#functionally i would just like access to reproductive healthcare

[whitehairedanimeboyfriend]

Conversations on here will basically be like

"Hey these new reproductive rights issues are affecting trans men too so let's make sure we include them in the conversation, instead of calling it women's health issues."

"Would you stop complaining? Trans women have it worse than trans men. TERFs want to kill us but only detransition you."

"If living as the gender you are not is so easy why would you transition in the first place? Obviously trans people transition because they can't live with existing as a gender they are not. Obviously "just going back" isn't an option because we often fail to behave the way we're expected to anyway. Forcing any trans person to detransition is a death sentence in and of itself."

"Why are you always speaking over transfems when we talk about transmisogynistic violence???"

[doberbutts]

hey so feel free to delete this if its inappropriate/not the right time to share it

i’m a trans woman and (obviously) i can’t get pregnant, but i did get sexually assaulted by some guys trying to show was one of them. and also having an m marker has caused issues with trying to access resources and shit.

idk this isnt the same thing and all but my point is that im standing with u as some random trans woman with vaguely parallel experiences and im sorry to hear its somehow even worse & more likely for some of yall.

I wanr to preface this with a disclaimer, to get things out of the way first.

I am not trying to say that trans women do not experience devastating sexual assaults. They do. Quite often. Though to me, even once is too often. Rape and sexual assault are terrible, awful things. It's horrible that anyone has been made to go through this.

Nor am I trying to say that your M marker doesn't get in the way of things. When it comes to the domestic violence you experience, or the homelessness rates, or a determination of what prison you go to (esp since y'all are more likely to be wrongfully accused and arrested), or the various aspects of your own reproducive healthcare, your agab and gender marker is absolutely used as a weapon against you.

The question was asked for a unique example. Unfortunately, the conversation around reproductive rights is much different for me than it is for you. But it's also much different for me than for cis women and cis men as well. Those without a functional uterus cannot get pregnant. Those who cannot get pregnant are not forcibly married off to be raped until pregnant as a means of detransition and correction. This misogyny we share with cis women.

However an added aspect of that is that if this happens after we've changed our legal documents, an additional layer of transphobia occurs when insurances and doctors see our M or X markers and deny us care out of hand. Now we are stuck with a pregnancy we don't want and constant reminder of what happened to us, or a huge medical bill with devastating financial consequences.

And that's just for those who got out safety- for those who rely on shelters, again the choice becomes detransition for safety at a woman's shelter, or struggle in silence as a man. That, we share with you, though for different reasons.

A unique interection of transphobia and misogyny specifically experienced by trans men was asked for. That is what I provided. Much like how in Crenshaw's essays one could not provide a complete understanding of "because woman" or "because black" because neither would show the full picture of "because black woman", it is not possible to describe this fully as "because trans " or "because man" because the complete "because trans man" must be provided.

I am of the opinion that there is very little "unique" about oppression- mostly that the various points of intersection change its face. In other words, I think trans men share a lot with trans women, and I don't think that's a bad thing. I also think that doesn't disclude something from earning its own name or having its own place to be talked about.

I have hesitated to post those statistics because they can so easily be twisted to say "trans women don't experience these things" or "trans men have it worse". But, a look at the graphs say the first isn't true, it just happens at a statistically less rate. The second, well, I personally don't think it's useful to quantify who has it worse. I once was in that mindset, apologizing to my mentor (an older trans woman) for complaining about my problems because obviously she had it so much worse.

She told me she doesn't like to think about it like that. For her, she would rather be raped than killed. For me, I would rather be killed than raped. Who has it "worse" depends entirely on perspective. Murder and rape are both terrible crimes to be a victim of. Rather than weighing this violence in a scale, more effort should be put into stopping it from happening in the first place. I think she was very wise. I'm lucky to have known her.

I'm sorry that happened to you. I would like to reach across the table and take your hand, to walk forward into the future together. I think we are stronger when united in this world that hates us. You are my sister. We may fight like siblings, but you're still family.

[gingus----ingy]

There s something unsettling about the way medical systems approach transgender healthcare. For many trans people, the process of accessing hormones and surgery is far less rigorous than one might expect. Doctors often fail to ask critical questions about mental health, past trauma, or a person s full medical history. The approach is transactional, as if the decision to transition is something that can be made lightly. But what does it say about our healthcare system that such important decisions are treated so casually? Men's control over women's reproductive rights through restrictive laws and cultural pressures is a form of violence that keeps women dependent on male-dominated systems. Feminists argue that access to contraception and abortion is essential for women's autonomy and must be protected from patriarchal control. Online feminist discourse can feel disconnected from real-world activism, leading to a sense of frustration among those who want to see tangible change. Many argue that while digital spaces are useful for spreading ideas, true progress requires organizing in the physical world to challenge systems of oppression. The projection of male dissatisfaction onto women can be seen in the common joke that women "ruin" men's happiness. This projection is rooted in insecurity, as men often feel threatened by women 's autonomy and agency. By belittling the things women love, they attempt to reassert control. This dynamic reflects deeper societal discomfort with allowing women to have their own passions and interests free from male interference. Gender, as a social construct, has historically been used as a tool of oppression. It 's been a method of ensuring that women remain economically and socially dependent, while men are funneled into roles of power, such as joining the military. By framing gender as something innate or identity-based, society perpetuates these old hierarchies. In reality, gender functions less as an expression of self and more as a deeply embedded system designed to maintain control and limit freedoms. do bimber know that I never expected sex to trip over in Under the couch.? "but-but-Well, thats just tubular.!!" What if funny animal isnt really squishy after all? Why would you pee butter a Evil Aura like that in the middle of a special room? strisp! Whats with all the Vegetas trying to gromp at the mushroom kingdom? How did you get so skrinky by hanging out with TRA? Im not DIK, but I could be TRA. DIC:The Vegeta butthole over there looks like its about to gurgle right in the S.S. Bootleg. me:If Shadow could talk, itd tell you to scoot somewhere else. DIC: If we dont shorate soon, the scrambled Piccolo will take over The hotdog stand. me:

[nothorses]

Have you seen punky-poodle’s pinned post explaining transmisogyny and why she thinks trans men can’t face misogyny at all? Like.. there is so much going on with her logic that i don’t know where to start w/ addressing it bc it’s all so.. wrong?

I avoid interacting with her or looking at her blog or anything; I’ve seen a few of her posts, it’s very clear to me there’d be no productive or healthy way for us to interact. But I did go take a look at the post you mentioned and uh, yep.

Honestly, the root of it is that her definition of transphobia, misogyny, and transmisogyny are all just... extremely warped compared to how these terms are defined everywhere else. Subsequently, her understanding of “transmisandry” (which most folks call “transandrophobia” to prevent misunderstandings like these) is just a complete failure to grasp how actual transmascs define it.

It is a good example of how thoroughly you have to break the existing theory around this stuff to make that point, though.

In order to say transandrophobia relies on the existence of cis misandry, transmisogyny can’t be a unique system of oppression designed target transfemininity. It can’t be greater than the sum of it’s parts, and it can’t be a synthesis of oppositional and traditional sexism in the way Julia Serrano originally coined it. (yes that’s a wikipedia link, yes I did double-check Whipping Girl itself. Page 16.)

Which means transmisogyny has to just be transphobia + misogyny. This argument cannot function if it’s anything more.

Which means you now have to define trans men out of misogyny, too.

So now misogyny can’t be a system of oppression based on the inferiority status of women/girls and femininity- it must just be oppression that women and girls face for being women and girls. There cannot be added nuance to this, because added nuance leaves room for people who aren’t women to be impacted by this system. You even have to define people perceived as women out of misogyny.

So now if trans men lack access to reproductive healthcare and abortion, it’s not because of misogyny. It’s because of transphobia. The implication being, of course, that if transphobia didn’t exist and trans men were seen as men, we would be offered reproductive healthcare and access to abortion that cis women would not.

