#men avoiding prison by claiming to be women

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

"Yet you toil still in service to men. Your father, your husband, and your son. You desire not to be free but to make a window in the wall of your prison."

Episodes 9

What's your opinion on the speech?

Rhaenys' speech here is a bit silly. What woman doesn't "toil in service to men" in this world? Medieval women were not even allowed to own property or sign contracts. Part of this show's problem is that some of the writers seem to be under the impression that Westeros is undergoing a feminist movement and Alicent is "team patriarchy" while Rhaenyra is "team feminism," as if Rhaenyra's own "right" to rule doesn't derive specifically from a man, her father, granting her that right, as if that same man couldn't snatch it from her on a whim. She has to toil in service to her own father, and even if she becomes queen, she will find herself surrounded by and beholden to men who will very quickly remove their support if she does not dance to their tune, and in fact we see this in the Dance, where Rhaenyra has terrible advisors but she's not really able to remove them because she can't risk them going over to the other side. And when she does attempt to assert herself against them, this is precisely what they do.

I think many people don't understand that the idea of women as an oppressed group, with solidarity across class lines, religious lines, and ethnic lines, that is, intersectional feminism, is extremely modern. Rhaenys cannot separate herself from her class interests, she lacks even the most basic framework necessary to do so. She might see her sex as a prison, but her greater allegiance would be to the Targaryen royalty that she was born into. Breaking free from the prison of patriarchy would mean also being metaphorically exiled from her own royal privilege. When it came to the council of 101, Rhaenys did not risk alienating herself from her grandfather the king in order to assert her right to the throne, instead she put forward her son Laenor as an alternative. In her marriage with Lord Corlys, she deferred to him rather than risk her status as Lady of Driftmark. Rhaenys did not pit herself against the might of the patriarchy because it would mean pitting herself against the might of the monarchy itself.

This isn't a criticism of Rhaenys. She only did what most women in her position would have done. She did not have what Rhaenyra had, the mandate of a king who had thrown the might of the monarchy behind her cause, declaring her an exception. Viserys did not sign a decree asserting absolute primogeniture because he could not pit the monarchy against the patriarchy when the monarchy itself relied on the patriarchy to uphold it. And in our world, knowing that monarchy and patriarchy waled hand in hand, many medieval/early modern queens regnant very much avoided overly associating themselves with womenhood, instead leaning into the rhetoric that they were female in body, but male in spirit. They believed that as exceptional women, they might claim a sort of honorary male status. Think of Elizabeth I's speech to the troops at Tilbury as they prepared to face the Spanish Armada, when she said:

"I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too..."

Notice how she concedes the point about her "weak and feeble" woman's body? She then goes on to say that she has the heart and stomach not of a man, but of a king, aligning herself not only with manhood, but with royalty, which is the source of her exceptional status. And this is echoed in the idea of Rhaenyra seeing herself as an exception, when Lord Corlys reminds her that if she allows women to inherit the seats of Stokeworth and Rosby, she may lose the support of lords who took her side. They were siding not with a woman because they believed in smashing the patriarchy, but rather they were siding with monarchy, believing Rhaenyra had the mandate of the old king. However that mandate could be revoked if Rhaenyra were to turn against the patriarchy and attempt to divorce it from the monarchy.

So the ironic thing is, Rhaenyra is doing very nearly the same thing Rhaenys is accusing Alicent of doing, except if womanhood is a prison, then perhaps rather than building a window in the prison, Rhaenyra has secured parole for good behavior. She could be put back into the prison at any time and is keenly aware of that. The prison of patriarchy, after all, still exists within the walled confines of feudal monarchy, and neither Rhaenys nor Rhaenyra are attempting to climb those walls.

[coochiequeens]

“Section 183 of the Criminal Code only applies to men. If a man uses self-ID to become a woman, he can no longer commit a criminal offense for exhibitionism.” - criminal defense attorney Udo Vetter

If a community is truly oppressed I would think that they would be opposed to any law that would give perverts a legal loophole in their name. But then I've been saying for years that the TQ+ community needs to clean house.

By Marielena Meder September 19, 2024

A trans-identified male from Troisdorf, Germany, is facing charges after attacking multiple women in two disturbing incidents involving knives and exhibitionism. But a debate is now raging in court as legal experts weigh whether the man, who identifies as a “woman,” can be charged with exposing his penis, a crime only males can be prosecuted for.

The man, 56, is scheduled to stand trial in Bonn for threats and grievous bodily harm related to two incidents, one from 2021 and one from 2022. Due to Germany’s strict privacy laws, the man’s full name has not been released, but he will be referred to as “Klaus” for the purposes of this article.

In August of 2021, Klaus followed a woman home and attacked her while she was at her front door. Klaus is alleged to have grabbed her from behind and held a knife to her throat while he wrangled her boots off. The woman fought back, suffering cuts to her neck and hands, and was able to send her attacker fleeing thanks to her loud cries for help. Klaus was wearing women’s clothes at the time of the attack, and is said to be a women’s shoe fetishist.

The next year, in December, Klaus exposed his penis to two women on a train. The regional court in Bonn must now decide whether this was a sexual offense, as Section 183 of the German Criminal Code only imposes a fine or a prison sentence to men for exhibitionistic acts. Because Klaus is legally considered “female,” he may avoid this charge entirely.

The uncertainty is the result of Germany’s recently-passed gender self-identification law, which is considered by many to be the most relaxed legislation of its kind in the world. In 2022, well-known criminal defense attorney Udo Vetter warned about the impact the law would have on criminal proceedings, writing on social media that: “Section 183 of the Criminal Code only applies to men. If a man uses self-ID to become a woman, he can no longer commit a criminal offense for exhibitionism.” 

The verdict on whether Klaus can also be convicted of exhibitionism is expected within the next two months.

Klaus has an extensive criminal history stretching back years. According to the General-Anzeiger, which referred to Klaus as a “woman,” a reading of his past criminal record took the court over two hours.

In October of 2008, Klaus attacked a 52-year-old woman, violently pulling her to the ground and sitting on her so he could rip her boots off her legs. According to a news article on the incident, Klaus admitted to becoming aroused when he put the boots on after fleeing to a nearby forest. During the subsequent police search, investigators found a whole collection of women’s boots at his home. 

The next year, he attacked a 54-year-old woman who was heading home from carnival celebrations dressed as a female pirate in order to steal her boots. When she fought back, he strangled her, cut her face with a knife, bruised her upper body, and fled. He claimed at the time that he had only been able to commit the assault because he had been allowed to walk free from his 2008 crime.

Klaus was ultimately sentenced to two years and four months in prison after being convicted of aggravated extortion and grievous bodily harm. At the time, the court also recommended he be confined to a permanent placement in a psychiatric institution after hearing expert testimony from a psychiatrist who labeled him dangerous and at risk of escalating his behavior to more serious acts of violence.

On the witness stand, Klaus reported that his obsession with women’s footwear had started with his mother’s clothes, and, when he was just 19 years old, he attacked a woman to steal her boots. His parents are said to have sent him to therapy in vain. 

His stay in the psychiatric clinic lasted around 7 years and, while confined to the facility for his criminal convictions, Klaus changed his legal sex and received breast implants. Disturbingly, due to the laws in place at the time, Klaus would have had to receive the approval of two mental health professionals to proceed with his legal sex change.

Germany’s new Self-Determination Act (SBGG) comes into effect in November. The law, which was met by overwhelming backlash from women’s rights campaigners, established “gender identity” as a protected characteristic and allows parents to change the sex marker on their children’s documents from birth. The SBGG also creates the potential for citizens to be fined up to €10,000 (approx. $11,500 USD) for revealing a person’s given name and birth sex without their permission – an action that trans activists staunchly oppose and refer to as ‘deadnaming.’

The SBGG allows individuals to change their legal sex and name without any diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and does not discriminate against those with criminal records. Even convicted sex offenders such as rapists, pedophiles, exhibitionists and voyeurs can easily change their legal sex and first name at a registry office. 

[frasier-crane-style]

Furiosa And Its Response: A FAQ

Q: What’s Furiosa about?

A: Ironically, for all the claims prequel Fury Road wasn’t ‘about’ Max, Furiosa isn’t entirely about Furiosa. The first hour or so features Furiosa as a child, kidnapped from the Green Place (an idyllic oasis whose people live in peace and abundance, zealously protected against the post-apocalyptic depredations of outsiders) and then becoming the prisoner of Dementius. Dementius is sort of the villain protagonist of the movie’s first half while Furiosa is on the sidelines.

