#or we have to be concerned about gender roles and this that and third

[hobermallowed]

"funny how feminization is only an issue when it happens to louis" There are people in this fandom who insist that Samstat is hypermasculine and reading him as anything other than a Stanley Kowalski pastiche is stupidity and projection. The same people who insist that female-coded Louis is the only right interpretation of the character, and they already imply that Assad's Armand is hypermasculine as well. It's the side of the same coin as the problem with a dainty, feminine Louis. They're not about subverting the gender norms, but upholding them in a twisted way

Gonna be honest, I can’t articulate a proper response to this because I just woke up and I’m about to go back to sleep because…no.

[bosbas]

Chapter 2: I didn't have it in myself to go with grace

series masterlist previous part || next part

pairing: colin bridgerton x enemy!fem!reader WC: 2.0k words

Warnings: period-typical gender roles, negative self-talk (Colin bby🥺🤏), a small part of the dialogue is in French

Summary: It took precisely two days in England for you to utterly despise Colin Bridgerton. It took him approximately twelve hours after that to hate you right back. But he doesn't care that you're the only person in the ton who doesn't like him. You're set to marry someone else anyway, right?

April 16, 1816 – And of course, one cannot forget to mention Lady Y/N Montclair, who looked like a vision in her emerald dress at the Danbury Ball last night. Her presence seemed to cast a spell over the gentlemen in attendance, and they were practically lining up to engage her in conversation. It was a sight to behold, watching them swoon over her. However, one can hardly blame them, given how effortlessly graceful she was. It appears Lady Montclair will have more than enough gentlemen to choose from this season…

Eloise scoffed and rolled her eyes, the newest Whistledown in hand as she sat on a couch in the tearoom. “My word, if she hadn’t been in Tuscany last season I would think Lady Montclair herself was Lady Whistledown! She’s only been here two days and she’s already been mentioned more than most of the ton.”

Benedict chuckled from his seat across the room, shooting a look at a disgruntled-looking Colin who was trying very hard to make it seem like he wasn’t listening to Eloise reading Whistledown’s account of the ball. 

“I’d wager that Colin is Whistledown, actually. I’m convinced after today’s column,” Benedict said teasingly, taking a bite out of an apple as he analyzed the sketch in front of him. 

“First of all, I don’t even write like Whistledown, which you would know if you read the letters I sent while I was in Greece,” Colin shot back, irritated. “And second, even if I were, I certainly would not have spent two full pages talking about Lady Montclair. I’m sure I have no idea why Whistledown thought she warranted such a large portion of the column today.” 

The words felt bitter and unpleasant in his mouth, and he regretted them instantly. He knew he sounded petulant, but he couldn’t help his defensive tone after last night. Eloise, catching onto Colin’s tone, cocked her head toward Benedict and raised an eyebrow in confusion.  

“She didn’t want to dance with him,” explained Benedict, sounding highly amused about what was one of the more embarrassing things to happen to Colin. 

Eloise burst out laughing. “No! A woman who didn’t want to dance with Colin? Something must be incredibly wrong in the world! How could she have said no to London’s golden boy? And on his first day back! Shall we call for a medic?”

Colin felt the blood rushing to his face and his cheeks warming, not particularly pleased to have to deal with his sister's teasing today. He knew he was being ridiculous, that much was clear. You were only one person who hadn’t wanted to dance with him. But you had just looked so beautiful, and the way your eyes had lit up when you laughed with your brother was so enchanting, that he fashioned himself half in love with you already. 

It was slightly gut-wrenching to know you didn't feel the same way. He must have done something, Colin reasoned. No one had ever not liked Colin simply because of who he was, and he was more than a little concerned that you seemed to be the first. 

Eloise had been joking, of course, when she called Colin London’s golden boy. But it wasn’t as much of a joke as he would have liked. Anthony was a viscount, and Benedict was a successful artist with a painting in the national gallery, but what did he have to offer? He was just aimlessly traveling the world, documenting his travels in a journal no one would ever read. His own family didn’t even read his letters, for Christ’s sake. He was a third son with no talents, and the only thing he could do was lean into his charm and good nature and hope that people liked him anyway. And he had been relatively successful thus far. Except for with you, it seemed.

Noting Colin’s uncharacteristic grim mood, Eloise briefly panicked, wondering if she had gone too far. With a far softer tone, she added, “Maybe her dance card was full, Colin. It doesn’t mean she didn’t want to dance.”

But Colin shook his head, placing his chin on his hand. “I highly doubt it.”

He knew better than to assume the best. He was remarkably skilled at reading people, but even without that, it had not been difficult to tell that you were full of contempt. For him or someone else, he couldn’t be completely sure, but the way you had been laughing and smiling with everyone except for him was a particularly useful hint. 