Ignoring the fact that this is just complete fantasy, and theoretical fantasy doesn’t have a place in a discussion about lived experiences, trans men actually have a harder time accessing reproductive health care than cis women do. Which means not only are we directly impacted by the same misogynistic system of oppression shaping “women’s” reproductive health care, we are also being gatekept even from the resources that do exist as trans men specifically.

All of this is ignoring the fact that “transandrophobia” is not implying the existence of cis misandry. It refers to the unique system of oppression targeting transmasculinity, which is in many ways a synthesis of transphobia and misogyny; just one that works in distinctly different ways, for different reasons, than transmisogyny does.

Anyway. I kind of debated publishing this ask in the first place, because I’m genuinely not interested in starting shit. I don’t know her, and I don’t know or care why she made these claims, and I don’t have any interest in finding out.

But it’s a good example of how broken these arguments are, and how nicely things start to work together when you include transmasc experiences.

[incarnation-issues]

Please stop spreading misinformation! Taking cross sex hormones isn't the same as taking "appropriate hormones". What the body produces, baring a medical disorder,are the appropriate hormones. Cross sex hormones (what trans people call HRT even though this is inaccurate) are inappropriate hormones, that's the point.

The questions of what hormones are "appropriate" for someone, or whether a medical condition is a "disorder", are moral questions, not just empirical ones. I believe that appropriate hormones are hormones that contribute to a person's happiness, and promote capabilities that they value in the near and far term. Furthermore, I would say that a medical condition becomes a "disorder" when it interferes with portions of a person's life that they value, such that interventions our society classifies as "medical" would be needed to address this. (Both of these definitions are approximate, I am not a professional ethicist.)

Some people are in the horrible position where the hormones that make them happy cause them other health issues that they dislike. I know a cisgender woman who would like to take estradiol during menopause, but cannot safely do so due to the risk of blood clots. Some cisgender men with prostate cancer take antiandrogens to treat the cancer, and become unhappy due to reduced testosterone. Trans people can end up in positions like this too, and it's a horrible position to be in. But for many transgender people, taking cross-sex hormones is safe and enables them to live the lives they value.

If you are a typical TERF, you probably value people maintaining reproductive function they don't want, and looking 'normal'. If you are a particularly scummy TERF, you might value people being attractive to women attracted to their natal sex, and complain about 'butch flight' or talk about how trans women could have been hot men. In this case, our disagreement is not a case of me "spreading misinformation". You are entitled to discuss your moral values, but hiding them in the cloak of value-neutral empirical claims is dishonest, and is the sort of logic that would lead to opposition to homosexuality back when it was considered a mental disorder.

If you actually believe that cross-sex hormones are less safe for trans people than natal-sex hormones are, you may say as much. If you simply point to trans women having female-typical rates of breast cancer, or trans men having male-typical rates of heart attacks, or atrophy of primary sex characteristics that can be treated by topical natal-sex hormones or by surgical removal of the characteristics, I will be unimpressed. I will also say up-front that I suspect that transgender people, like other marginalized groups, are likely to show higher rates of medical problems associated with reduced access to healthcare providers, stress, et cetera.

[realcleverscience]

"@thebardostate : Things die for good reasons. Extending the life of organisms that are no longer reproductively viable would only increase the burden of overpopulation. It is ultimately a self-indulgent and foolish quest that will benefit the rich (it's an opportunity to hoard more wealth) at the expense of most of the rest of humanity."

Definitely a valid view though I see it a bit differently. 1. to start, it's not clear to me that "things die for good reason", as much as that "things die bc evolution didn't select for them to live longer." In other words, our goals as humans are not necessarily the same goals as the blind force of evolution. (e.g. medusa jellyfish don't die of old age. they are functionally immortal. that's just how their biology worked out.) Similarly, in terms of the "evolution for reproductivity" angle: life extension could well mean extending reproductive viability. Imagine people having a kid when they're 100 years old!

2. More importantly, I think reproductive patterns will adjust. E.g. most western nations' birth rates are below the replacement rate. i.e. population shrinkage. In some countries, the gov'ts are desperately trying to get people to f*ck and have more kids. Depopulation is also a concern. I would also add that data shows birth rate decline in many countries as a. women get more rights and education, and b. as conditions in the country improve. I expect both of those trends to continue. Related to that, people are having kids later in life or even having no kids at all. I imagine that if the human lifespan was extended to 300, that most people wouldn't spend it pumping out kids constantly. Instead, maybe people have one to three kids, starting at age 100, who they put a lot of work into. But this is admittedly just my speculation.

3. Overpopulation: As I said, I think birth rates globally will continue to decline, but there are also other options, such as expanding our range of resources so that there's enough for earth to sustain more people. Alternatively, we could also use gov't law. E.g. one extreme could be something like china's old one-child policy. On the other end, we could incentivize behavior with tax incentives. E.g. you get an extra $5k/yr for your first child. You get $1k/yr for a second child. Third child gets no tax benefits. Fourth child and you start to *lose* benefits. My point here being that there are also other options.

4. self indulgent - I mean... I guess so. Though I never considered wanting to be alive as self-indulgent.

5. access: while the rich will always have more options than the poor, I don't think that such technology will be just for the rich. For one, there's just too much money to be made from it. If you have a magic pill that can drastically reduce illness and extend life, most people are going to desperately want that. There's just so much money to be made, that I don't think this will be left inaccessible. Also, patents expire. Even if the first 25 years this was just for the rich, it wouldn't stay that way for long. Also, it's unlikely that a single pill will do everything. More likely that it'll be a combination of several therapies. Maybe once a year you go to the doctor and get a few shots; maybe a few pills to take at home, etc. So they'd also have to control *all* the various therapies, as well as the various versions of each offered by different companies. Then there's also the international angle: even if healthcare is f*cked in the US, there are other systems overseas. The rich would have to wrangle with gov'ts across the world. Which also relates to my last point: the public would lose their sh*t if this wasn't available. I'm talking riots and violence. So I don't think this will be limited to just the rich.

That said, I do think you raise some good points about the things that are required (legally, culturally, economically, etc) for such a monumental shift in humanity's nature.

Thanks for your comment

I've been interested in radical life extension since first reading some Kurzweil books around 2007, nearly 20 years ago.

At the time, when I discussed the idea most people reacted like I was insane. Sooo... really glad to see this topic getting more attention and being taken seriously now. For instance, I believe there's an x-prize now for longevity, which indicates they think these are goals we can start to realistically achieve.

That's important bc obviously humanity has *talked* about radical life extensions for literally thousands of years. When DNA was being first understood in the early 1900s, people talked about extending life. When the human genome project began in the 1990s, again we spoke about potential healthspan breakthroughs. But decades have passed with little progress, so it's understandable why even those interested in the technologies and concepts might be disillusioned. Like fusion energy, it always appeared 30 years away... forever.

However, like fusion energy, we are achieving practical steps which make it seem like those goals are actually within reach now. For instance, while we've known about genes for a hundred years now, we are only *just now* starting to edit and manipulate them.

Aging is still not fully understood, but it seems primarily to function at the cellular level - things like DNA, RNA, mitochondria, and connections and communications between cells, etc. These are complex interactions and sciences, but we are reaching a point or unprecedented control at those levels.

Additionally, what the "perpetually 30 years away" attitude also misses is that the pace of scientific advances grows faster over time. "30 years" of scientific research in the early 1900s might be closer to 10 years of research today. This applies to the growth of AI in medical advances as well. Not only are AI capabilities growing dramatically each year; those AIs are helping us to unlock knowledge, materials, and abilities in other fields as well. (As mentioned, genetic-level medical interventions are finally happening, and there's an avalanche of research and breakthroughs happening.)

So it's certainly possible that I'm wrong, and that life extension techs will always be '30 years away', and I'm failing to appreciate that lesson of history... but I think there are *very* good reasons to think that we are close to breakthroughs. Which poses an important question for society:

Do you want to get old and die like your grandparents, continually weakening and growing increasingly ill till you die at around age 90?

Personally, I'd love to halt my biological aging, improve and extend my "health-span", and to live at least an extra 50 years to explore all the new amazing thing science will produce in that time.

We can be another generation that lives and dies and is forgotten, or we can invest in research to fight back the grim reaper and bring that '30 year' window closer to fruition.