He seems like the last gasp of the savage warlords like Toecutter and Lord Humongus that we saw in the Mel Gibson Maxes. He is entirely about increasing the size of his horde while taking and consuming any resources he can find. He comes into conflict with Immortan Joe (the villain from the ‘sequel,’ Fury Road), who is more of the iron fist in the velvet glove, and one of the interesting points of this movie is how Joe seems like a reasonable administrator in contrast to Dementius. He’s an awful person, obviously, but at least he keeps the trains running on time.

Furiosa grows to adulthood caught in-between Dementius and Joe’s feud, eventually moving to escape and return to the Green Place.

Q: Is it as good as Fury Road?

A: Not quite. It has a new cinematography look that tends to give things a plasticky CGI sheen, like Attack of the Clones or something. I know that they did a lot of the effects practically and that Fury Road used a lot of CGI itself, but yo, what's the point if it looks fake?

Also, towards the end, Dementus gets into this "we're not so different, you and I" deal with Furiosa that feels like a reach, considering he hasn't seemed to be motivated by revenge at all throughout the story, just bog-standard ambition and lust for power, so trying to make him a dark mirror to Furiosa now seems like a strain for profundity.

Q: Is it woke?

A: I’d say not unless your definition of woke is so expansive that it’s basically meaningless. The themes of the movie are too universal to belong to any one political movement.

-Rapists, tyrants, and warlords are bad.

-In a radioactive wasteland, it’s good to live in a self-sufficient oasis.

-Good people try to avoid violence when possible and want to live in peace.

It does have a female protagonist, but so do Aliens, Terminator, Kill Bill, and a buttload of Michelle Yeoh movies. If you say that you’re fine with female protagonists, just not with poorly written ones, then I don’t see how that’d be a problem here.

In fact, it’s stated that the reason Furiosa is so badass is because a straight white man, Imperator Jack, saw her core toughness and mentored her. He’s not at all a simp and is treated as a paragon of masculinity—reasonable, respectful, self-controlled, and hypercompetent. He and Furiosa are in an implicitly romantic relationship.

That’s right. Furiosa is so cool because a boy fell in love with her and taught her everything she knows.

Other men help out Furiosa on her quest and some women are enthusiastically villainous. In that respect, it’s even less ‘feminist’ than Fury Road was.

Q: Okay, how’s it doing at the box office?

A: Not well.

Q: Why is that?

A: Opinions vary. Some say it’s because, despite the movie’s quality, it’s getting caught up in a backlash against ‘gender-swapped reboots’.

Q: Is it?

A: Possibly. I should note it isn’t meant as a ‘passing the torch’ ‘legacy’ ‘rebootquel’, just as a spin-off. The next movie that director George Miller wants to do is a prequel to Fury Road focusing on Mad Max, entitled The Wasteland. So this movie is more like if, between Batman movies, they made a movie about Catwoman going on a solo adventure.

Q: It can’t be doing poorly because it has a female protagonist, the most successful movie last year was Barbie!

A: You’re telling me female audiences showed up for a wacky comedy with a big showstopping musical number, but not for a gritty action movie focusing on death and revenge, despite both having female leads? It’s almost like girls like girly movies while men like manly movies (most of Furiosa’s audience is male—and I wonder how much bigger it would be if they’d advertised Imperator Jack’s presence instead of keeping it a secret).

Q: All movies are doing poorly this year!

A: Godzilla X Kong did well, as did Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, Dune 2, The Beekeeper…

Q: It’s been a long time since Fury Road came out, people forgot about it!

A: It was a long time after Beyond Thunderdome that Fury Road came out.

Q: Well, people are only going to the theaters for big event movies!

A: Chris Hemsworth and Anya Taylor-Joy in an epic action movie follow-up to Fury Road isn’t a big event? Look, I’m not saying these aren’t factors, but I remember seeing a movie before this came out and overhearing an elderly couple looking at a poster for Furiosa and muttering, in a disgruntled fashion, words to the effect of “Oh, great, they made Mad Max a girl.” I think it’s very possible that Hollywood has killed the market for female-led action movies by making people think they’ll get a deliberately assaultive product every time they try their luck.

Q: But aren’t woke people turning consuming politicalized product into a secular religion?

A: Umm… maybe? I think most people who are fans of anything get pissed off when quality work goes ignored while slop (reality TV, Michael Bay movies, Call of Duty games, comics about Batman) get hugely appreciated. Everybody should probably not take the box office so seriously, since the important thing is that we have a fun movie to enjoy, even though it is frustrating that we could’ve had a whole trilogy of Rocketeer movies if just a few more people had bought tickets. Jennifer Connolly, in her prime, playing a thinly veiled Bettie Page!!!

Q: Then you think I should see it?

A: Yes. You don’t have to if you don’t want to, obviously, but if you like action movies or prior installments in the franchise, it’s hard for me to believe that you won’t get your money’s worth here.

Q: Does it have good disability representation?

A: Uh. I guess? It’s in the context of people having birth defects owing to radioactive fallout from nuclear war, but sure. Why not?

[hoganherofanatics]

Harley Quinn is an Abuser

Besides Harley being a psychologist who had relations with her severely mentally unstable patient, she does a bunch of other gross things. Here’s all the reasons I hate her. Based of Btas.

Literal infidelity If she has some sort of Stockholm syndrome, she would not be flirting with/doing naughty things with other men. Women in relationships like the one she claims to have don’t do that. They aren’t even allowed to be around male family members, like their father or brothers, let alone completely random men😂 If joker was the abusive one, he would not be letting that happen. Also, she claims loyalty to just him? But then she turns around and kisses Batman, make it make sense.

She hits Joker more than he hits her Speaking strictly from the Btas prespective(Her first appearance in any media) Harley hits her abusive boyfriend way more, and almost kills him. Just food for thought. This girl is so fake it hurts.🙄 I’m not saying I condone Joker hitting her, men shouldn’t hit women, but gosh she strikes him a lot.

Blaming all her crimes on one person/faking a mental illness. I honestly believe she’s faking whatever sickness she claims to have to avoid going to prison. Because even if it’s less common, rape is still a very prevalent thing in women’s prisons, unfortunately. I also find it funny how all of her actions are blamed on the Joker, even the ones he had no involvement in.

Starting a relationship with somebody who isn’t all there mentally. Not saying mentally ill people can’t have relationships, just that the one Harley started with Joker was really inappropriate. Why would you, a person who’s completely sane, do things with somebody who isn’t? Your own patient nonetheless.

I miss Batman being kid friendly. I miss Batman villains being ridiculous but fun to watch. Especially Joker. I miss the og Robin. I miss when Harley Quinn wasn’t a character, because she kind of marks the creation of a more violent Batman. I miss writers that actually cared about writing good stories instead of snuff and porn. I started watching Batman because of my little brother. I love him❤️ you’ll always be my baby, little bro.

[swearingcactus]

OC INTERVIEW : Lil V :)

thanks for the tag @v-eats-bugs (and @elvenbeard's post that reminded me that I have yet to do this even though I was tagged!) get ready for your local little guy answering some of your q's (this pic was supposed to just be a cover but it does make him look like he's answering these before bed in his jammies, which could fit too)

🔸Name?🔸 "Contrary to popular belief, it's not a pasta brand, but I would neither confirm or deny any guesses."

There's been wild rumors that he's changed his name to Vitoli or Viagra (Jackie's fault for that one) but nope, his name's still Vincent. His last name's Woodman or some other boring generated name hospitals print out for babies with no parents claiming them, so he never went by it. Great decision on his end, cus "Vincent Woodman-or-similarly-boring-sounding-last-name" sounds more like an accountant than a cool merc.

🔸Nickname?🔸 "Just V."

Before Atlanta, some 'friends' burned him and used him as scapegoat for a gig and he landed in prison because of it. His efforts to erase the records and leave much earlier than his sentence bankrupted him; but he got out and decided to wipe his slate clean. What better way to start a new life than with a new (technically just chopped down) name?

🔸Gender?🔸 "🤨📸"

Cis male. But he thinks it's weird if people gotta ask that.

🔸Star sign?🔸 "Aw fuck, I gotta ask Misty for that, I keep forgetting which one I am. Hang on."

This is totally not a cop-out cus i haven't played phantom liberty and therefore am still unsure when is his canon birthday. Either way he doesn't care about it that much.

🔸Height?🔸 "5'8 which I've heard is 173cm."

173cm is NOT 5'8, he's lying or simply getting it wrong, and frankly for night city denizens, that's more amusing to ponder than his height.

🔸Orientation?🔸 "Oh ;) I'm not picky! ;) heheh wait i mean 🤨📸"

Sometimes his excitement at the prospect of getting laid by hot men and women makes him forget to act cool and nonchalant about being bi.

🔸Nationality/Ethnicity?🔸 "I mean I'm pretty sure I gotta be somewhat white, but never knew the detes. Not gonna pay a corpo for them to tell me about it either, cus what do they know?"

