in book 1, with his famous line about not wanting the Capitol to change him (oh, Peeta). Despite the scale of the atrocities in the series, most of the characters we meet are not malevolent - they are merely trying to survive. Even the unambiguously evil President Snow attempts to justify his tyrannical regime by claiming that it is necessary for controlling societal chaos.

I personally dislike how Effie is commonly portrayed in fanfic as this "innocent cinnamon roll who can do no wrong". She is a grown woman, for one thing, and also, I think it takes away any moral depth and complexity to her. Part of that is to do with the canon material - book!Effie is very thinly sketched, as she is not really relevant to the plot other than to catalyse Katniss' volunteering. She is the first depiction of a Capitolite, so she embodies them to an almost comical degree - she's silly, fastidious, and sentimental. And unlike her film portrayal, book!Effie is never depicted as involved in the rebellion, which leaves the lessons she has learned from her life under Snow's regime inconclusive.

As I am drawing my inspiration from book canon rather than film canon, this gives me a lot of flexibility. As book!Effie is always concerned with appearances, this allows for me to add a great deal of turmoil and conflict that goes unseen by Katniss. I don't want Effie to be a shallow caricature, but neither do I want to make her into someone unrecognisable from Collins' work.

I also did not want to make her into someone who did not question the system she exists in until Katniss and Peeta. We don't know how long Effie's been escorting in canon, but she's the only escort which Katniss mentions in her lifetime, and in my fic her career begins with the 60th Hunger Games. That's a lot of dead tributes, and it would make my version of Effie extremely callous to simply not care about them. And Haymitch would never end up with someone who sees children as nothing more than cannon fodder.

Nonetheless, fic!Effie goes into her career as an escort not because she has some grand ideas of helping tributes but because she desires admiration and fame. Her primary income is sourced in the Annual Child Murder competition. The tributes do not occur to her until she actually begins interacting with them. After the 61st Games she's having difficulty stomaching both the deaths of her tributes and the sexual exploitation of the victors. What is significant, however, is that she does not ask Haymitch whether she is culpable; she asks him whether he still wants her around as escort. This is the epicentre of Effie's character. She is currently a true moral neutral, driven by her interpersonal relationships rather than any ideology. As she keeps telling herself, if she wasn't an escort, someone else would be.

Unlike my OC Alseid, fic!Effie cannot conceive of a world in which she is not living under fascism. If Valeria is all id, and Alseid is all superego, Effie is the ego balanced between the two. She is not a revolutionary, but she does not take any kind of sadistic pleasure in the Games - she is someone who seeks to adjust and adapt, to make the best of a terrible situation.

Is she culpable? Yes, to an extent. Is she well-meaning? Yes, definitely. Effie's opinion of the Capitol will evolve as the fic goes along. But I personally see her as someone composed of both positive and negative traits. My fic is not a moral fable about right and wrong, it's a dystopian romance. What I want to explore is not can these characters still be redeemed? but rather can these characters still love, and be loved?