What do you want?

p.s. Yes, there are important social issues tied to this that require important discussion and policy guardrails, etc. And yes, maybe not everyone wants to live for 1,000 years (and they wouldn't have to). That said, it's very rare to find someone excited about getting older, weaker, and dying.

[pro-birth]

Fertility awareness is often used as a tool by trained health care providers to pinpoint the cause of reproductive issues and resolve them without use of synthetic estrogen/progesterone (aka, what many birth control methods contain). I know far too many women who were given BC and no other option, despite having health complications that contraindicated it’s use, or wanting the issue fixed instead of covered up by a pill or other birth control device. Because that’s what BC does for health problems: it might relieve symptoms, sure, but it never truly heals what is going on. It never sets the foundation to require health care systems to value our bodies as they are.

Some women prefer birth control and that isn’t the issue, but fertility awareness definitely has a place in women’s medicine, especially since many are frustrated with BC being their only option given. These fertility awareness based models of care offer medical, surgical, and sometimes herbal/natural options for healing, but the best you can get at a majority of OB offices is BC. That’s it. (And then there’s the issue of some bc methods preventing implantation, but I’ve already discussed that so moving on—)

It’s not just about being able to become pregnant — it’s about the fact that ovulation and menstruation, when healthy, have a huge impact on the wellness and health of women, and it’s not something to treat flippantly. To reduce rates of cancer, mental illness, chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, etc, we HAVE to look at our biology and realize that it needs certain types of medical care to function in a way that benefits our short term and long term health. Our biology isn’t useless if we don’t have babies, our biology deserves a range of options for health care because our ovaries and uteri and other organs!!! Are a part of us!!! And have benefits to offer outside of pregnancy if we keep them healthy!!!

Seriously, I have yet to see people fighting for men to prevent ejaculation through suppressive artificial hormones because they “only need sperm if they want to be dads anyway.” Uh, no, in fact, one of the things a doctor will ask a man is if whether he has trouble getting erect or if he has nocturnal emissions. Because his functioning gonads is considered a sign of health worth protecting for reasons other than reproduction. And if they aren’t functioning, he isn’t offered potent hormones to “regulate”/suppress the sperm-making process: he’s given actual medical or holistic help! Why is it that for women, we can’t be given the same treatment? Why is it that our fertility health isn’t considered good enough to support regardless of whether we want kids? Why can a man be proud of his erections and semen yet women are expected to either renounce their biology as a problem to deal with or only respect it if they want kids?And even then infertility treatments in mainstream medicine are subpar?

And the worst part is that fertility awareness and it’s branch of medical care has been around for decades...yet it isn’t mainstream or well understood because of the monopolized hold that birth control and it’s ideology have over women’s health. Seriously, the maker of the Mirenda IUD has tried to argue that it’s healthier for women to not menstruate through forced hormonal suppression!!! Uh no!! Wtf!!!! Women’s bodies are not broken just because they ovulate and gestate and menstruate and lactate! Fuck the narrative that we are imprisoned by our own bodies and our only hope is to further break down our organs instead of obtaining actual medical care!!!

This shit is so normalized, even people who fight against sexism believe this crap. I see self-loathing for our bodies c o n s t a n t l y in feminist and health circles. And it’s caused and continues to cause all sorts of medical and social harms to improvement for our health. Obviously if people only know of one option (BC) and it prevents you from crippling pain every month, then yeah, I can see why it would be easily acceptable to feel untouched by or to hate our own biology.

But why not question this? Why not question when the world says “Your organs are only useful if you’re breeding to our liking, otherwise here’s some chemicals to make your organs stop working and we won’t tell you the health consequences of it lol″??? We question and critique everything else from how men sit on the subway to air conditioning at work to taking down fucking Hollywood with the #MeToo campaign...but saying that our bodies should have access to respectable healthcare because our gonads and fertility have a reason to exist outside of babymaking is weird, or unpalatable??

I’m so sick of being nice about this, I’m sick of the expectation that I’m supposed to like or be grateful for birth control when all it’s done is make the female body less than, and done social harm for women, childbearing or not, in our culture. Seriously, birth control didn’t “allow” women to work, it made women into convenient sterile workers even after they became sexually active/married, for the explicit use of overworked industries who did not wish to accommodate for female biology like motherhood; maternity and paternity rights were delayed by decades! The year I was born was the year they finally passed the Family and Medical Leave Act!!! And even then it was still subpar protection!!! FFS!!

So yeah, why be “grateful” for birth control when all it’s done is prevent a majority of women from having options outside of potent hormones that may hurt or kill them, or taking out their whole organs with invasive surgeries, whether it’s for birth control or for healthcare? When those are the only options we are given for other people’s convenience? When it’s history and current day use is riddled with sexist and racist ideologies that perpetrate systemic problems that harm me and other women? Fuck that.

And if saying that makes me a deluded sexist, then at least my sexism doesn’t involve devaluing female biology at the expense of women’s health and welfare.

[minicy]

So not to have opinions or anything but the way "wombyn" and TERFs tie menstruation to femininity and "positivity" and "natural beauty" fucking sucks because

1) only a quarter of the population menstruates, when half the population is made up of women, so whether a person menstruates or not is already a fucking horrible predictor of gender. By equating a bodily function to a gender you exclude LITERALLY HALF of your """own people""", you fuckwits. There are people that feel SHAME because they dont bleed, cramp, or ruin their clothes monthly. Which brings me to

2) PERIODS FUCKING SUCK. They are rare among mammals, because they suck. There is absolutely no reason menstruating individuals... need to do so. Scientists think it literally poses no advantage. It sucks! And if more people with menstrual cycles had been in the sciences historically, I dont think women would HAVE to normalize periods now, because we would have recognized its pointlessness long ago and made menstruation a choice, so the uterus only prepped for pregnancy when, oh I don't know, its owner wanted to be pregnant? Wild thought, I know. It's a process that basically evolved pointlessly in a small handful of mammal species and causes people anguish. The fact that we don't see the monthly cyclic process of bleeding and pain as a societal issue traces back to patriarchal structures in healthcare and research.

3) the inherent beauty of bleeding out your vagina monthly is something that literally doesnt exist. It's a sign of one of the human body's worst-case structures in comparison with other species. Our child-making shit is bad, folks! Our babies come out way too soon for most of their bodies because our hips arent big enough to shove out developed brains! The whole process of making another human is beautiful, I can't deny that, but menstruation isn't inherent to the process of sexual reproduction in the majority of animals and in all honesty the whole thing is pretty ineffectual due to our jank-ass anatomy.

4) it's just gross. Plain and simple. For the love of all things holy stop saving your menstrual blood as a statement. If I have to read about one more radical feminist artist saving bloody cloths to make an art piece that smells like rotten meat or knitting using yarn she shoved into her vagina during her period I am going to vomit. It's still a biohazard, its still flesh, it can still go rotten over time, it's not clean and beautiful, it's an organ lining. And yes, both previous examples are real.

5) Even if you are a cis woman who doesn't mind the process, that doesnt mean you're feminine. Like, my God, I thought that your bodies didn't define your personality or your presentation, and that trans people are just gender nonconforming or whatever the garbage of the week is that you're serving, but the art i keep seeing of flowers coming out of your crotch really says otherwise.

6) Praising a process as shitty and pointless as complete menstruation is dishonest and done purely to attempt to exclude individuals from some in-group (being 'female') for no logical reason (to justify hatred and violence towards 'infiltrators'). If you're bad at reading, heres a summation: Saying periods are feminine and beautiful is not only transphobic rhetoric. The only two groups of people it doesn't hurt are cis men and healthy cis women of reproductive age.

What we should be doing is funding research into reproductive anatomy, physiology, and function. We should be normalizing menstruation for young people and letting them know that just because your body is going through this change doesnt mean you have to be an adult now, or that it signifies anything besides the fact that you're now in your late childhood/early teens and were born with your particular anatomy. We should be alleviating the problems a quarter of the world's population goes through related to our jank anatomy, including severe pain and numerous hormonal and mood disorders. We should be making sure working class, poor, and homeless people have access to menstrual hygiene products such as pads, tampons, and liners. There are so many better ways to help your community that don't involve rampant exclusion, transphobia, and artistic biohazards.