He has a paler complexion, but sometimes his features on the right lighting kinda play tricks on you. With him being from Heywood and no parents to speak of, he has no idea if he could actually be part Hispanic or Asian or any other ethnicity. Obviously, he could pay to get some 2077 "hyper-accurate" version of 23andMe but he thinks that's bull and way too easy to fake. Totally just that and not cus he gave up on the idea of biological families anyways, nope.

🔸Fave fruit?🔸 "I dunno, never really had anything 'ganic 'cept some grapes and they were really sour, so probably not those. Pears are okay, I guess."

🔸Fave season?🔸 "Winter. Atlanta sucked but they had better winters."

Atlanta's winter was colder than Night City's, so the idea of spending the holidays just cold and broke with crippling loneliness sounded too horrible. He attempted to avoid this by treating himself to a 'real' white christmas experience, tried ice skating and making snow bunnies when it did snow and got hot chocolate and even bought himself some overpriced present and all that. Atlanta didn't work out, but he did like winter coming out of it, and he gets nostalgic of it when the holiday season come around.

🔸Fave flower?🔸 "Sunflowers. Oh, but cherry blossoms are really pretty too, even when they're just holos."

He doesn't tell this story much, but when he got out of prison, the field next to the road was riddled with dying sunflowers. Nothing welcomed him out of the gutter but those shriveled plants right next to ones that were done blooming couple weeks ago. If he had been able to get out earlier, he could've seen at least some of them in bloom. It should be a bitter thought and memory, but he found walking next to them very comforting. He has a soft spot in his heart for them ever since.

🔸Coffee, tea, hot chocolate?🔸 "Well not coffee, and not tea, so I guess hot chocolate it is. Actually, you have that iced?"

He used to think he's a coffee guy but dating Kerry made him realize the canned coffee he drinks are just sugar with a hint of caffeine flavor. (he hated the black ganic stuff Kerry drinks but powered through that One Time) In general though, he likes cold drinks more than hot ones.

🔸Average hours of sleep🔸 "I'd like to say 8 but I know that'd be lying. Probably closer to 5 or 6."

Don't get him wrong, he gets on the bed. He just scrolls his phone for hours after and doesn't sleep immediately when he gets on it is the problem. He falls asleep closer to 2-3AM, then wakes up at 8 or 9. This is a real issue if he stays the night over with Panam at camp, since the Aldecaldos are mostly early birds.

🔸Dog or Cat person?🔸 "Oh cat, definitely. Have you seen my cat Nibbles?" *queues up 100+ picture slides of her directly to your holo*

🔸Dream trip?🔸 "Antarctica, maybe? Heard it's kinda peaceful over there, and it'd be even colder than Atlanta so hell yeah, could get all cozy, bundled up and waddle around there for a bit."

🔸Fave Fictional Character🔸

to reiterate this post , he found a copy of Toy Story 4 and made fun of how Duke Caboom sounded like a chipper, Canadian version of Johnny. Then the whole 'guy who failed a stunt and got thrown in the trash because of it, is actually deeply terrified about the entire experience but still continues to be a happy dude' hit too close to home.

🔸Number of blankets they sleep with🔸 "??? People sleep with multiple blankets??"

Just one. He gets too cold even with it when he gets even sicker from the relic, so he sleeps with fuzzy socks too now. The idea of two blankets for one person never occurred to him.

🔸Random fact🔸 "Okay, I'm only gonna tell you this 'cus I'm back in Night City, and enough time has passed that no way anyone can actually get anything to stick to me... but back in Atlanta, I used to crash weddings. Not even for gigs, was just trying to avoid spending eddies on meals. It's really easy to just sneak in, especially if you wear some black cardigan, or flash a digital lanyard, or just walk really fast and with purpose. They just assume I'm part of the event organizer or one of the catering team, and let me in. Then you just act like you've been invited, grab a plate and mingle with some guests who don't look important. Was better entertainment than BDs too, hearing all the stuff about the bride and groom from different tables. Sometimes I just let slip some gossip I heard from another group to the current one I'm mingling with, and shit would hit the fan real quick, which means I get to delta nice and quiet. I wish I could stay for more of 'em, Atlanta weddings end a lot more in fist-fights than Night City ones, that's for sure."

Yeah so he might not know or realize this detail, but he most definitely was the reason those fist-fights happen and was part of the reason for the spike in divorce rate in Atlanta for a bit.

phew that was a lot of words. no pressure tagging @mail-me-a-snail @glitchinginthegarden and anyone else who'd like to join but haven't been tagged! :)

[thepastisalreadywritten]

Legendary Warrior Women of the Ancient World

Once upon a time, there were women who challenged the might of empires and the laws of men.

They beckoned a world where the whisper of a woman's voice could quake the thrones of tyrants.

Let's delve into these legends from antiquity. 🧵⤵️

Hatshepsut

The fifth pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, Hatshepsut reigned longer than any other woman of an indigenous Egyptian dynasty.

She was one of the most prolific builders in Ancient Egypt.

To legitimize her reign, Hatshepsut claimed she was divinely conceived by the god Amun, who appeared to her mother in the guise of the pharaoh Thutmose I, her father.

Sappho

An ancient Greek poet from the island of Lesbos, Sappho is celebrated for her lyric poetry, which explores love and passion.

Legend says that Sappho leaped from the Leucadian cliffs due to her unrequited love for Phaon, a ferryman, demonstrating the depth of her emotional expressions that permeated her work.

Artemisia I of Caria

A queen of the ancient Greek city-state of Caria and an ally of Xerxes I during the Second Persian invasion of Greece.

In the Battle of Salamis, Artemisia was so cunning in combat that she intentionally rammed her ally's ship to escape the Greeks, convincing them she was an ally and thus avoiding capture.

Hypatia

A mathematician, astronomer and philosopher in Alexandria, Egypt, Hypatia was a renowned teacher and thinker.

Hypatia was known to drive through Alexandria in her chariot to deliver public lectures on philosophy, defying the gender expectations of her time.

Boudicca

The warrior queen of the Iceni tribe who led a major uprising against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire in Britain.

After the Romans flogged Boudicca and raped her daughters, she rallied her tribe and neighboring tribes for revenge, resulting in the destruction of Roman settlements and the decimation of the Roman Ninth Legion.

The Trung Sisters: Trung Trac and Trung Nhi

Vietnamese military leaders who rebelled against Chinese Han dynasty rule, becoming enduring symbols of resistance.

The sisters, after witnessing the suffering of their people under Chinese rule, famously declared their independence by proclaiming:

"All the male heroes bowed their heads in submission; only the two sisters proudly stood up to avenge the country."

Khawlah bint al-Azwar

A legendary female Muslim warrior, she fought alongside the early Muslims in the battles against the Byzantine Empire.

Khawlah famously donned male warrior’s armor to rescue her brother from a Byzantine prison camp, charging into battle with such ferocity that opponents assumed she was a supernatural entity.

Joan of Arc

A French heroine and saint of the Catholic Church, Joan led French forces to victory over the English at Orléans.

Joan persuaded a skeptical Charles VII of France of her divine mission to save France by correctly predicting a military reversal at the Siege of Orleans, before any messenger could have reached them with the news.

Zenobia

The third-century queen of the Palmyrene Empire in Syria who challenged the authority of the Roman Empire.

Zenobia was so bold that she claimed descent from Cleopatra, positioning herself as the Egyptian queen's successor in defiance of Rome and marched her armies as far as Egypt and Anatolia.

Cleopatra VII

The last active ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, Cleopatra is known for her intelligence, political acumen, and dramatic love affairs.

In a famous encounter to secure her alliance with Julius Caesar, Cleopatra had herself wrapped in a carpet (or linen sack, according to some accounts) and delivered to him, emerging to charm Caesar with her wit and beauty.

[kojoty]

I don't, actually, want to discredit people for utilizing the very literal 'laundry list' as an indictment against Thoreau. While I disagree with the way it's utilized, I can't fault people for reading history and realizing the fundamental fact that our Historical Greats-- specifically men-- are often only possible because of the achievements of the hidden women and forced labor thereof to grant them the freedom to be 'revolutionaries.' It is a real factor that we must contend with when lifting up historical voices of liberation-- if you crow and profess to liberation, who's liberty are you infringing upon to make this possible? For most historical figures, I think it is vastly important to talk about it, discuss it, bring up the spectre of labor that creates this.

But Thoreau is an odd one.