Before he could dwell further, Violet entered the tearoom. “We’ll be going to Hyde Park to promenade today, darlings.” It was far easier to coerce her children into doing her bidding when she didn’t give them a choice. 

Ignoring their grumbling, she left the room, calling out over her shoulder, “Be ready in one hour!” 

---

Colin had barely been at the park five minutes before he spotted you, and he drew in a sharp breath. God, it was infuriating. You were wearing a cream-colored dress, chatting pleasantly with your mother, and he wanted to scream. Of course, you looked completely breathtaking. It was exactly what he needed when he was already nervous about approaching you. 

During the carriage ride, he had decided to try to speak to you again. To be your friend, at the very least. Perhaps you did not want him as a suitor, but the thought of someone in the ton actively disliking him was nauseating. 

So, he steeled himself, staring longingly at you. Now was as good a time as any because, for some miraculous reason, there seemed to be no men hounding you at the moment. You had separated yourself from your family slightly, silently observing who he could only assume was one of your older sisters and her husband. 

He made his way over to you, hands fidgeting behind his back nervously. Swallowing down his fear, he cleared his throat as he approached you, a soft smile on his face. 

“Lady Montclair, it’s lovely to see you here today. I believe we may have gotten off on the wrong foot at the ball last night, and I wanted to offer an apology.” Your face was completely blank, not giving anything away, and Colin found himself a tad more nervous than he was when he first walked up to you. “Perhaps we could promenade?” he finished weakly. 

An apology? What on earth was Colin Bridgerton on about? There was no way he’d seen you in the hallway, right? 

“An apology, Mr. Bridgerton? Whatever for?” you asked carefully, not giving anything away. 

Colin cleared his throat awkwardly. He wasn’t quite sure himself, to be honest. “Well, I’m afraid I might have offended you by asking to dance so suddenly. It might have been a bit brash to ask for a dance without a proper introduction first.”

You almost sagged in relief. Your reputation was safe. Though now you seemed irrationally angry, despising Colin for no apparent reason. However, it wasn’t in your nature to make nice with someone who viewed women simply as breeding stock.  

Curtly, you responded, “I can assure you, Mr. Bridgerton, that that did not offend me. Had we been properly introduced, my answer would have been the same.”

“Oh,” he said softly. 

You stared at him blankly, with no hint of warmth in your gaze. Sensing your hostility, he promptly turned away from you, returning to his family. Anger burned in his chest. What the hell was your problem with him? He’d barely spoken two words to you, and you had acted like he had offended your entire bloodline. 

When his anger subsided, Colin had a sobering thought. For the first time in his charmed life, someone simply did not care for him. And the worst part? He hadn’t even caused it. Colin, who prided himself on his charm and wit, found himself in the position of being disliked without cause. 

He suddenly felt very inadequate. It was a foreign feeling, and it settled quite uncomfortably in his chest. If you were determined to hate him, so be it. But to hate him without reason? That, Colin could not agree to.

If you insisted on casting him as the villain in your narrative, then he would play the role with ease. If you wanted a reason to dislike him, then a reason you would have.

You stared after Colin, eyes narrowed. His ability to act like a complete gentleman would have been impressive if it wasn’t so disturbing. 

“Ma grande,” your mother called, coming to your side (My dear). “Did I just see you being rude to Colin Bridgerton? He left fairly quickly,” she scolded gently. 

“Non, maman. Ne t'inquiète pas,” you assured (No, Mom. Don’t worry). Upon seeing her unimpressed look, you switched to English. “It was just a misunderstanding.”

“Well, you don’t seem to like him very much,” she observed.

You let out a nervous laugh, waving her comment away. “I don’t know him well enough to dislike him, maman!” 

You needed something to distract her from this line of questioning. Your mother knew you well enough to tell when you were lying, and she would be positively furious if she uncovered the real reason why you despised Mr. Bridgerton. 

Fortunately, a distraction arrived by the name of Lord Arthur Barlow. 

“Lord Barlow,” your mother called out excitedly. “Allow me the pleasure of introducing my daughter, Y/N Montclair.”

“Lady Montclair,” he smiled warmly, stretching his hand out to you. “A name as lovely as its bearer, I daresay.”

 “Lord Barlow,” you answered shyly, placing your hand in his. You felt your cheeks heating up as he kissed the back of your hand, and you were taken aback. This entirely charming man had disarmed you completely in a matter of seconds. 

"Lord Barlow, the Duke of Monmouth," your mother announced with a flourish, her eyes bright with approval at the budding acquaintance. "Shall we take a turn about the park? I would be delighted to chaperone."

Subtlety was not her specialty. Or perhaps not her priority. Though you couldn’t really be upset with her, given how good-looking the Duke was. He nodded graciously at your mother and placed your hand at the crook of his elbow, smiling down at you as you began to stroll. 