Statistically speaking, there are more women that DON'T menstruate than women who do. And there are men that menstruate. There are even people that arent men or women, who also menstruate. Any person that equates menstruation and womanhood is a dumbass, a bigot, or both.

[genidma]

Some areas that need investment and which we do not talk about as often

A positive technological singularity. The technological singularity will most probably occur anywhere from 10 to 40 years. That is, if a technological singularity hasn’t occurred already. 

Rational singularities interacting with each other in a manner that is mutually beneficial. Positive sum games. Basically talking to aliens who are rational agents. The word talking is subject to an on-going evaluation.

Terraforming Venus in our lifetime. Ideally within the next 20 years or less. Experts are welcome to share why this cannot be done in 20 years. 

If the people and the government of Venus approve, then I’d like for us to setup a base on Venus. From this base, we will chart out our expansion throughout the solar system and eventually beyond the solar system. I don’t reckon that we will need a lot of land. 

The intent is to setup a force for exploration and discovery, not unlike Star Trek. Star Trek in a post Picard/Guinan encounter, where Guinan is able to convince Picard that: Starfleet’s mission/values must translate into a peaceful discovery of the galaxy and for scientific inquiry (And not a military force). The network that we will setup, should not take up a lot of landmass on Venus and elsewhere. Star fleet is going to be an organization that governs itself without any specific individual governing for an extended time period.

Overall: Citizens of Venus will abide by a core set of laws, but they will govern themselves, with regards to how the architecture of governance evolves across the wider solar system. A platform for governance will be made available after consultations with key stakeholders. Communities will have the option to exercise different forms of governance, as long as they are compassionate towards each other and other inhabitants. If a one world government cannot be established, here on earth, between a timeframe of now and the next 20 years, then the British Crown will be provided the opportunity to lay claim to a substantial amount of the overall land and sea mass. With a similar amount of land and sea mass being presented as a gift to the government that represents the people of United States. That is, if things remain normal/normative across the United States and reason and humanism prevails. This suggestion can be challenged and should be challenged, in order to foster an environment that promotes collaboration and co-operation on earth, so that we experience long lasting peace and prosperity on non-terrestrial habitats. As well, it is best that a radically inclusive environment is enabled on Venus and elsewhere. In order to incentivize the best and the brightest, those who feel oppressed to move to other habitats. So that they and their children can enjoy life in a relaxed environment and pursue their interests on these new worlds and as they deem fit. 

Coming back to the model, and again, if the one world government architecture cannot be enabled on earth for some given reason, then another portion of the landmass is going to be provided to nations states that seek to invest in the overall project. This need not be just an investment of money, but also of time and effort that has been put in. Perhaps, the allocation should be based on who puts in the most amount of effort. Relating to the nation/state model, nation states may seek to invest in the terraforming project for Venus via their sovereign wealth funds. A very small portion of the land mass is going to be made available to HNWI individuals who are of good moral character (in a secular sense/common sense) and do not have any history of committing crimes,  atrocities and/or oppressing others. (Clean records). 

Rights of women. Reproductive rights. No one can tell a female not to get an abortion. 

Hanging gardens using advanced materials on earth, on Venus, on Mars and elsewhere. 

Brain machine interfaces that are safe to use. 

Semiconductors at room temperature. This will help save a lot of energy and also many amazing new technologies will be developed on top.

Newer forms of computation. Newer ways via which we interact with computers. 

Talking to and interacting with other advanced species across the Galaxy and the wider universe/multi-verse. 

Humans and cyborgs becoming free from boring work and drudgery. Individuals pursuing their interests and further developing their interests as they deem fit. 

Quality universal healthcare for all inhabitants. Including dental work and dental surgeries. Witnessing the enablement of a parallel architecture, whereby mental health related services are equally accessible.

End of warfare. Inhabitants of earth/wider solar system investing in the well-being of humans in another part of the world/solar system. 

Elimination of all forms of human and non-human suffering. Note: I have gone through 16% of David Pearce’s ‘The Hedonistic Imperative’ and up until this point I agree with all the points that Mr. Pearce has highlighted.

Every single venture is supported across the solar system. 

Seeing the further development of blockchains. Having the means and ability to be able to store the massive amount of data that is going to be generated in the future.

Newer storage systems. Maybe nanoscale devices or maybe something uses DNA as a storage medium. Whereby the reads and the writes can be made at a sufficient scale. 

Newer models for innovation. 

Further supporting the mechanism via which research occurs.  Supporting the pillars of basic research and applied research. 

Putting intelligent provisions in place, in order to end loneliness. If someone doesn’t want to be lonely, there there must be many avenues in the offline and online world in order to be able to do so. 

Eradicating all diseases within the next 15 years. Including cancer, HIV, genetic disorders and undiagnosed diseases. 

Reversing and locking ageing. 

Death becomes optional. 

A world where volunteer work is cherished, encouraged, supported. A world in which someone can spend a lifetime being a full-time volunteer and they would also enjoy and appreciate all the glorious wonders that life has to offer. 

Strategic shifts that significantly increase the quality of life of all earthly inhabitants. Whereby, most, if not all earthly inhabitants are able to enjoy the lifestyle of multi-millionaires today. At the very least. 

Worlds that are intelligently designed to enable access to resources vs promoting ownership for the sake of promoting ownership. 

Academy (or academies) of mathematics. Supporting mathematicians. | An academy (or academies) of Physics and sub-branches of Physics at some distance. 

Make friends in the theoretical Physics community and the various sub-branches. 

Learn more about Quantum Mechanics and try and understand the mathematics behind it. 

Learn what is means by relativity and how people are working on figuring out how to bridge relativity with quantum mechanics. (Mathematical models).

Travel from any point on earth to any other point on earth within 1 hour. 

Biological recapitulation using advanced printers. 

Taking steps in order to help enable a world where it’s normal to be gay. Whereby the law grants non-heterosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. Within and outside the Western Hemisphere. This is going to mostly come from engaging with, empathizing and building bonds with communities that have traditionally been opposed to the concept of gay marriages. 

Where we understand the correlates that power civilization in a mathematical sense. Whereby we have the developed and continue to nurture the necessary functions that will support these correlates. 

Worlds whereby people get more karma points for helping others. This is best achieved in a radically transparent society. 

Where we understand the correlates of innovation of different types. Whereby we have developed the simulations that have a very high probability attached to delivering the kinds of outputs that we seek. Outputs that would continue to guarantee our expansion throughout the solar system and beyond. As well, outputs that will continually power a high standard of living for all. 

A post scarcity reality for an indefinite amount of time. 

Sending a cluster of crafts throughout the farther reaches of the galaxy, close to the speed of light. Have the crafts send data back. 

Developing Alcubierre drives. Requires the ability to be able to create an engine that is large enough to harness an adequate amount of negative energy. 

Genetic arks for seeding life across the galaxy. Involves a lot of ethical decision making. 

O’Neill colonies. 

Large scale O’Neill colonies which can house 10,000 humans and cyborgs. Travelling in clusters to the next star system. In ideal conditions, we’d have data from these worlds before the decision to travel there in the first place. 

Mindfiles. 

Laws that protect the rights of mindfiles. 

Laws in place in order to protect relationships between humans and cyborgs. 

All optical circuits. 

Genetics and synthetic biology experiencing the kind of growth that the general and wider field of computation has experienced since Turing/Zuse.

Transparent societies where neural correlates are stored on advanced storage devices.

Ensuring that the mechanism via which new ideas are generated is protected. That the original creator is part of the profit sharing mechanism. Or however we attach value to physical and virtual innovations. 

Having multiple properties across the solar system. And the means and ability to be able to travel between these locations relatively quickly. 

Newer propulsion systems. Fusion, anti-matter drives. 

Portals, wormholes that enable space and time travel. 

House of friendship. 