One of the most radical voices of his generation, one of the most obvious follow-throughs of his philosophies (going to prison for tax avoidance to prevent himself supporting, monetarily, an unjust pro-slavery war is the easiest point of reference for the way he 'followed through' on his philosophies, and very materially created the concept of Civil Disobedience in political parlance), one of the most obviously outspoken anti-capitalist voices, abolitionists, etc, it does make me wonder-- Who does it benefit to air out the dirty laundry on Thoreau?

Rebecca Solnit says pointedly, "“There is one writer in all literature whose laundry arrangements have been excoriated again and again, and it is not Virginia Woolf, who almost certainly never did her own washing, or James Baldwin, or the rest of the global pantheon. Only Henry David Thoreau has been tried in the popular imagination and found wanting for his cleaning arrangements.”

And it's something I've found wanting whenever I discuss Thoreau-- I will try to discuss his philosophies, his experiments, his activism, and be met with the 'laundry' quandary, as a way to discredit him wholesale. Usually, this is from people who very clearly haven't read Thoreau, but even people who have, but are swept up in the many 'take downs' of Thoreau that have circulated online for the last fifteen years.

As the previous post I reblogged speculates on, there is a very real undertone of historical weaving to make that indicates depression, grief, etc. But more concerned am I that, yes, perhaps his mother did his laundry-- but is it not in the very nature of transcendentalism to utilize and currate community? The question isn't 'was Thoreau a male pig who utilized women's labor'-- something that most of us, as children of mothers, have invariably done to varying degrees of misogynistic normalization-- but rather, 'What are the ways we can support one another in an ideal, non-capitalistic society?' 'How do we care for those we love?' 'What is appropriate labor to perform for others, and what isn't?' 'Does a mother doing the laundry of a grieving son indict and diminish his very ethos?'

Does a mother doing the laundry of a son discount the writing of someone who, by many accounts-- and there are criticisms to make of Thoreau, like any person, and especially any person from his living situation and era of pre-Civil War America-- followed through more succinctly than many other radicals at the time? Does the philosophy of transcendalism fail because he leaned upon the people in his community to make his two year experiment work? Was he ever claiming to be so self-sufficient that he was lying? Was Walden, the I in Walden, Thoreau, or the persona of Thoreau as he wished his philosophy to be reached? Is it inherently vile to let someone do your laundry?

I don't know. Your mileage may vary. And certainly, the leaning on labor is a conversation to have. But the indicting the idea of anyone doing labor for another person ever is a failure of ideology, in my opinion. To make community, we perform labor. To see the beauty of the earth, we must take solace in the love and gifts from others. That said, I think Thoreau could have stood to do his goddamn laundry. But hey, I've been there.

[conradscrime]

The Murder of Peter Fabiano

October 30, 2023

On October 31, 1957, Halloween night, in Sun Valley, California, a 35 year old hairdresser named Peter Fabiano answered his door shortly after 11 pm. Peter, being a little annoyed due to the late trick or treaters, said, "It's a little late for this, isn't it?"

The person standing on the other side of the door was not a child -- the person was taller, with a "grotesque" painted face, domino mask and wearing men's clothing including blue jeans, a khaki jacket and red gloves.

The trick or treater replied in a deep voice, "No" and held up a paper bag with a gun inside it. Then a gunshot was heard, and Peter's wife, Betty, and her teenaged daughter, Judy ran to the door to discover the shooter had already ran off and Peter was lying on his back.

Judy ran to the neighbours house, Bud Alper, who worked for the Los Angeles Police. In no time, officers were at the Fabiano's.

Peter was transferred to the Sun Valley Receiving Hospital where he later died from massive bleeding.

Peter was born in 1923, and after serving in World War II, was an extremely successful hairdresser in the area, and him and his wife Betty appeared to be a perfect couple, owning two beauty salons in LA. Betty claimed she was 36 years old and had two teenagers from a previous marriage. She had married Peter in 1955.

Betty had said that she, Peter and Judy had just went to bed shortly before the doorbell rang that night after 11pm. When Peter went to the door, Betty heard two adult voices, one that sounded masculine and the other sounded like a man impersonating a woman.

The murder of Peter Fabiano was known as the "Trick or Treat Murder" in the media, but who would commit this heinous crime?

A 43 year old woman named Goldyne Pizer was a medical secretary and described as "matronly." She graduated from Los Angeles High School in 1934 and had gotten married in the 1940's, but was either widowed or divorced it's unclear. In 1957, Goldyne met a 40 year old woman, Joan Rabel, who lived only 1 mile from Goldyne's house near the Sunset Strip in Hollywood.

Joan is more of a mystery. Some sources claim she was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and came to the US from Lithuania. Joan was a photographer and writer, often travelling to Hawaii for inspiration it's claimed. In 1957, Joan was also divorced and working for Peter Fabiano in his salon.

It was working for Peter that Joan met Betty, and the two hit it off. Joan considered herself a good friend to both Fabiano's. Eventually, Joan claimed that Betty told her Peter was abusive and controlling, and Joan began to obsess about the idea of getting Betty out of this life with Peter. Betty had even left Peter for a short period of time and stayed with Joan.

Joan would often discuss the Fabiano's to Goldyne, calling Peter "pure evil." The two would talk about Peter and Betty over coffee, and over a 3 month period, somehow, Joan had convinced Goldyne to become a hitwoman for her. She did not pay Goldyne for the actual hit, however she provided her money for a gun and borrowed a getaway car from another friend.

After the murder on Halloween, Goldyne was driven home by Joan who told her, "Forget you ever knew me."

On November 1, 1957, the next morning, Goldyne discovered she had not disposed of the gun, Joan had left those instructions out. Goldyne took the gun to Bullock's flagship store and put it in a storage locker.

It only took 2 weeks for the police to fnd this gun and question Goldyne, who confessed immediately. Both women were arrested for the murder.

In court, Goldyne was crying and showing obvious remorse, but Joan was stone cold, showing no emotion except for sometimes smiling. Goldyne plead not guilty by reason of insanity, claiming that Joan had cast some sort of spell on her that was impossible to resist.

On March 11, 1958, Goldyne and Joan pleaded guilty to second degree murder to avoid trial. Both women were sentenced to 5 years to life in prison, however no one knows how much time each of them served.

There are many rumours over this case and whether or not there was any lesbian relationships involved. Some believe that Joan and Betty's dynamic was strange, and the two were lovers. Others believe that Joan was in love with Betty, and needed to get rid of Peter as he was in the way. There has never been any definitive proof of this, and there's never been any proof that Peter was abusive to Betty.

It was claimed that Peter had asked Betty to end her friendship with Joan, which she did.

Goldyne died in 1998 in Los Angeles. Betty sold the beauty salon after Peter died and remarried in 1966. Betty died in 1999, at the age of 81 in Palm Desert, California. However, this age means that at the time of Peter's death Betty had been 39, not 36 like she claimed or those believed.

The real mystery is that no one knows what happened to Joan. She disappeared and no one was ever able to say where she went or who she became.

[translationandbetrayals]

Let´s talk about sexualization (please, we need to)

-----DISCLAIMER: THIS POST WILL TALK ABOUT SENSITIVE TOPICS! DISCRETION IS RECCOMENDED. TW: Harassement, Sexualization------ As anime fans, we need to be more critical about the things that we consume and why we must talk about certain topics and how we see certain scenes in our favorite shows.

Why I started this text with that sentence? Because we need to talk about the sexualization of women inside the animation, and in specific, in anime.

Maybe for some of us, scenes like a woman with big breasts, normative body, half (or even full) naked, etc, are normalized inside our favorite shows. Some of these animes have also their counterpart as a very masculine men, fighter, with a deep personality, like a hero, etc. And making all the woman around him like an object that or he possess, or he wants.

It is very known that a lot of actual anime has scenes that are completely out of context from the original topic of the show. It isn´t normal that inside an anime, a female character has to be victim of some harassment of any kind, like scenes that shows the main character looking at the female companion breasts or even touching her without her consent, for example, when she is sleeping.

  As a consumer, I don´t want to see how a woman is assaulted by the “hero in turn”. It´s like “dude, the world is ending, there are more important things that being a creep with the normative girl in your group”.

Is like that the only personality of that character is to be an asshole, and that’s ok, we can write anything that we want to write and how to do it, but you can´t tell me that EVERY story that has that kind of scene is well written. If it is to make a funny moment or to fill the work because reasons, then it´s not good!

In other hand, we have some “”fans”” that only appreciate the anime only if it fulfills their fantasies, even if the character that do that fanservice is a minor. It’s a very creepy thing that those people only search for that type of body wherever it comes.

It is very problematic see some articles about anime with titles like “see how hot looks [insert name of any female character] here in this cosplay/art/IA generated image/etc.” like reducing their personality into only their body. In my personal life, I’ve seen examples like yor briar (spy x family) Android 18 (saga Dragon ball), Elizabeth (Seven deadly Sins) etc.