You were so enthralled you barely registered him speaking. “I hear you’ve got a knack for languages, Lady Montclair,” he remarked, prompting your attention.

“Yes, your Grace. I speak five languages, and read Sanskrit,” you answered dutifully. Such accomplishments were no small feat in the circles of the ton, and you knew it put you at an advantage in the marriage mart.

“Most impressive, indeed,” he answered, his gaze thoughtful. “My brother’s wife is from Prussia, and I’m sure she would love a chance to speak in her native tongue.”

The Duke's boldness caught you off guard, the suggestion of speaking with his sister-in-law a surprising turn. "Oh," you murmured, slightly taken aback by his directness.

 “And what else do you like to do?” asked Lord Barlow, smoothly transitioning the conversation. 

A well-prepared response rolled off your tongue, a practiced smile gracing your lips. “I am well-versed in needlepoint, and enjoy playing the pianoforte,” you smiled. It was what was expected of a young woman of your stature, after all.

Lord Barlow nodded appreciatively, seemingly satisfied with your answer. “And how do you find England? I’m certain you’re missing the Tuscan sun,” he said, pushing the conversation to lighter topics. 

The Duke's engaging manner, paired with the approval of your mother, had utterly charmed you. Engaged by his charisma and easy conversation, you found yourself giggling during your conversation, utterly captivated.

Unbeknownst to you, Colin Bridgerton observed

from afar, his gaze sharp with a mixture of irritation and something deeper brewing beneath the surface. Each laugh, each shared glance between you and the Duke, stoked the flames of his simmering displeasure.

—

previous part || next part || buy me a ko-fi!

Tag List: @marvelspogue @5sosmakesmelaugh5 @livingthatprovinciallife @maddiebaddie1 @willieoo @jessica-1120 @dreadity @h0eforwadewilson @ziarah @wordsgodeep @like-gabriel-and-castiel @dianxiaxiexie @snapeeballsack @sosasi521-blog @saturnssunflower @indecisive-empanada @invisible-dreamers-world @angerpearl @spacecowboy-0 @lavaschnuppe @ssexsellls @idkwhatimdoing6 @smugrogerina @cherrysxuya @blackqueens01 @ella33 @eve175 @tiger1357890 @mrs-c-bridgerton @bozoqt @nighttimemoonlover @anthonylockwoodandco111 @beamuont

Let me know if you want to be added to the tag list!

[yamayuandadu]

Hey, I just got done reading your amazing write up about Nanaya. I honestly didn’t expect to find the best information yet on Tumblr! I did have one question though: given that Nanaya was heavily influenced by Inanna/Ishtar, do we have any information concerning whether her cult had similarly third gender/gender non-conforming parts of its clergy?

Gala (Akkadian kalû) are mentioned among Nanaya's clergy in Kish (during the reign of Ammi-ditana; Drenowska-Rymarz, The Mesopotamian Goddess Nanaya, p. 67), in Larsa (during the reign of Rim-Sin I; p. 69), and in Uruk (historical note in an inscription of Simbar-Shipak from Nippur; p. 70). Pretty sure only Borsippa is missing out of her major cult centers. Given that the evidence pertaining to clergy of Nanaya is relatively sparse overall, especially before the first millennium BCE, it seems safe to say it was a fairly common phenomenon. However, as gala were by no means "priests of Inanna" as commonly incorrectly claimed online, and their much debated gender identity had nothing to do with Inanna (as they also occur in the cults of deities who were essentially paragons of gender conformity; plus even when ambiguity occurs in the case of Inanna, it's not really making her identity gala-like... in fact, other than Lumha no deity is really described as a gala - and Lumha was essentially a personification of the profession), I feel the question is a bit misguided. Gala were professional lamenters, and not really any less common than ritual purificators or temple scribes. Any deity major enough to have multiple types of specialists attached to their temples had gala. They were a core part of the religious landscape of Mesopotamia basically to the same degree as the āšipu, and by the first millennium BCE these two specialized priestly professions are in fact often mentioned side by side (Uri Gabbay, The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria, p. 116). With that in mind, it's safe to assume the presence of gala in the cult of Nanaya has nothing to do with association with Inanna, all it shows is that she was worshiped commonly enough to warrant the existence of multiple types of clergy in multiple cities. To further demonstrate that gala were a class of clergy like any other as opposed to "priests of Inanna": Ninurta's cult involved gala (Wolfgang Heimpel, Balang Gods, p. 583; "chief gala" mentioned among the staff of Eshumesha in Nippur alongside a "chief singer"), as did Ninazu's (Paul-Alain Beauieu, Remarks on Theophoric Names in the Late Babylonian Archives from Ur, p. 170; influential enough for the name to be spelled in emesal as standard in late sources), or Nanshe's (Gebhard J. Selz, Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Staates von Lagaš, p. 205-206 discusses members of Nanshe's clergy in ED Lagash); even the late invention of an "antiquarian" cult of Anu involved gala (Julia Krul, The Revival of the Anu Cult and the Nocturnal Fire Ceremony at Late Babylonian Uruk, p. 31), the examples keep piling up. It's also worth noting even the arts of the gala were believed to be an invention of Ea (Uri Gabbay, The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria, p. 116), same as most other professions. I think connecting Inanna's gender nonconformity (which occurs primarily in association with her military role) or occasional ambiguity (which is best attested in astronomical context) with the presence of gala in her cult is an issue in itself (even without going into the mess that is the common trend of connecting gala with the sexual aspect of Inanna specifically, for no particularly strong reason) but I will cover these matters (and more) in a separate long post soon.