Protecting land mass across the solar system. Putting a sousveillance system in place, in order to prevent illegal mining/dumping. 

Ending human trafficking. 

Regulating the sex industry. With a keen focus on the rights of the workers.

Supporting missions on Mars from earth, from Venus and elsewhere. Signing pacts of indefinite friendship and treaties that link the various colonies together. Constant and deep interaction between communities that are geographically separated. Using a multitude of processes, systems and techniques (In-person, communications centres, leaders on a 1 to 2 year term servicing inhabitants in another part of the solar system, newer constructs)

Interesting Quests in the real and virtual worlds. Perhaps a combination of the two via mixed and augmented reality. 

Seeing the enablement of interesting and unique innovations. Like backpack wings. Whereby humans put on a pair of giant wings (synthethic nano bio) and fly like birds. 

Absorbing knowledge encoded in logic quickly and safely via brain machine interfaces that are safe to use. 

Dematerializing and dematerializing in other realities. Exploring friendly territories. 

Putting measures in place, in order to educate ourselves why separation of religion and governance is good for society. Promoting the separation of religion and state.

Promoting secularism. Secular cause. 

Ensuring that the rights of religious communities and individuals who are religious are protected. 

Ensuring that the rights of non-religious communities and individuals are protected. 

Reforms across the criminal justice system. Treating humans with respect, irrespective of the crime that they have committed. A right to a fair trial and access to quality legal services and a lawyer. Focus on reform and not punishment.

Abolishing capital punishment. Abolishing capital punishment for mind-files.

Ending surveillance. Enabling sousveillance. 

Very open towards making accommodations to the list. Additions, amendments. 

Let’s make wealth and create beautiful surroundings for ourselves and our children. 

Join me.

[continuations]

World After Capital: Patents (Informational Freedom)

NOTE: Today’s excerpt from World After Capital continues the topic of Informational Freedom, discussing overreach in the patent system and offering prizes as an alternative mechanism. This is timely as the patent office has unfortunately issued new rules that will make it easier to obtain software patents undoing the tightening from prior Supreme Court decisions. 

While copyright limits our ability to share knowledge, patents limit our ability to use knowledge to create something. Much like having a copyright confers a monopoly on reproduction, a patent confers a monopoly on use. And the rationale for the existence of patents is similar to the argument for copyright. The monopoly that is granted results in economic rents (i.e., profits) that are supposed to provide an incentive for people to invest in research and development.

As with copyright, the incentive argument here should be suspect. People invented long before patents existed and some people have continued to invent without seeking patents. We can trace early uses of patents to Venice in the mid 1400s; Britain had a fairly well established system by the 1600s [106]. That leaves thousands of years of invention, a time that saw such critical breakthroughs as the alphabet, movable type, the wheel, and gears. This is to say nothing of those inventors who more recently chose not to patent their inventions because they saw how that would interrupt the knowledge loop and impose a loss on society. These inventors include Jonas Salk, who created the Polio vaccine (others include x rays, penicillin, ether as an anesthetic, and many more, see [107]). Since we know that limits on knowledge use impose a cost, we should therefore ask what alternatives exist to patents to stimulate innovation.

Many people are motivated simply by wanting to solve a problem. This could be a problem they are having themselves or something that impacts family or friends or the world at large. With a Universal Basic Income more of these people will be able to spend their time on inventing following intrinsic motivation.

We will also see more invention because digital technologies are reducing the cost of inventing. One example of this is the USV portfolio company Science Exchange, which has created a market place for laboratory experiments. Let's say you have an idea that requires you to sequence a bunch of genes. The fastest gene sequencing available to date comes from a company called Illumina, whose machines costs from $850K-$1M to buy [108]. Via Science Exchange, however, you can access such a machine on a per use basis for less than $1000 [109]. Furthermore, the next generation of sequencing machines is already on the way, and these machines will further reduce the cost. Here too we see the phenomenon of technological deflation at work.

A lot of recent legislation has needlessly inflated the cost of innovation. In particular, rules around drug testing have made drug discovery prohibitively expensive. We have gone too far in the direction of protecting patients during the research process and also of allowing for large medical damage claims. As a result, many drugs are either not developed at all or are withdrawn from the market despite their efficacy (for example the vaccine against Lyme disease, which is no longer available for humans [110]).

Patents (i.e., granting a temporary monopoly) are not the only way to provide incentives for innovation. Another historically successful strategy has been the offering of public prizes. Britain famously offered the Longitude rewards starting in 1714 to induce solutions to the problem of determining a ship's longitude at sea (latitude can be determined easily from the position of the sun). Several people were awarded prizes for their designs of chronometers, lunar distance tables and other methods for determining longitude (including improvements to existing methods). As quid pro quo for receiving the prize money, inventors generally had to make their innovations available to others to use as well [111].

At a time when we wish to accelerate the Knowledge Loop, we must shift the balance towards knowledge that can be used freely and that is not encumbered by patents. It is promising to see successful recent prize programs, such as the X Prizes, DARPA Grand Challenges, and NIST competitions. There is also potential for crowdfunding future prizes. Medical research in particular should be a target for prizes to help bring down the cost of healthcare.

Going forward, we can achieve this by using prizes more frequently. And yet, that leaves a lot of existing patents in place. Here I believe a lot can be done to reform the existing system and make it more functional, in particular by reducing the impact of so-called Non Practicing Entities (NPEs, commonly referred to as “patent trolls”). These are companies that have no operating business of their own, and exist solely for the purpose of litigating patents.

In recent years, many NPEs have been litigating patents of dubious validity. They tend to sue not just a company but also that company's customers. This forces a lot of companies into a quick settlement. The NPE then turns around and uses the early settlement money to finance further lawsuits. Just a few dollars for them go a long way because their attorneys do much of the legal work on a contingency basis, expecting further settlements. Fortunately, a recent Supreme Court ruling placed limits on where patent lawsuits can be filed, which should help limit the activity of these NPEs going forward [112].

As a central step in patent reform, we thus must make it easier and faster to invalidate existing patents while at the same time making it more difficult to obtain new patents. Thankfully, we have seen some progress on both counts in the U.S., but we still have a long way to go. Large parts of what is currently patentable should be excluded from patentability in the first place, including designs and utility patents. University research that has received even small amounts of public funding should not be eligible for patents at all. Universities have frequently delayed the publication of research in areas where they have hoped for patents that they could subsequently license out. This practice has constituted one of the worst consequences of the patent system for the Knowledge Loop.

We have also gone astray by starting to celebrate patents as a measure of technological progress and prowess instead of treating them as a necessary evil (and maybe not even necessary). Ideally, we would succeed in rolling back the reach of existing patents and raising the bar for new patents while also inducing as much unencumbered innovation as possible through the bestowing of prizes and social recognition.

[fariyaaah]

NO OTHER LIKE A MOTHER - why is maternal and child health so important for society

Mothers have often been seen as means and not ends. Health services have been targeted by mothers to help them produce healthy babies, forgetting there is a woman in the mother, who also has a right to health and survival. Society has an obligation to fulfil a woman’s right to life and health, when she is risking death to give us life’. – Prof. Mahmoud F. Fathallah (2012).

As an OT, when I think of maternal and child health, I think of things like postpartum depression, child developmental delays, teenage mums’ mental health and the associated stigma, birth deformities and the big debate on the morals and ethics of abortion and a wide array of other physical, mental and social issues.

So, what exactly is maternal health is. Maternal health is the wellbeing of mother’s during the stages of pregnancy, childbirth as well as the period after childbirth. (WHO).

For more information on what maternal health is, please click the following link: https://www.who.int/health-topics/maternal-health#tab=tab_1

Despite WHO stating that due to Sub-Saharan Africa having insubstantial humanitarian settings, it has a role in the greatest burden of maternal deaths, South Africa has made significant progress with regards to the improvement of maternal health. To further reiterate statistic wise; For every 1000s live births, only 5 women died during pregnancy or 2 months after childbirth. (SADHS,2016).  Currently, maternal health remains a global issue solely because the lives of millions of women (who are of a reproductive age) can be saved via maternal health care services. This goes to raise the question of why the maternal death statistics are still sky high despite an obvious solution?