Proof: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UrqXYmNUqYXmjDRmDNn9a99HngIW_oYw/view?usp=sharing 

Also, these phenomena also occur thanks to the fanservice that some industries put around their shows. Literally some scenes doesn´t have any importance or even relevance inside the show. This sexualization only affects us as fans and make us look like creeps.

For example, ME! ME! ME! is a work from the Japan animator expo that shows how this obsession and how this could affect our social interactions. Well, there´s people that avoid that message and only say “LOOK, BOOBS”.

Honestly, as a personal point of view, I’m very tired of it. I tried to see, for example, Record of Ragnarok, but when I saw the design of Aphrodite, I lost all my interest on that anime. And when the rework of her appeared in the second season of the anime and the people claimed that the anime now it´s trash because they did it ¨¨¨¨a little””” more realistic, I personally just quit my intentions to see that anime because of the people.

In other hand, can we talk about how a lot of scholar animes has that fanservice with the students or the teachers? Those girls and woman are drawn in a way that their only function is to be an eye candy for those that only search those series because of that fanservice. Examples there´s a lot:  Kakegurui, Highschool of the Dead, prison school, etc.

  In conclusion, there´s a lot of problems inside of the making of anime. It is a very problematic thing that only degrades our favorite shows. What can we do? We can’t avoid them, but we can see them being capable to understand that those scenes aren`t necessary and that we shouldn’t stay with that perception nor thinking that those actions, like harassments, are good in any way. We need to analyze more that kind of things. When we do it, we will feel uncomfortable seeing those scenes and you will comprehend why those scenes are bad and unnecessary.

If you want some animes that does not have this kind of fan service, you can see Nichijou, Carole and tuesday, Little witch academia, Keep Your Hands Off Eizouken and March Comes in Like a Lion.

-Pedro Maizares

[good-old-gossip]

Israeli army bears full responsibility for the horrific injuries of Wafa Nayef Jarrar

Palestinian Territory - The Israeli army bears full responsibility for the life and safety of Wafa Nayef Jarrar, who was arrested and detained for four hours in a dangerous area of violent clashes and whose life wasdeliberately exposed to grave danger. What Jarrar, age 49, was subjected to from the first moment of her arrest until her release reflects the repeated and systematic violations faced by Palestinians during their detention by Israeli forces, including arbitrary arrests, abuse, use as human shields, torture, and denial of medical care. The Israeli army continues to evade responsibility for the suffering and harm caused by its crimes and serious rights violations.

Jarrar was taken into custody by the Israeli army on 21 May from her home in Jenin, in the northern West Bank. The army later claimed that Jarrar had been seriously injured in an explosion while inside the military vehicle, where she was kept detained for four hours. Despite its claim, the army issued an administrative detention order against her before releasing and turning her over to the Palestinian Liaison Office, even though her health was in critical condition. This is a clear effort by Israel’s army to avoid taking responsibility for the serious injuriesJarrar sustained during her detention, which resulted in the amputation of her legs above the knees as well as damage to her spine and lungs, and to avoid its legal obligation to provide the necessary medical treatment.

Israel’s arrest of Jarrar was arbitrary from the start, as there was no legal basis to justify her detention. However, it comes as part of the Israeli army forces’systematic arbitrary arrests of individuals and groups of Palestinian men and women, wherever they arefound. During her detention, the Israeli army violently stormed Jarrar’s house, destroyed most of her family’sbelongings, and stole all of the money and gold jewelry that were inside. Jarrar’s family has not yet been able to retrieve any of these items. 

Instead of taking her to a detention or investigation centre, the Israeli army detained Jarrar in a military jeep for four hours in a dangerous area that waswitnessing the violent exchange of fire and detonation of explosive devices. This suggests that the Israeli army deliberately kept her in this area, despite knowing that it would put her at risk of death and/or injury. Furthermore, it seems that the Israeli army was attempting to take advantage of Jarrar’s presence in the vicinity of its military attack in Jenin in order to facilitate its military operations.

Jarrar, a mother of four, is a local activist, and the coordinator of the Association of Families of Martyrs and Prisoners of Jenin. Detained since 7 February 2024, her husband Abdul Jabbar Muhammad Ahmed Jarrar, 58, is serving a six-month administrative detention order. Notably, he has been arrested more than once and has spent a total of 16 years in Israeli jails. 

Hudhayfah Jarrar, Jarrar’s son, provided the following information to the Euro-Med Monitor team:

“On 21 May, after besieging our home and firing at the security cameras surrounding it as well as the neighbouring home, an Israeli force broke into our home. The soldiers violently stormed the house and demanded my mother’s ID card and gold before starting to destroy the house’s contents and turning it upside down. They were asking about the gold or any money and they started celebrating after finding it. After drawing the Star of David on [the walls of] each room and tampering with the closets and clothes, they chanted, ‘We will trample on you’. The soldiers then arrested my mother. One of the neighbour’s hiddencameras captured Israeli soldiers arresting and taking her into a military jeep at 6:25 p.m. 

In the [early hours of the morning], news began to circulate about a large explosion in Jenin that had injured a female soldier at 12 a.m. The news was later updated to say that it was a female Palestinian prisoner in the military jeep who was seriously injured and was transferred for treatment. She was the sole female prisoner arrested that day, and after verifying with multiple sources, her injury was confirmed at 2 a.m., at which point she was moved to the Rambam in Haifa. The next day in the morning, the Israeli army issued a statement about an explosion occurring in Jenin and the injury of a Palestinian female prisoner, denying any injuries among its soldiers. Later, her leg amputation was reported by the Israeli media. 

On 22 May, an attorney was allowed in the hospital as a strict military control was imposed on her. The medical staff was also threatened with arrest if they leaked any information or pictures of her. She was in critical care that evening when the lawyer saw her, but her condition was stable. We were told that she had injuries to both of her legs, but that her left leg had been saved, and that she would not need to have her leg amputated. She was also told that she would get a CT scan and [we were told] that she is currently still under anesthesia so that her body could heal and deal with the injury. After doing a CT scan the following day, they found a spinal injury and shrapnel in the abdomen, which they removed. They informed us about her leg injury on Monday 23 May. 

The hospital contacted us on the following day, Friday, informing us that Wafa Jarrar’s operation had failed and that the blood had not reached her legs. They requested that the family sign documents authorising the amputation of the legs. The family was shocked, especially after they said that she was in stable condition. After they refused to provide us with any medical reports, we requested that the family doctor or a family member check her condition. This problem persisted until we reached a breaking point, at which point the doctors warned us that if the amputation was not carried out, the patient would likely die from gangrene and blood poisoning. We signed the papers,and the operation was supposed to take place on Monday morning. When we sent the signed papers, they informed us that the right leg would be amputated below the knee and the left leg would be amputated above the knee, depending on the extent of the injury. After several hours of waiting, the attorneys finally saw her, and found out that the amputation would be below the knee. 

When she was undergoing the procedure, the Israeli authorities placed her under administrative detention for four months. Yesterday (Thursday), we were surprised by an Israeli decision to release her and disavow responsibility for her medical treatment. We spoke with all organisations that could provide assistance in this case, as well as a number of parties, including Doctors Without Borders, the Prisoners’Society, and the Prisoners’ Association. The Israelis insisted on moving her and denying any responsibility for her medical treatment, despite our demands from the very beginning for them to release her so we couldtake charge of her health situation and medical care,which they had refused. Our problem since the first day has been the Israeli narrative of the situation. 

On Thursday evening, we received her medical report and found that all the information in it was wrong. In addition to having both of her legs amputated above the knees, she also suffered from blood poisoning, a fracture in vertebral node no. 12(4) of the spine that could result in paralysis, and broken ribs from lung bruises. She was connected to a breathing machine, and we were unaware of the lung damage during her incarceration until yesterday. She was scheduled for an MRI on 23 May. It was evident that the hospital was affiliated with the army and that deliberate medical negligence had occurred, amid ongoing settler incitement. A protest was held at the hospital door, with settlers carrying her picture and demanding that she be removed from the hospital, slamming the Israeli Chief of Health for treating ‘terrorists’. 

We managed to get the papers ready for her transfer, but due to the lack of a treatment plan and the delay in receiving the papers, we requested that she be transferred to a doctor. We also told the media that, given her poor health and need for follow-up care, transferring her without a doctor would be considered an assassination attempt, because she had been in intensive care and was not conscious. Her family picked her up today, Thursday, at the Salem checkpoint. She was driven there in an ambulance by a doctor, and Palestinian medical personnel then took her to the Ibn Sina Hospital.” 