[mdhwrites]

Why TOH really doesn't want a theme of discrimination.

Every demon in the show is depicted as evil, dumb or as good... because they don't want to be a part of demon culture.

That's the thesis and it's not an over exaggeration. In the main cast, the only demon of the DEMON REALM is Hooty who is treated as slow, less intelligent than the other members of the cast, and as a joke by the writers as he never elevates himself above being simply comic relief. Association with him seems to be the earliest sign that Lilith is meant to be seen as a joke and her relationship with Hooty ostracizes her from the rest of the cast. Makes her appear weird because she's the only one who can like the bird tube.

Otherwise, they're all antagonists. Most of them are just one note villains for that matter. In S1, every demon with a real speaking role is a villain. The monster hunters, Warden Wrath, Tibbles, the basilisk, the publisher for King and even Boscha if her third eye denotes demonic heritage. Anyone who we see at least as neutral are pretty much just background characters. The ones from the prison in the first episode are really the only ones who get a moment of heroism.

Now you might say: What about Bat Queen? She's the richest person on the Isles and she... Isn't a demon. She's a palisman. Made by, or at least for, a god with the insinuation they give. Bare minimum: Not for any demon known to the Isles. So she doesn't count.

There ARE witch antagonists in S1 thankfully. They're Matt, who goes on to obviously be a good person at heart, Amity who... Duh and Lilith who is also redeemed. None of this happens to any of the demons though even if ostensibly this is their world since the entire dimension is named after demons.

Which, as a note, also is part of why saying TOH is anti-colonial means ignoring an entire race.

Even KING, who should have been the demon representative in the main cast, was then retconned not to be one. Worse yet, only once that retcon began did the show start treating him with any real respect. As a demon... He was just a dumb comic relief character as far as the show is concerned.

So when we FINALLY get a reoccurring demon... It's Kikimora. That should be all I need to say there.

Now the final argument: Vee. Vee is a good person, right? She's not a villain or antagonist, just a good person. And you would be right. The framing on Vee is the problem. As the ONE genuinely just good demon, we have to evaluate how she is different. She is different... Because she rejected the Demon Realm. Her parallels with Luz are even supposed to make it clear that she is better at being a human THAN LUZ. Which has the awful implication, if we want to say TOH has anti-discrimination theme, that the only good demon, is a domesticated demon. One who wants to be a human.

That's. Fucking. Awful.

And just to cover my bases: Yes, discrimination is more than a race thing but the concept of discrimination on race is actually pretty much the only one ever brought up. The fact that no one gives a shit about ethnicity or sexuality or gender actually hurts the theme because you have to project those things onto the show instead. And any allegory to discrimination is explicitly done through races. Fantasy races but that still frames it as a racial issue so its theme on anti-discrimination is going to struggle to branch out beyond racial lines because it effectively ignores that any other form of discrimination might even EXIST.

And for the finale!... I don't think any of this is on purpose by the writers. Yes, they bring discrimination into the show but just like how real life conflicts will often ignore the complexities of all the groups present, such as us referring to all Native Americans as one whole group rather than their separate tribes and histories, the show effectively forgets about the demons. They're just there for flavor because if literally all of the characters of the demon realm were elves, it wouldn't feel like it fits the name at all. It adds spice to a scene and adventure if you have demons of all sorts and sizes.

But the witches are the conventionally attractive characters who are easy to latch onto and so they are the main cast. Everything that looks other becomes a target for villainy because of that juxtaposition. Unfortunately, none of this helps any sort theme of inclusivity. That we are supposed to look past the outer shell and see the person within, regardless, race, gender, sexuality, etc. like that.

Instead, TOH tells a very basic fantasy story and in doing so, falls into the fact that a lot of classic fantasy was written by racist white dudes and the fact that the term demon is charged due to LOTS of religions that paint them out as wholly evil. Without actually interrogating these concepts, it can be easy to fall into them.

So yeah, I think this is a theme people need to stop trying to apply to TOH.