Social determinants of maternal and child mortality in South Africa and ultimately a developing community context such as Inanda are attributed to a wide array of factors such as poverty, lower levels of education amongst its residents, nutritional inadequacies, gender-based violence, HIV/AIDS, stigma associated with health and poverty. (Mmusi-Phetoe, 2016). With regards to my experience in the Inanda community, upon screening the clinic for potential OT client’s, a mother expressed that she knows a mum and child who cannot make it to the clinic but are in desperate need of OT services. This goes to show how a lack of access to healthcare can be an enemy in the battle of maternal and child health. In a low-income community such as Inanda, the options for healthcare include a clinic. Often problems associated with clinics in a community environment would be that the location is far from potential client’s homes, (this comes with added transport fees which builds onto the poverty experienced in community settings), long-waiting lines due to scarce availability of clinics, and inadequate access to services specifically targeted for maternal and child health.

So why is child and maternal health important to society?

Pre and post childbirth mental health is not only important for the mother’s physical and mental health, but also adds to her capacity in terms of giving love and care to her child, not only at birth but as the child grows too. Mothers play a vital role in advocating for the child’s health as well as quality of life, however this can be achieved only if their own maternal health is looked after appropriately. (Pettyman,2016). In a community setting like Inanda, with minimal resources and low-income residents, the advocacy and early intervention of child and mental health can lead to the ultimate development of the community in terms of lower mortality rates and overall better health of both mum and child. It is to be questioned as to why there are so many mothers and children in the queues of clinics but no services aimed specifically for maternal and child health? Possible answers can be lack of funding, mistrust of staff members or simply the lack of education on the importance of child and maternal health

So what is the implications of this issue in OT practice:

In a community-based setting like Inanda, I observed that majority of the patient’s that visited were mother’s with their babies. Upon questioning these mother’s, I found that majority come to the clinic for a check up on their baby’s only. I then investigated to see what these ‘check-ups’ mean and discovered that it covers the child’s basic physical vitals. From this I could see the lack of services that do a thorough check up of the physical and mental health of both the mother and child. In addition to this, the checkups being conducted are by health professionals who may be able to recognize issues in child and maternal health above their scope, and therefore these patient’s continue to float through the system unexposed or with the false belief that their child is in good health. This is where OT steps in. As part of the OT description, it is our duty to look at both mother and child holistically. The challenges that I faced as an OT visiting a clinic in a community setting was screening all potential client’s, due to the busyness of the clinic. Upon doing an ‘in queue’ assessment with one of the mother’s, I found that her baby was breastfeeding incorrectly and this made me think how many other mother’s there are out there doing the same thing. This then is an implication for me as an OT to then advocate for my profession, in terms of what occupational therapy is and how they help with child and maternal health, as well as to educate the client’s on signs and symptoms within themselves as a mother and their child in order to recognize when they would seek further intervention from an OT. Judging by the amount of maternal client’s with the potential for OT intervention, I also started to ponder as to why there isn’t more awareness on what OT is and why isn’t there more in a community context such as Inanda?

However, this community based setting is not only limited to the health clinic of the community. I am yet to visit the schools and creches in the community to further investigate the extent of child and maternal health in a learning and social environment. I would like to conclude my blog by saying that maternal and child health impacts our society tremendously. The insufficient access to healthcare in this aspect, lack of awareness on what child and maternal health is and even just the lack of advocacy in it can severely impact the way a community can develop. In my opinion, us as occupational therapists, as well as members of the PHC team, need to find a long term solution in advocating the importance of maternal and child health in community based settings to help bring awareness to it and ultimately develop the community in terms of quality of life. Without pointing out the importance of MHC in the community, the community is at risk for having members with a wide array of secondary complications such as higher mortalities, child developmental delays and other health issues .

I look forward to making a bigger impact in terms of OT child and maternal health intervention in the community setting as well as visiting the schools and creches to help improve these community member’s lives in both functional and meaningful ways.

If you are looking for maternal and child health services please contact the following number: 0800 012 322

REFERENCES:

Africa, S. (2021). Maternal health care in SA shows signs of improvement | Statistics South Africa. Retrieved 5 August 2021, from http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=13102

Maternal health. (2021). Retrieved 5 August 2021, from https://www.who.int/health-topics/maternal-health#tab=tab_2

Hellerstedt, W. (2009). What is Maternal and Child Health? | Leadership Education in Maternal & Child Public Health. Retrieved 5 August 2021, from https://mch.umn.edu/what-is-mch/

Pettyman, B. (2016). The Importance of Maternal Health During Pregnancy | Riverside Med Group. Retrieved 5 August 2021, from https://www.riversidemedgroup.com/why-maternal-health-is-important/

Fathalla, P. (2012). Milestones in the movement for safe motherhood (2012) | Figo. Retrieved 5 August 2021, from https://www.figo.org/news/milestones-movement-safe-motherhood-2012

[easyhairstylesbest]

How TikTok Made Pro-Choice Activism Cool Again

In Charlotte, NC, a man referred to as Chris has unwittingly become a TikTok celebrity. He doesn’t have an account—that we know of—and it’s unclear if he’s even aware of his popularity, but his own dedicated hashtag, #christok, has more than 174 million views.

Chris isn’t the typical subject of viral internet fame. He looks to be in his late 50s. He shows up to an abortion clinic in Charlotte just about every day dressed in business casual attire with a sign that reads, in bold white letters, “THOU SHALL NOT MURDER.” His voice is low and dull, even when shouting about unborn children seeking vengeance from God.

But Chris has become a sort of canvas onto which the women of Charlotte for Choice can project the realities and follies behind the everyday grind of pro-choice activism. Since summer, the local organization of abortion clinic escorts and defenders has posted countless videos of him and other anti-abortion protestors outside their local clinic, A Preferred Women’s Health Center of Charlotte, in order to show the world exactly what patients are up against.

“Any video with Chris in it, people go crazy for,” said Reiley, a 20-year-old clinic defender and TikToker (@loveurmother) with more than 445,000 followers. In September, she posted a video dissecting Chris’s “4 moods”, which range from “waiting for patients to harass” to “pouting because you can’t harass patients.” There are also videos of him arguing with clinic escorts, stretching out his tired knees, arguing with other anti-abortion protestors, and getting inadvertently roped into a dance off. The women at Charlotte for Choice have made national headlines for their posts, including a viral video of a clinic defender sticking it to a protestor by referring to God as “sky daddy.” It’s all part of a growing trend on the Gen Z-driven platform—one that’s having as much impact offline as it is on.

This content is imported from TikTok. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

“It was actually TikTok that made me become an escort in June,” said Amy, a 20-year-old in suburban Detroit. (Several sources in this article asked to be identified by only their first name or nickname to protect their privacy.) Amy, who goes by the moniker @basicasstrashcan, was the first clinic escort to grace my own TikTok For You page, the app’s algorithmic homepage curated to each user’s tastes and interests. (If a video winds up in the #FYP algorithm, it’s almost guaranteed to get a high viewership.) In the first video I saw from Amy, she rated clinic protestors on a scale of 1-10, docking points for poor dress or shrieking at patients, all set to a mash-up of Super Mario theme songs.

This content is imported from TikTok. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Amy’s own introduction was through Hannah (a.k.a. @42069horndog), Charlotte for Choice’s first TikToker who started as a clinic defender this summer with her mother, a long-time volunteer with the group. “I just thought she was kind of funny,” Amy said. “But I was also morbidly curious about the protestors. Like, what’s with these people?” She ended up calling a few local clinics in June and has been volunteering pretty much every Saturday since.

“I don’t want you on the sidewalk just yelling at people. I want you to understand the perspective of the greater movement and what it means.”