Jarrar’s arbitrary arrest, her hours-long detention inside a military jeep without being taken to an investigation centre, and her transfer to an area where clashes were occurring are indicative of the severity of the violations she was subjected to, particularly the Israeli army’s deliberate attempt to put her life and safety in danger. It seems that she was also used as a human shield, especially considering that the Israeli army haspreviously repeatedly used civilians, including children, as human shields during Jenin Camp and Balata Camp in Nablus raids.

In an effort to protect its forces and military operations in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli army has been using Palestinian civilians as human shields, i.e. purposefullypositioning them in front of military targets and in key locations. During ground incursions and military attacks, the Israeli army has purposefully used Palestinian civilians to guard its forces’ assembly and movement points. It has also made them walk in front of military vehicles when it has stormed homes and buildings it believed were booby-trapped.

It is strictly forbidden to use civilians as human shields during armed conflicts because they are protected individuals under international humanitarian law, which is governed by written and customary rules, including those outlined in the Geneva Conventions and their First Protocol. According to the Rome Statute, using civilians as human shields is a war crime that falls under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Consequently, justice for all victims must be served and international judicial accountability for the perpetrators of these crimes must be initiated.

All of Jarrar’s experiences are examples of the Israelipolicy of torture and abuse to which Palestinian detainees, regardless of gender, are subjected, in addition to the denial of necessary and life-saving medical care and the disavowing of responsibility for these crimes. Despite this, the Israeli army is legally required to ensure the safety of those detained in its prison and detention centres. Therefore, it must fully commit to Jarrar’s medical care and compensate her for the harm she has endured. The way in which she was released suggests that her initial detention was unwarranted, and was simply part of Israel’s campaign of reprisal directed towards the Palestinian people.

Israel’s responsibility towards Wafa Nayef Jarrar and her medical treatment did not end once she was released. The international community must takeimmediate action to end to these crimes and hold the Israeli army accountable for all crimes it has committed against civilians throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Israel remains fully responsible for the life of the released prisoner Jarrar, and the severe injuries she sustained as a direct result of the numerous crimes the Israeli army committed against her.

[friendsofmedusa]

How could you claim to know anything about the whole of trans people when you solely go off of the people who are bad, who just so happen to be trans?

I am an s/a victim, both of a cis male, and years later, of a nonbinary person. To avoid your mockery, I won't say anything about the fact that although I am still skeptical of men, I try hard not to judge, I will only say it of nonbinary people.

I am a skeptical person, and I don't trust others as quickly as I do women. I can acknowledge that there are bad people who are trans. But I'm not going to see a problem with them as a whole.

What I can't understand, I will give voice to, and what I have a problem with, I will give voice to as well. But I'm not immediately going to dismiss it because I'm angry or don't understand.

So I don't understand why TERFS or " radical feminists "—you're not radical, by the way, you're nothing new—claim to know so much about others' lives, despite the fact that they don't understand anything at all about why trans people feel the way they do so much as assume how they feel, based off of a narrow‐minded, extremist outlook that will only ever see the negative of anything that isn't immediately understood.

Standing up for women and speaking on the struggles they go through, talking about the trans people who happen to be bad, standing up for assault victims, talking about the men that are bad and what's wrong with male culture, that's not wrong, at all. I don't even need to say so, but I would like to clarify it.

But you are extremist. How can you accurately or impartially assess anyone's life—especially one you would never fully understand, even if you were supportive of it, or humble enough to try and learn about it—from a standpoint like that?

How can you talk so knowingly of the minds of people you don't take seriously, anyway?

First of all, I'm deeply sorry about what you went through, that is horrendous and I hope you are well and recovering.

Now, addressing the rest of your ask.

I don't base my opinion of trans people solely on the bad ones, that would be stupid. I've met plenty, both on the internet and in real life, who were good people. And I do believe there are some genuine transexual people, whose dysphoria is so severe that transitioning is the only valuable option for them.

That said, I don't believe in the concept of gender. Or, I think it's a concept we should actively work to dismantle instead of enforcing it, as it's the main tool men use to keep us women under their heel. Gender is nothing but a stinky pile of conservative and downright sexist gender roles and expectations, why shouldn't I be against it when it's actively harming my life as a woman?

And before you say something along the lines of "But trans people are redefining the gender binary yadda yadda yadda", let me just say: no, they are not.

There is literally nothing as sexist as claiming to be of the opposite sex because you don't conform to society's expectations of how you should dress, act, speak. I should've transitioned years ago if that were the case.

But moving on.

I don't see a problem with the whole of trans people. I fully support their rights to housing, jobs, healthcare, you name it.

Who I have a problem with is men, aka adult human males. Reason why, scroll my blog and you'll get the gist. And trans ideology is offering men new ways to torture women.

Just look at all the inmates id-ing as trans to be moved to women's prisons. It's either one of two cases: one, there's an alarming number of rapists among trans women, and women are fucking right not to want them in their spaces; two, you can't take someone's word at face value when it comes to psychiatric disorders (because let me remind you that gender dysphoria still is a psychiatric disorder).

And when you say that radfems don't know anything about the trans experience, you are just plain wrong. Many, many of us are dysphoric women and detransitioners. We've been there, we just didn't fall down the hole of medicalisation.

And that's really the crux of it. You say I'm an extremist, and for what?

For saying we shouldn't unnecessarily medicalise children? For saying that SRSs are Doctors playing fucking Frankenstein on depserate people? For saying that therapy should be the primary form of medical care a dysphoric person should receive, instead of going straight to irreversible surgery?

If that makes me an extremist, glad to be one.

[genderkoolaid]

#op pls keep talking! & @palestrangermoon

you've let in the vampire thank you. also most of this comes from leslie feinberg's transgender warriors which has a whole chapter on jeanne d'arc & which everyone should read imo!

so when i say "trans history" i do not mean that "trans" is a Real Thing that exists. we made up being "trans" and we cannot say that anyone in history is Objectively Trans, like its a fact we can prove. but we can say that people in history shared common experiences with trans and genderqueer people of today, and by linking them to our modern construct of transness we get a fuller picture of the human experience with gender diversity. also, and i cannot emphasize this enough: women afab can be trans. men amab can be trans.

but also, jeanne d'arc isn't just trans history because she crossdressed. the story often gets framed as her wearing men's clothes to fight in war, but its deeper than that! both from a secular trans sense and from a religious standpoint (which makes her an important figure for trans christians). & this gets compounded with the impetus in art to make sure jeanne d'arc looks appropriately feminine. which can be compared to the ways that, before fe/male impersonation had a queer connotation, male impersonators had to make sure that, even in drag, they always looked visibly cisfeminine.

on one level, regardless of gender, jeanne d'arc was oppressed by transphobia. she was the target of blatanly transphobic attacks for her gender expression. she was called a hommasse, a slur for masculine women, her crossdressing "contrary to Divine laws" and "abominable before God". while she was also a military threat, her trial was about her crossdressing- that was the crime that she was charged with after they failed to find evidence she was a pagan.

specifically, her claim that her wearing men's clothing and cutting her hair was a God-given command. and yes, part of that command was also going to war, but it does not seem like it was just "you have to wear men's clothing so you can fight." To Jeanne, crossdressing was its own command. She said she would rather die than stop, unless God told her to, and that "were [she] still so dressed and with the king and those of his party, it would be one of the greatest blessings for the kingdom of France."

Its claimed that she repented at first and was sentenced to life in prison as long as she started wearing women's clothing again, and that she later "relapsed" and started wearing men's clothing. some TERFs have argued that she had to wear men's clothing to avoid getting raped- but she was well known to be assigned female. The clothes she wore would not matter, given that she was famous enough that actual monarchs wanted her dead. And Jeanne said that she chose to start wearing men's clothing again which was compared to "a dog returning to its own vomit." And it was this that allowed them to burn her alive as punishment.

So on a second level, this is a lot more complicated than a normal cis woman wearing men's clothes to a specific end. Jeanne viewed her masculine gender expression as vital to her soul. It was used as the justification for killing her, so she quite literally chose to die rather than present as cisfeminine.

And on a third level, she didn't refuse to present cisfeminine to make a bold statement about the right of women to wear pants or go to war. She did it because it was God's command. And if Catholic canon matters to you at all, she is a canonized saint. The Church has given her a big ol blue checkmark in the sky. If Jeanne believed that crossdressing was its own command, and not just a means to an end, then she believed that genderqueerness is a holy command given by God. Which opens up a wonderful new trans-centric theology! It creates space within Catholicism (and anyone else who cares about Catholic saints) to view transness as a special role which comes from Divine blessing. And frankly, this cultural impact alone makes her part of trans history the same way plenty of cishet women are part of gay history because of their cultural impact on gay people.