======+++++======

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[probablyasocialecologist]

When it comes to gender theory, scientists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who were informed by eugenics “made strong statements about the social and political role of women, claiming all the while to speak for the scientific truth.” They typically referred to women’s reproductive capacity as a natural indication of their divinely ordained social role. Social, political, and religious ideologies informed the scientific beliefs of this time period, which is not dissimilar to the widely held beliefs of current gender/sex psychologists. It can be argued that the father of modern psychology himself, Sigmund Freud, in his quest to validate psychoanalysis as a legitimate science, reproduced the social opinions of his time in his psychological theories. His theories about femininity, in particular, have been criticized by feminist thinkers for the ways in which his frameworks position femininity as fundamentally incompatible with subjectivity, thus cementing women’s passivity and subordination as a psychological disposition that explains and justifies their social position under patriarchy. Although psychology has developed considerably since Freud, his work remains foundational to the field, and informs the ongoing structural violence of psychiatric pathologization experienced by marginalized subjects. Psychoanalytic concepts have become embedded in clinical, academic, institutional, and colloquial language, influencing the epistemologies of neurosexists and feminists alike. We continue to see bioessentialist reasoning about sexual difference employed in the name of feminism. Notably, bioessentialism informs contemporary discourse about trans rights. For example, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism (TERF) refers to a radical ideology that equates womanhood with biological sex, and maintains a bioessentialist stance to discriminate and incite violence against trans women, and to exclude trans women from women’s spaces.  Proponents of trans exclusionary radical feminist ideology espouse the conviction that women are a group with a singular shared experience of womanhood based on the patriarchal violence experienced by people with vaginas. It arose out of the work of anti-porn feminist writing like that of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon in the 1970s, which centered the ways in which cisgender women’s bodies are uniquely subjected to sexualized violence. The objectification and sexualization of the cisgender female body was the main concern in this discourse, and as such, postmodern perspectives that disrupt bioessentialist ideas about gender and the body have been received as an existential threat to the objectives of this radical ideology. Third wave feminist discourse and theories, like intersectional feminist theory, have disputed the idea that bodily or physical similarities are experienced in the same ways socially and culturally (e.g., at intersections of race, class, ability, nation, gender identity, and sexuality). When it comes to trans discourse, it is important to recognize the ways in which non-normatively gendered bodies with any perceived association to femininity or womanhood are subjected to patriarchal and sexualized violence. Heteronormativity and rape culture affect more than just cisgender women. To weaponize a binary understanding of gender against women with diverse experiences of womanhood is to collude with the oppressive forces of the colonial, white supremacist hetero capitalist patriarchy.

[superbrieflightstudentlove]

My thoughts on the Amrita-Raj-Raadha love triangle.

Am I the only one who doesn't feel sorry for Amrita? She wanted this. She willingly entered a relationship with an already taken man. She knew he loves another and yet still pursued him, wanting to break Raj and Raadha up for the sake of her own selfish desires. She placed herself in this position of being a third wheel by standing in the way of two people who genuinely love each other, making everyone around her miserable in the process because she wanted to flex in front of the others of being Mrs Doobay. Yes she has a huge crush on him and is physically attracted to him but she also wants the prestige, position, wealth and influence that come with being his wife. I understand that she was still a "child" when the engagement happened, so I don't fully blame her. The true weight of the blame rests on her much older brother's shoulders who blackmailed Raj into this marriage and should know better as a significantly more mature and experienced individual than his adolescent baby sister. I understand that arranged marriages were common back then and he probably just wanted to secure a good match for his sister in order to make sure that she is well taken care of and her future is secured, but the way he went about it was shady AF and he should have realised, even back then, that he would be setting up his beloved little sister for a life of dissapointment, emotional neglect and heartbreak. Just imagine if the genders were reversed and it was Amrita who is being manipulated and emotionally blackmailed into a marriage and sexual relationship with a guy she doesn't want because she is already in love with somebody else. Would we still pity the guy who is forcing himself on an unwilling and resistant girl, saying that she should give him a little bit of a chance and treat him better? I don't think so. In my opinion, the true victims in this situation are Raj and Radha who truly got the worst of it. As far as Amrita is concerned, I think it would depend on how much she knew about her brother's role in all of this or whether she even approved of his scheming. But if she knew and still went along with it, then that's on her.

[gettothedancing]

Friendship is so underrated

I’ve been having such a great time hanging out with my new friends from work. It took me a long time to learn how to be a good friend, and to find people who were willing to be good friends back. The two people I’ve been getting to know are a girl from Kenya and a boy from Brazil. It’s also just nice to hang out with coworkers close to my age, since many people I work with are in their forties or older.

I mentioned in my last read-more post that I have a crush on my coworker, the Brazilian guy I just mentioned. He knows that I am dating someone from EHarmony (as in, we’ve had two dates and scheduled a third). Yesterday, he came to me and said, “I really want to go to this restaurant with you, since it would be awkward to go alone. But I don’t want to get in the middle of your relationship.”