Now, Charlotte for Choice has a waitlist of people who want to train as volunteers, and the organization says that this influx of interest has taken place just over the past few months—since Hannah, Reiley, and others have been posting about their experiences on TikTok. Currently, the organization offers two volunteer opportunities: clinic escorts, who help patients get from their cars into the building, and clinic defenders, who use counter-protest methods to distract anti-abortion protestors by directly engaging with them from a safe distance. Volunteers must also undergo a training session that covers the basics of anti-racism and reproductive justice. “I don’t want you on the sidewalk just yelling at people,” said the training lead and media strategist for Charlotte for Choice, who asked to remain anonymous, citing privacy concerns. “I want you to understand the perspective of the greater movement and what it means.”

In the United States, most clinics are what are known as “non-engagement clinics,” where volunteers are not allowed to directly engage with protestors. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, for example, recommends non-engagement, though each affiliate is able to decide how to manage the protestors at their own clinic. “The aim of the recommendation is to not feed or escalate protests, conflicts, or activity outside of health centers, in order to lessen the chaos patients may encounter,” a PPFA spokesperson told ELLE.com. “Our recommendation comes from the desire to center patients’ experiences.”

Still, the practice of clinic defense has been around since the 1980s, initially as a response to anti-abortion extremists attempting to block patients from getting their abortions, which eventually resulted in the passage of the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The law was designed to create a buffer between anti-abortion protestors and clinic patients, but activists say that the FACE Act has been, at best, loosely enforced, especially during the Trump administration. Anti-abortion protestors continue to disrupt patient care and harass visitors with alarming tactics, from shaming patients with bullhorns to carrying assault weapons with their protest signs.

An anti-choice rally outside a Planned Parenthood in St. Louis, Missouri, in June 2019.

Michael B. ThomasGetty Images

“There is always a place for de-escalation tactics,” said Kim Gibson, a member of the non-profit Pinkhouse Defenders in Jackson, MS, home to the state’s last remaining abortion clinic. “But [anti-abortion protestors] are there to escalate the situation.”

The Pinkhouse Defenders have been engaging with protestors since 2013, and last year, Gibson formed a spin-off group, We Engage, to organize and encourage counter-protests at clinics and government functions. Both groups have been posting their encounters on Facebook since 2018 but then realized TikTok was where the action was happening. In December, they posted their first videos to the platform with guidance from the team at Charlotte for Choice.

The influx of TikTok content is owed in part to a strategic change in Charlotte for Choice’s approach this summer. Though the Preferred Women’s Health Center has worked with Charlotte for Choice defenders for years, the two groups decided to band together to move toward a more full-fledged counter-protesting model. It was a controversial move—in early December, the New York Times reported that a handful of Charlotte for Choice board members resigned due to the more confrontational tactics, and they’re not alone in their reservations. But pro-engagement activists insist that, so far, nothing else has worked.

According to the Charlotte for Choice’s media strategist, the Preferred Women’s Health Center has seen an estimated 60,000 protestors over the last four years, with no sign of letting up. Most Saturdays, a Charlotte-based group called Love Life draws hordes of protestors in matching blue T-shirts, sometimes in the thousands, on a piece of land directly across from the clinic’s administrative building—something that Charlotte for Choice believes patients shouldn’t have to face alone. Since this summer, they’ve unofficially renamed the land “Pro-Choice Park” and “Christian Coachella.” They play kazoos and loud music and stand on top of cars with signs in counter-protest.

“Engagement is not for every clinic,” the strategist conceded, adding that the goal isn’t to make the protestors go away—that would be naive. “We just want to make it difficult for them to exist in that space comfortably.”

A happy but unexpected side effect of the newfound TikTok frenzy is that now, not only is the brazenness of anti-abortion protestors on full display, the viral videos are also filling a void for some Gen Z activists. On the political stage, reproductive healthcare continues to get left behind, even by those who support it. Democrats didn’t once mention the term “abortion” at the national convention this year, and even though the party platform has become increasingly progressive on the issue—touting LGBTQ+ inclusion and the repeal of the Hyde Amendment—Dems aren’t always connecting with their base. In a recent Times report, Gen Z and millennial activists associated with racial justice movements expressed lukewarm feelings toward “reproductive rights messaging that is focused strictly on legal abortion access.”

Meanwhile, Republicans had no problem going on anti-abortion tirades at their own convention and pushing for anti-abortion policies that have, for decades, chipped away at reproductive healthcare access, making it nearly impossible for many people, especially those who are low-income or from marginalized backgrounds, to access the safe and legal care they need. The party’s political fervor against abortion seems to match that of protestors on the ground.

This content is imported from TikTok. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

The clinic volunteers I spoke with all said they supported abortion rights before they began working at their local clinics, but collectively, it just didn’t seem like that big of a priority. “I thought that it was important and that people should have access to it, but I was never one to fight for it,” said Jaicie, a 20-year-old clinic defender in Charlotte with over 250,000 TikTok followers on her account @jaiciesmall. In a recent video, she attempted to challenge a couple of men dressed in dark clergy uniforms to a staring contest as they chanted Hail Marys outside the clinic; she managed to get one of them to crack a smile.

Exposure to the odd and often menacing behavior of right-wing protestors at abortion clinics seems to be effectively galvanizing for some Gen Z activists—more so than legislative talking points or complicated court cases taking place in various states across the country. “When I could see patients visibly afraid and terrified and then see this huge group of pro-life protestors out there, yelling at them and degrading them and making them feel guilty about this decision that they’re making, that was when it all clicked for me,” said Jaicie, who started defending at the Charlotte clinic after she saw a friend of hers from middle school volunteering on TikTok. Though she’s begun to post videos herself, she acknowledges that the priority is, and has always been, patients’ safety. “Our goal is to make patients feel comfortable and safe going in to get their procedure. That is number one.” Helping patients is one of the best parts of the job, said Reiley. She’s even had people reach out after the fact to thank her and other clinic defenders for making them feel better protected.

“I always felt like I was powerless…But being out here clinic defending, I see first hand how it makes a difference.”

However, the feedback on TikTok isn’t always positive, and volunteers say they’ve experienced death threats and trolling. Jo, a 19-year-old in Yuba City, CA, who posts her counter-protest content under the name @virgobb, said she had her original account taken down for “hate speech” and enlisted the help of her pro-choice community to regain the thousands of followers she once had. People have also faced harsh consequences for their activism offline. Anti-abortion protestors have taken legal action against at least two Charlotte for Choice volunteers, and many reported receiving harassment in public, at home, or their place of work, according to the organization’s strategist.

But despite the trouble, they say their efforts are rewarding. “I always felt like I was powerless, especially because I don’t have a lot of money,” Jo said. “I grew up poor. I’m a minority, and I never felt heard. But being out here clinic defending, I see firsthand how it makes a difference…It just makes me feel like I’m legitimately doing something about it.”

This content is imported from TikTok. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

They’re also proud of the community they’ve built online. “We made it so that you can no longer ignore these issues,” Jaicie said. “We’re putting this right on your screen, in your face, while you’re trying to have fun and watch TikToks. Yes, we are having fun, but we are also posting a really important message—reproductive health is huge, and you have to pay attention to this.”

As for the future of pro-choice activism, the clinic volunteers I spoke with all have different ideas about what could be useful, from bolder messaging to increased awareness about fetal development. Meanwhile, Chris from Charlotte will keep holding his giant sign, shouting Bible verses, and harassing patients. Perhaps the most meaningful response at our disposal, at least for now, is to hold his antics up to the world and tell him to shut the hell up.

Annie Werner Annie Werner is a writer from Texas living in New York.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

How TikTok Made Pro-Choice Activism Cool Again

[rabbitindisguise]

I'm also reading On Weaving and like, it's amazing how time passing let's people devalue incredibly historically important things. When I think "product of their time" it's less about "oh they're just sexist" and more like . . . a shaft stick, comb, and and stick shuttle are seen as almost peasantry today. People "only" do that because they can't afford a larger loom with a boat shuttle, and not because larger looms are actually worse (at least with modern artistic weaving because of more limiting weaving options- they are more efficient at producing cloth).

But shuttle stickers were revolutionary. And incredibly practical- though there was a reason why people didn't do it sooner, and it's because textiles just weren't a huge industry that needed yards of cheap plain cloth. Asia lead the advancement in efficiency because of silk. Silk was valuable no matter the weave. Simple cloth, the kind that efficient looms were producing in the beginning, was actually less valuable than the lace, tapestry, and functional cloth produced for cheap on a smaller scale. Some weaves keep in heat better and are more durable than plainweave- the edge weaving has over other textiles.