And the best part is, we can say all of this and also see her as part of women's history! Because women's history, too, does not have to be exclusively about woman-born or woman-identified women. It can be about a larger cultural experience. And Jeanne d'Arc suffered because of transphobia which is always fundamentally misogynistic. I would argue it even makes sense to say her death involved transmisogyny in a very literal sense. The thing about transfeminism is that it can free us from the need to view personal identification with the role of "woman" as vital to feminism. Being a woman, in whatever sense, is certainly not unrelated to feminism, but one can be a feminist and have any kind of personal or communal relatonship with womanhood. Anyone can be inspired by the story of Jeanne d'Arc and her bold defiance of both misogyny and transphoba, no matter how she may have personally understood her gender.

you too can piss off both the catholic church and cisfeminists at the same time by saying this one simple phrase: joan of arc is part of trans history

[stevesociety8]

The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity

Story by Helen Lewis

One of the mysteries of this election is how the Democrats approached polling day with a set of policies on gender identity that they were neither proud to champion—nor prepared to disown.

Although most Americans agree that transgender people should not face discrimination in housing and employment, there is nowhere near the same level of support for allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sports—which is why Donald Trump kept bringing up the issue. His campaign also barraged swing-state voters and sports fans with ads reminding them that Kamala Harris had previously supported taxpayer-funded gender-reassignment surgery for prisoners. The commercials were effective: The New York Times reported that Future Forward, a pro-Harris super PAC, found that one ad “shifted the race 2.7 percentage points in Mr. Trump’s favor after viewers watched it.” The Harris campaign mostly avoided the subject.

Since the election, reports of dissent from this strategy have begun to trickle out. Bill Clinton reportedly raised the alarm about letting the attacks go unanswered, but was ignored. After Harris’s loss, Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts went on the record with his concerns. “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that,” he told the Times. The recriminations go as far as the White House, where allies of Joe Biden told my colleague Franklin Foer that the current president would have countered Trump’s ads more aggressively, and “clearly rejected the idea of trans women competing in women’s sports.”

One problem: Biden’s administration has long pushed the new orthodoxy on gender, without ever really explaining to the American people why it matters—or, more crucially, what it actually involves. His officials have advocated for removing lower age limits for gender surgeries for minors, and in January 2022, his nominee for the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, refused to define the word woman, telling Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, “I’m not a biologist.”

On sports an issue seized on by the Trump campaign—Biden’s White House has consistently prioritized gender identity over sex. Last year, the Department of Education proposed regulations establishing “that policies violate Title IX when they categorically ban transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity just because of who they are.” Schools were, however, allowed to limit participation in specific situations. (In April, with the election looming, this part of the Title IX revision was put on hold.) Harris went into the campaign tied to the Biden administration’s positions, and did not have the courage, or strategic sense, to reject them publicly. Nor did she defend them.  

The fundamental issue is that athletes who have gone through male puberty are typically stronger and faster than biological females. Rather than contend with that fact, many on the left have retreated to a comfort zone of claiming that opposition to trans women in women’s sports is driven principally by transphobia. But it isn’t: When trans men or nonbinary people who were born female have competed in women’s sports against other biological females, no one has objected. The same season that Lia Thomas, a trans woman, caused controversy by swimming in the women’s division, a trans man named Iszac Henig did so without any protests. (He was not taking testosterone and so did not have an unfair advantage.) Yet even talking about this issue in language that regular Americans can understand is difficult: On CNN Friday, when the conservative political strategist Shermichael Singleton said that “there are a lot of families out there who don’t believe that boys should play girls’ sports,” he was immediately shouted down by another panelist, Jay Michaelson, who said that the word boy was a “slur,” and he “was not going to listen to transphobia at this table.” The moderator, Abby Phillips, also rebuked Singleton, telling him to “talk about this in a way that is respectful.”

A few Democrats, such as Colin Allred, a Senate candidate in Texas, attempted to counter Republicans’ ads by forcefully supporting women’s right to compete in single-sex sports—and not only lost their races anyway, but were attacked from the left for doing so. In states such as Texas and Missouri, the political right is surveilling and threatening to prosecute parents whose children seek medical treatments for gender dysphoria, or restricting transgender adults’ access to Medicaid. In this climate, activists believe, the Democrats should not further jeopardize the rights of a vulnerable minority by legitimizing voters’ concerns. “Please do not blame trans issues or trans people for why we lost,” Sam Alleman, the Harris campaign’s LBGTQ-engagement director, wrote on X. “Trans folks have been and are going to be a primary target of Project 2025 and need us to have their backs now more than ever.”

During the race, many journalists wrote about the ubiquity—and the grimness—of the Trump ads on trans issues, notably Semafor’s David Weigel. But at the time, I was surprised how dismissive many commentators were about their potential effect, given the enormous sums of money involved. My theory was that these ads tapped into a larger concern about Democrats: that they were elitists who ruled by fiat, declined to defend their unpopular positions, and treated skeptics as bigots. Gender might not have been high on voters’ list of concerns, but immigration and the border were—and all the same criticisms of Democratic messaging apply to those subjects, too.

Not wishing to engage in a losing issue, Harris eventually noted blandly that the Democrats were following the law on providing medical care to inmates, as Trump had done during his own time in office. On the integrity of women’s sports, she said nothing.

How did we get here? At the end of Barack Obama’s second term, gay marriage was extended to all 50 states, an achievement for which LGBTQ groups had spent decades campaigning. In 2020, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County found that, in the words of conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.” Those advances meant that activist organizations, with large staffs and existing donor networks, had to go looking for the next big progressive cause. Since Trump came to power, they have stayed relevant and well funded by taking maximalist positions on gender—partly in reaction to divisive red-state laws, such as complete bans on gender medicine for minors. The ACLU, GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign, and other similar groups have done so safe in the knowledge that they answer to their (mostly wealthy, well-educated) donors, rather than a more diverse and skeptical electorate. “The fundamental lesson I hope Dem politicians take from this election is that they should not adopt positions unless they can defend them, honestly, in a one-on-one conversation with the median American voter, who is a white, non-college 50-yr-old living in a small-city suburb,” the author (and Atlantic contributing writer) James Surowiecki argued last week on X.

Even now, though, many Democrats are reluctant to discuss the party’s positions on trans issues. The day after Moulton made his comments, his campaign manager resigned in protest, and the Massachusetts state-party chair weighed in to say that they “do not represent the broad view of our party.” But Moulton did not back down, saying in a statement that although he had been accused of failing “the unspoken Democratic Party purity test,” he was committed to defending the rights of all Americans. “We did not lose the 2024 election because of any trans person or issue. We lost, in part, because we shame and belittle too many opinions held by too many voters and that needs to stop.”

Gilberto Hinojosa, the chair of the Texas Democrats, faced a similar backlash. He initially told reporters, “There’s certain things that we just go too far on, that a big bulk of our population does not support,” but he quickly walked back the comments. “I extend my sincerest apologies to those I hurt with my comments today,” Hinojosa said. “In frustration over the GOP’s lies to incite hate for trans communities, I failed to communicate my thoughts with care and clarity.” (On Friday, he resigned, citing the party’s “devastating” election results in the state.)

The tragedy of this subject is that compromise positions are available that would please most voters, and would stop a wider backlash against gender nonconformity that manifests as punitive laws in red states. America is a more open-minded country than its toughest critics believe—the latest research shows that about as many people believe that society has not gone far enough in accepting trans people as think that it has gone too far. Delaware has just elected the first transgender member of Congress, Sarah McBride. But most voters think that biological sex is real, and that it matters in law and policy. Instructing them to believe otherwise, and not to ask any questions, is a doomed strategy. By shedding their most extreme positions, the Democrats will be better placed to defend transgender Americans who want to live their lives in peace.

[treadmilltreats]

In case we forgot who this former president truly is

"Being president doesn't change who you are. It reveals who you are.” Former First Lady Michelle Obama once said.

This is such a powerful statement, especially in these times. One of my favorite quotes is from Maya Angelou "People will tell you who they are."

So America, are you listening?

We got 13 days left for the biggest decision of our lives. This is literally the vote of our lifetime.

At this moment, we know that we should know that #45 has definitely revealed who he is and what he stands for. There are so many things he has said that came out of his own mouth, that definitely isn't “fake news”, no matter how much his supporters want to spin that.

Well... where do we start….

How about that women are pigs…and again he said these very words.

On Carly Fiorina.

"Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine the face of our next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?" [Sept. 9, 2015]

On Jessica Chastain.

"She's certainly not hot." [February 2013]

On Stormy Daniels.

"Horseface" [Oct. 16, 2018]

On Halle Berry.

"I love her … upper body." [February 2013]

About the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments.