See, he just got divorced, and his ex-wife was at least emotionally cheating with someone from work, if not actually cheating. So he’s very aware of the need for proper boundaries. I immediately told him, “It’s fine! I already told him about you and he is okay with us hanging out.” I started dating EH-guy around the same time that I started hanging out more with Brazil-guy.

I wish I could just transfer my crush on Brazil-guy to EH-guy. Because EH-guy is very nice! And cute. But we just don’t know each other that well yet. 

At the moment, I’m just trying to ignore the crush and never act on it. We keep boundaries up; we rarely touch each other, and if we do it’s in safe/platonic ways. But it’s harder to ignore just how much better suited Brazil-guy and I are to each other than this EH-guy is. We share the same religion, we have similar though not identical political views, we’re avid non-fiction readers, we’re passionate about our shared profession and what in it needs to change, and we’ve both lost our same-gender parent and been recently dumped. We have so much to talk about that it’s hard to find a stopping point, but silence is also comfortable. Even though English is his third language, I find it easy to understand him, and he’s a wonderful listener.

If he weren’t going through so much right now, and didn’t seem to need a friend so much, I would be trying harder to distance myself from him. I know this extra time with him will only prolong my feelings. But I am being very strict with myself about it. No daydreaming, no touching, and any thought that tends to romance I sharply cut off.

I kind of wish he would indicate an absolute disinterest in me. It might make that strictness easier. I feel that I’ve gotten prettier due to body recomp, better habits, etc. But that doesn’t mean he is or ever will be attracted to me. That’s not how attraction works. I can quietly hope for it, but I would also be so concerned if he wanted to date anyone right now. Like they JUST filed the paperwork. He’s struggling with the idea of being single again. At least he still has the cat and his work friends. We will help him move to a new place for a fresh start next month. Sadly, he’s also transferring roles at work, so we won’t be able to chat there. But maybe this will mean we can hang out more outside of work?

The thing is, I love this friendship. I have never had many friends at one time. It took me some time to make friends since moving here a few years ago. And even though he’s almost everything I’ve been looking for in a husband, I refuse to jeopardize this friendship or make him uncomfortable. I’m trying to live in the moment and focus on non-romantic goals. It’s possible that in a few months or a year, my friend will be interested in dating again, and he might consider me as an option. But I can’t bet on it, nor should I treat our friendship as a waiting stage for that not-so-likely future. 

All I can do is keep working to be good and glorify God. It’s important to bring my desires to God, so that He can purify them and remove those that do not accord to His will. That which it is not right for us to receive, God does not grant. “Desire is prayer; and no loss can occur from trusting God with our desires, that they may be moulded and exalted before they take form in words and in deeds.” (S&H p. 1:11)

[iliterallydecepticanteven]

This is an exceedingly random question, but it's been on my mind insomuch that I might have a fic idea stewing in my brain: do you have any thoughts on Cybertronian marriage/bonding concepts or rituals? For example, what exactly makes two people "consorts"?

Omg, I'm so excited to talk about this!! So I actually made a huge list of headcanons for bonding in TFA that I was gonna use as a reference in a fic but then I never got around to the fic. Instead, I'm just gonna toss all those rules in below because I have Some Thoughts™.

But before I get into them, I do wanna say, because TFs don't follow the same gender binary that humans do, I think bonding is seen as an act done between two bots who want to spend the rest of their existence together. There are no "roles" in a relationship, like "wife" or "husband," it is legit just "I am so madly in love with you and I want to spend every moment with you until we both die." As such, bonding for political purposes or class status isn't really a thing. The term consort really works here, since it's a gender-neutral term used to refer to the romantic companion or partner of someone.

Anyway, here's the extensive list of headcanons I threw together. I'm gonna throw a read more in there since this is super long:

You can be legally bonded without being spark bonded.

Legal bonding gives similar benefits to marriage, such as tax benefits, shared insurance, and being priority emergency contact.

Spark bonding often considered closer and more intimate but also more dangerous as when your conjunx dies you spark could go supernova and kill you as well.

As such, it's harder to break a spark bond. While not deadly, it's painful. So most will be legally bonded for a while before eventually spark bonding once their sure the relationship will last.

There are huge benefits to spark bonds though. The major one being that you can reach out through it and sort of communicate with your conjunx. You can't exchange words but you can exchange emotions and sense when they're in pain or distress. It also provides a deeper connection with the conjunx and better synchronicity with them.

Megatron actually banned spark bonds within the Decepticon army pretty early on. He didn't want two soldiers dying when one got killed.

The only exception to this rule is Strika and Lugnut, who got bonded right before the war broke out.

Pre-war bonding ceremonies could be incredibly lavish and similar to weddings with a ceremony followed by a reception and party. Traditionally everyone was expected to dress up in nice armor and decorate with jewelry and capes or robes.