In a world where jeans are woven and sold for less than it would take to weave your own (and in twill at that), a shuttle stick can't even begin to compare. No one would weave their own pants, unless they had the expendable income to weave it. It's just not cost effective. But the tools themselves, they suit different purposes. You can make incredibly delicate, gauzy lace by using a tapestry loom and a shuttle stick. That's fairly valuable in the economy now because no one weaves anymore so looms aren't just, things people have laying around. Something that wouldn't have happened if we didn't have the luxury of efficient factory loom machines that practically make clothes on their own.

Women having the right to vote seems less revolutionary than women having access to contraception. Because we don't have real, protected, cheap, and available contraception. We also don't have reproductive rights and the end of forced sterilization.

But we have the shuttle stick of "voting" now. Birth control wasn't even a thing, it would have been like someone saying "a shuttle stick is great and all, but we really need a loom that doesn't even exist!" Like, sure, eventually it happened. But it still sounds weird and frankly, how can we know that voting, like the shuttle stick, didn't directly cause the later chain of events that we can take for granted today? How insensitive is it to get angry at someone grateful for some small step to improve the lives of thousands?

That's how I also feel about gay marriage. We can take it for granted now. We have an older, higher class, financially stable white base of LGBTQ+ folks because of gay marriage. This doesn't mean that not having it would directly mean a weakened institution of marriage. There's no guarantee of that. In fact, there's more gay people saying things like "marriage is stupid, everyone should have healthcare, I should get to give healthcare to my brother if I want" now than before. Getting accused of bitterness and jealousy every time makes it hard to have an argument against something you're actively already deprived of that carries weight. Making change now is just about turning that disgust with systematic oppression into systematic change to actually see the results of these efforts fully.

And . . . for what it's worth?

The people that hate shuttle sticks the most? That loathe them and think they're ridiculous?

They own boat shuttles. They're upper class. And they have floor looms, which run approximately $10,000 a pop. Those are mini industrial looms, made for massive production with little effort, that people weave from from the comfort of their own homes.

It's not a place of oppression that let's us dismiss needed human rights gains. It's privilege. The privilege of being the inheritors of the rights the people before us bled for.

Idk how to end this besides like, vote. Vote and get married and become a CEO and take a pay cut and call representatives and be politically active. The people that came before us as activists are waiting on us to see through the change they started. And if we don't finish that's all on us, not them. We cannot go around blaming historical figures for our fear of action because we're afraid what future generations will say about us. I hope I'm not radical. I hope me saying "trans rights" is barely even a controversial thing, I hope trans people are so safe and happy I look like a huge weirdo for being loud about it. Because that will mean we won.

[vulvapeople]

Shrill by Lindy West

I finished reading this fairly recently, and I wasn’t really a fan. My personal feelings about it are pretty irrelevant here though. What I want to talk about is how dedicated trans ally Lindy West tries ever so hard to be “inclusive” of trans people in this book, but, like most “allies”, persistently fucks up.

Throughout the book she persistently links female bodies to womanhood:

Please don’t forget: I am my body. When my body gets smaller, it is still me. When my body gets bigger, it is still me. There is not a thin woman inside me, awaiting excavation. I am one piece. I am also not a uterus riding around in a meat incubator. There is no substantive difference between the repulsive campaign to separate women’s bodies from their reproductive systems--perpetuating the lie that abortion and birth control are not healthcare--and the repulsive campaign to convince women that they and their body size are separate, alienated entities. Both say, “Your body is not yours.” Both demand, “Beg for your humanity.” Both insist, “Your autonomy is conditional.” This is why fat is a feminist issue.

The unbelievable irony that a trans apologist would write this.

When I was a little girl, I was obsessed with a video-game developer named Roberta Williams. She made point-and-click adventure games--King’s Quest, Space Quest, Quest for Glory--a largely extinct genre in which exploration, curiosity, and problem solving took precedence over combat and reflexes...

I wanted to be Roberta Williams; I wanted to build worlds.

In ninth grade, I enrolled in a beginners’ programming class at a community college near my house. I was the youngest one there, the only girl, and the only one with no previous knowledge of coding (which wasn’t a prerequisite); the teacher ignored me and chattered away with the boys in jargon I couldn’t follow. I sat through two classes in a humiliated, frustrated fog and never went back. I drifted away from video games; they didn’t want me. I forgot about Roberta and grew up.

How does she know she was the only “girl”?

Girls in the ‘70s were the cultiest--they couldn’t wait to get their periods and incessantly wrote books about it. “Oh, I hope I get it today! I just have to bleed stinkily out of my vagina before that cow Francine.” The reality, of course, is that when you hit puberty you don’t magically blossom into a woman--you’re still the same tiny fool you were at puberty-minus-one, only now once a month hot brown blood just glops and glops out of your private area like a broken Slurpee machine. Forever. Or, at least, until you’re inconceivably elderly, in an eleven-year-old’s estimation...

Girls and women menstruate according to Lindy West, trans “ally”.

I didn’t bother transcribing all the instances of West unconditionally being “terfy”; I basically would have had to transcribe the entire book.

What’s hilarious is when she both includes and “literally murders” 100 Percent Real Women within the same damn paragraph:

We can mention periods obliquely, of course, when we want to delegitimize women’s real concerns, dismiss their more inconvenient emotions, and perpetuate the myth that having outie junk instead of innie junk (and a male gender identity) makes a person an innately more rational and competent human being. But to suggest that having a period isn’t an abomination, but is, in fact, natural and good, or--my god--to actually let people see what period blood looks like? (This is going to blow a lot of you guys’ minds, but: It looks like blood.) You might as well suggest replacing the national anthem with Donald Trump harmonizing with an air horn.

“Outie junk” instead of “innie junk” determines your treatment, unless you have a male “gender identity”. Add this up together and she’s effectively saying that M2Ts aren’t delegitimized for being “women”, which certainly I agree with, but that surely isn’t the message she meant to send.

This is just a wacky idea I had, but maybe it’s not a coincidence that, in a country where half the population’s normal reproductive functions are stigmatized, American uterus- and vagina-havers are still fighting tooth and nail to have those same reproductive systems fully covered by the health insurance that we pay for. Maybe periods wouldn’t be so frightening if we didn’t refer to them as “red tide” or “shark week” or any other euphemism that evokes neurotoxicity or dismemberment. Maybe if we didn’t perpetuate the idea that vaginas are disgusting garbage dumps, government officials wouldn’t think of vagina care as literally throwing money away. Maybe if girls felt free to talk about their periods in shouts instead of whispers, as loudly in mixed company as in libraries full of moms, boys wouldn’t grow up thinking vaginas are disgusting and mysterious either. Maybe those parts would seem like things worth taking care of. Maybe women would go to the doctor more. Maybe fewer women would die of cervical and uterine cancer. Maybe everyone would have better sex. Maybe women would finally be considered fully formed human beings, instead of off-brand men with defective genitals.

I vote for “off-brand men with defective genitals” being the transgenderist replacement for AFAB.

I hesitate to tell this story, not because I regret my abortion or I buy into the right-wing narrative that pregnancy is god’s punishment for disobedient women, but because it’s so easy for an explanation to sound like a justification. The truth is that I don’t give a damn why anyone has an abortion. I believe unconditionally in the right of people with uteruses to decide what grows inside of their body and feeds on their body and endangers their life and reroutes their future. There are no “good” abortions and “bad” abortions, there are only pregnant people who have access and support and pregnant people who face institutional roadblocks and lies.

Ultimately, West was writing a book about female bodies, how having a female body has constrained her life in numerous ways, and how having a fat female body paints a very particular target on her back. There was never going to be any way to square what she’s writing about with the irrational, women-erasing demands of the trans juggernaut. What saddens me is how her writing will have all the life and relevance sucked out of it by adherence to trans dogma if she doesn’t wake up first.