In a speech from Trump Tower, Trump said there were "very fine people" on both sides of the protests.

White supremacist leaders, including former KKK leader David Duke, have praised Trump for his "honesty," while critics have slammed him for putting neo-Nazis and anti-fascist resistors on the same moral plane.

He also said “Laziness is a trait in blacks”

“I have black guys counting my money. … I hate it,” Trump went on to say “The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes all day.”

He spoke on John McCain. "He's a war hero because he was captured, I like people who weren't captured,"

This from a man who never served in Vietnam and who received multiple deferments to avoid service had this to say in July 2015 about the U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a naval aviator who spent five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, where he was tortured.

"Jeb Bush has to like the Mexican illegals because of his wife."

Trump retweeted this - and then thought better and deleted the post on July 4, 2015.

In a 1989 interview with Time magazine, Trump dropped this doozy when he was asked to ballpark his total wealth.

“Who the f knows? I mean, really, who knows how much the Japs will pay for Manhattan property these days?” he said, employing a common racial slur for the Japanese.

“There was blood coming out of her wherever”

Trump made these remarks after he was manhandled during a primary season debate by former Fox News host Megyn Kelly. Trump also denounced Kelly, a respected journalist as a "lightweight,"

“I am the least racist person there is”

Simply not supported by the available evidence and truly laughable.

“No need to spill the beans”

In 2016, Trump retweeted an image negatively comparing the looks of his wife Melania Trump, a former fashion model, and Heidi Cruz, the wife of then-primary rival, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

Cruz went on offense, defending his wife: "Donald, real men don't attack women. Your wife is lovely, and Heidi is the love of my life."

“She was bleeding badly from a facelift”

So what is it with Trump and blood anyway? He directed these offensive comments toward MSNBC anchor and "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brezinski. As The New York Times reported:

"The president described Ms. Brzezinski as "low I.Q. Crazy Mika" and claimed in a series of Twitter posts that she had been "bleeding badly from a face-lift" during a social gathering at Mr. Trump's resort in Florida around New Year's Eve. The White House did not explain what had prompted the outburst, but a spokeswoman said Ms. Brzezinski deserved a rebuke because of her show's harsh stance on Mr. Trump."

YES - they really did go with the "she was asking for it" defense.

And our all time favorite horrible remark “Grab them by the p***y”

Trump has said some pretty terrible things about women during his years of wandering this Earth. But these remarks to a former "Access Hollywood" host might be the sine qua non to understanding his attitude.

“Some, I assume, are good people.”

The racist gaffe heard around the world: Trump said of Mexico.

"They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

These are quotes and tweets this man who is trying to run our country again has said. And seriously how great did we become during his time running our country?

We had more racial unrest than ever? When black men were being hung once again. When he stirs the pot by saying "Stand by and stand tall"

When he calls people who are not like him, or against him names? When he belittles and demeans women? When he is trying to divide us instead of bringing us together?

This man is out for himself and his "white friends" he doesn't care about anyone but himself. He literally wants us to go back into the 50's where blacks had no rights, women had no choice and the LGBT community were in the closet. Instead of moving us forward, he is moving us backwards.

So today my friends, remember all of this when you vote but more importantly remember this if you are not voting, if you think your vote doesn't count, if you are undecided, this is what you are voting for. This is the character of the man who wants to run our country for four more years.

This vote is literally depending on you, it is your life. Your vote affects the women in your life's choice, if you're black or of color this could mean life or death for you and your loved ones. If you are LGBT or know someone that is, this is a vote to keep them free and living how they want to.

Please, please... I am begging you to vote as if your life depends on it because it does.

"Be the change you want to see"

@TreadmillTreatsCheck out my daily blogs @ https://treadmilltreats.blogspot.com/?m=1

Www.treadmilltreats.com

**Now released my latest book**

The Blessing in Disguise.... revealed

https://www.amazon.com/Blessing-Disguise-Revealed-story-faith/dp/1074340493/ref=sr_1_19?keywords=the+blessing+in+disguise&qid=1561392004&s=books&sr=1-19

***Now available***

My 1st book The blessing in Disguise

Selling on my website:

Http://www.treadmilltreats.com

And on Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0692437398/ref=mp_s_a_1_13?qid=1462358109&sr=1-13&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=the+blessing+in+Disguise

http://www.am6azon.com/gp/aw/d/0692437398/ref=mp_s_a_1_12?qid=1434452632&sr=8-12&pi=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70&keywords=the+Blessing+in+Disguise

My weekly Youtube page, please subscribe:

https://youtu.be/LDSXCFJVnzM

Http://www.treadmilltreats.com

Twitter: treadmill treats

Instagram: treadmilltreats

Facebook :treadmill treats

Http://Www.treadmilltreats.com

#treadmilltreats

#Theblessingindisguise

#blog

#blogger

#love

#instagram

#lifestyle

#blogging

#influencer

#bloggers

#bloggerlife

#Garyvee

#Jayshetty

#write

#writer

#motivationalspeaker

#motivation

#motivationalquotes

#motivational

#inspiration

#success

#quotes

#soulsisterssoulution

#NewYorktimesbestseller

#Oprah

#TylerPerry

[hjellacott]

We're not talking about whether a trans person has the right to exist, or whether or not they should have own facilities. We are talking about whether trans women should get to occupy women's spaces, poison women's terms, go to women's prisons, invade women's sports, and keep taking and taking away from women, which is not necessary for them to have safe spaces and rights (look at trans men, nobody has an issue with them), but a choice many trans women make willingly because they enjoy feeling powerful against women. Some even openly hate women and tell us to die on a daily basis. So in this respect, it's not the opinion of more men (or trans men if that's how they wish to call themselves) I'm going to give a shit about, because they're playing victim and are not, they're the invaders. The opinion I'm going to give a damn about is women's and girls' opinions. Because trans women are falsely claiming to be fighting for their safety and well-being, when all they want is to go after women and girls, enable and facilitate paedophilia, avoid hefty rape sentences (for example in Spain when earlier this year a sex offender conveniently claimed to be a woman the second he got arrested, therefore avoiding charges of sexual assault, and going to a prison full of defenceless women for common assault instead), and indulge in sexual paraphilias. Whereas all women and girls want is safety. That's all we're caring about. Safety. Health. Well-being. And if I've got to choose between investing time and energy on facilitating a man's sexual fetishes, or protecting women and young girls, the decision is crystal fucking clear.

[tuttle-did-it]

You know why I don't celebrate anything to do with the space race or the moon landing?

Fucking Nazis.

America sold its soul to win the space race against the Russians by giving Nazis like Wernher von Braun, Hubertus Strughold and Walter Schreiber a pass, and using the 'research' based off torturing, terrorising and murdering innocent prisoners during WWII in the most horrific way possible.

America's victory in space was built on the corpses and torture of millions in concentration camps, and rather than punish these Nazi scientists for their crimes, they were applauded because it helped them win the space race.

And I don't want to hear any 'but Teddy, if we hadn't won the space race, Russia would have won and we'd have ended up in a war we couldn't win!'

We do not KNOW that. But even if that is true, it is still incredibly evil to promise literal Nazis a free pass just because it helps America plant a flag on the moon.

Doing something evil for the sake of winning is still evil.

It would have been one thing if America had recognised this then and publicly acknowledged this. And discussed it in their education with children.

If they'd said to the world, 'we're doing this horrible thing because we believe it will avoid war, but these evil Nazis will go to prison after they help us win the space race [spoiler alert, they did not]. We must recognise the damage and horror that got us here, and recognise that we had to get in bed with the devil to win this, and for this we are ashamed.'

They didn't do that. They've never even acknowledged it. Those Nazis walked away heroes for ‘saving’ America.

And they didn’t even acknowledge the efforts of Katherine Johnson, Mary Jackson and Dorothy Vaughan- the incredible Black women without whom NASA could probably never have done anything. It’s barely acknowledged now. But it is a fact.

This isn’t conspiracy theory bullshit. This is real, literal history. Actual factual history. And children are not taught this in schools. They’re just taught The Great ~Achievement~ made by white men in America.

So.

Fuck Nazis.

Fuck America, France and Britain (and everywhere else) for giving Nazis a free pass just because it was convenient for them.

Fuck the space race.

Fuck the moon landing.

Fuck the education faults of the space race.

Fuck the white washing of Black women who got them there, treating the women like shit, and not even acknowledging their achievements.

Fuck America for getting in bed with literal Nazis and not even educating their own people on this shameful history.

Fuck all the 'science' that was built off the torture and mass graves piled high with corpses of people in concentration camps from Nazis.

Fuck the moon landing.

Hey. Why isn’t the moon landing a national holiday in the US. Isn’t that fucked up? Does anyone else think that’s absurd?