Obviously, those who weren't rich often did smaller ceremonies. One major tradition among many was to get bonded in a bar.

The major acts during the ceremony is to review what was done for conjunx ritus, read vows to each other and exchange vials of innermost energon, have all guests affirm their faith and hope in the relationship, and have a third party (whether that be a higher ranking politician or a bartender) announce the bond as legitimate.

That's all for the legal aspect of bonding. Spark bonding is always done in private, away from everyone else.

Spark bonding is done by touching and merging sparks. Because of how intimate and dangerous this is, it is imperative that it be done in a safe secluded space.

Conjunx Ritus doesn't need to be performed before getting bonded, but it's expected and even concerning if you don't do it. It's like getting engaged before getting married. Not technically required, but definitely expected.

The four acts are: the Act of Intimacy, the Act of Devotion, the Act of Disclosure, and the Act of Profference. These don't have to be done in a specific order. Yeah I stole this straight from MTMTE sue me.

There also isn't really a way to indicate that someone is bonded, like a ring. External displays of bonding just aren't a thing.

That being said, I do think after starting trade routes with Earth and interacting with American culture, some form of transformation safe matching jewelry would start to get big among bonded couples.

That's all I have for now, but I am sure in the future when I incorporate these headcanons into an actual fic, I'll add more!

[myckicade]

Mayans M.C. - 05x05

*pounds head on work desk*

Fuck. You. EZ.

While we're at it, fuck you, too, Sofia.

Anyway.

Conspiracies first. (Second? Third?).

Updated Guesses of Who's in the Coffin:

Angel

Marcus

Creeper

Heroin - I had this feeling after a good, long think, and... Yeah... It tracks. So to speak.

*ahems*

I genuinely loved a couple of things about this episode, and I would like to get right into those, if I may.

I have been loving the Big Brother Miguel vibes since the start of the season, and it's only getting better. (I mean, if I didn't know what I know, I would have almost thought that he was hitting on Angel, BUT. He must have studied that boy damn close if he knows his body from a security camera. Y'know what I mean?) *ahems* It might just be me, too, but I felt this sense of... reluctant longing in Miguel's tone, when he agreed that he didn't know Angel. Kinda' broke my heart, a little bit. Here's this guy who has family he clearly wants to protect, but also refuses to acknowledge beyond that. While he and EZ have some ugliness between them, he and Angel - minus the warehouse - don't have that much on-screen history to work with. ** This is why I firmly believe that something terrible will befall Angel, and Miguel will have to take it up with EZ. Something is going to tip Miguel's hand on this secret, either his or Filipe's. I just really kinda' hope I'm wrong about what that something is. **

I did enjoy that little Not-Fight-Club scene. I need to re-watch, because I want to know why Isaac said, "It really is you"?? Did I mishear that?? Because, if so, that sends me down a whole winding path of questions and conspiracies. (Again, I need to re-watch a few things, at least, because I have zero idea whether I missed something, and now look like an idiot for having these thoughts). Neeevermind. I found my answer. I just love JR Bourne, and while I haven't been... in love with Isaac, he's doing a fabulous job with the role.

Bishop holding a baby. Need I say more? I mean... C'mon. That was sweet as hell.

His storytelling, as well. The man may have the Short and Angry down, but he definitely knows how to play Big Fish.

Izzy laying down the law. Once she got out of the car, I was shouting, "YEAH, BITCH!! I love you, dude, but, YEAH, BITCH!!" It's about time Marcus hears the words. -_- . That he took Santi out for some Father-Son Time afterward? *sobs* MY HEART!!!! <3 <3 <3 . Marcus has been such a dick for so long, it was good to have him put in his place, and reminded that he has more to live for that the damned Club. P.S. Have they mentioned the baby's gender yet? I wanna' know. >XD.

Hank getting to help his Mom gets me. Every time. I don't care. Anything concerning that man is emotional. I swear.

Gotta' say... I kinda' loved that ending... Things - storylines - are FINALLY beginning to feel like they go together. I have a little bit of faith back.

Very briefly, there were a few things that I disliked, as well. (As usual).

Fuck you, Ez.

A supplementary 'Fuck You' to the following folks: Sofia Emily EZ Potter Katie Everybody Who Ignored Kevin's Widow EZ

I hope we get to see Elio again?? I like the dude, and I'm sad that he and Bottles got split up. :( .

Not enough Bottles. Damn. I didn't think I'd end up liking that kid so much. I can't help it. Alex Barone is adorable.

I could have done without Letty and Hope scream-singing for, what was it? Two, three minutes? It felt that way, anyhow.

While I'm glad we still have Nestor around, I'm pretty damned bothered by the lack of use of his character? If that makes sense? I mean, here's a dude that's capable, trustworthy, honest, dedicated, loyal, and he's tending the fucking bar?! Prospect was... just not where I expected him to land, I guess? And, for so damned long. In bed with the enemy, sure, I get that. He just feels like such an afterthought to the series, at times.

EZ's little speech to SAMDINO was a nightmare. It was like being on the phone with Xfinity's automated services. I felt for Isaac on that one. I would have lost my temper, too.

Consider this my Weekly Complaint about Emily, if filed a day or so late. Ugh. Her little speech about Motherhood - though valid - made me roll my eyes. While Miguel is certainly no prize in the marriage department, I wish he would have just cut bait a long, LONG time ago.

Beyond that? I pretty well enjoyed this episode. The preview for next week didn't thrill me to my core, but... We shall see.

Until next week, Y'all!

-Mycki

[ukrfeminism]

10 minute read

A trans lobby group helped to draft NHS plans for treating children questioning their gender, The Telegraph can disclose.

Susie Green, then chairman of the charity Mermaids, was part of a task group reviewing services at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation trans clinic.

The service specification, which outlines treatment for children, included details on how “hormone blockers will now be considered for any children under 12”. The relationship between Mermaids and senior NHS employees is laid bare for the first time in documents seen by The Telegraph.

The Tavistock claimed that it did not have emails or minutes of meetings with Ms Green but after the information regulator threatened court action, it released more than 300 pages.

They show that Ms Green had a direct line to Dr Polly Carmichael, Tavistock’s director, and demanded to be regarded as a professional so she could refer ­children for treatment when their GPs refused. Ms Green, who has no known formal medical training, held an advisory role on two of the studies that the clinic was involved in on the long-term effect of gender identity.

The service specification, which is still available on the NHS England website, was due to be replaced in 2020 but was put on hold when the Government ordered the independent Cass Review into the clinic.

The Tavistock said: “Like many NHS services, GIDS [gender identity development service] works with a range of third-sector patient support groups and charities that have different views about how the service can improve.” 

Mermaids said its “primary focus is to support the mental and physical wellbeing of trans and non-binary young people throughout the UK”.

Ms Green said it was “not a secret” that she was involved in the service specification”. 

An NHS spokesman said: “We have started implementing advice from Dr Cass and we have held a public consultation on a new interim service specification, which will be published in the coming weeks.”

'The Tavistock were really in thrall to these activists'

They are the documents that the NHS Tavistock gender clinic claimed did not exist. More than 300 pages of emails and minutes that lay bare for the first time the extent of Mermaids’ involvement in England’s only clinic for transgender children.

The controversial transgender charity has long been named by some whistleblowers as one of the reasons why the Tavistock lost its way, with claims that activists pressured staff to prescribe potentially life-altering drugs.

Now The Telegraph can reveal how Susie Green, then chairman of Mermaids, had a direct line to the clinic’s director Dr Polly Carmichael and was able to make referrals even when a child’s GP repeatedly refused.

The documents lay bare the depth of her involvement in the service, including helping to redraft the service specification and advising on a number of trials designed to inform the way they treated young patients.

Timeline

Troubles for the Tavistock Centre

2004

Susan Evans became the first to whistleblow about the “percipitous referral” of children in the clinic on to a medical path to change gender. Then a clinical nurse with the Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), her concerns prompted an internal inquiry and she later walked out. 

2014

GIDS lowered the prescription age for puberty blockers from 16 to 11. The clinic's director praised them on a CBBC programme, saying: "The good thing is, if you stop the injections, it’s like pressing a start button and the body just carries on developing”, despite concerns about irreversibility.

2018

Dr David Bell, a leading psychiatrist and then the staff governor at the Tavistock, wrote an internal report urging the clinic to suspend all experimental hormone treatment for children who wished to change gender until more evidence emerged. Ten GIDS clinicians had approached him to blow the whistle on the Trust’s practices.

December 2020

The High Court ruled that it was “highly unlikely” a child under 13 could give informed consent to puberty blocker treatment and “doubtful” for those aged 14 or 15. It meant doctors would have to consult the courts to prescribe blockers and cross-sex hormones for under-16s. 

January 2021

The GIDS clinic was rated “inadequate”, the lowest mark, by the watchdog Care Quality Commission, with inspectors finding “significant concerns” and a “crisis of capacity” with 5,000 children waiting sometimes years on waiting lists. 

September 2021

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s ruling, following an appeal by the Tavistock Trust, allowing doctors to judge if under-16s can give informed consent to puberty blockers. The Supreme Court then rejected a further appeal by Keira Bell, who had brought legal action.

September 2021 

Sonia Appleby, a top psychoanalytical psychotherapist, was awarded £20,000 in damages after an employment tribunal found the Tavistock Trust’s treatment of her prevented proper work on safeguarding, as she faced vilification for whistleblowing about the clinic’s safety. 

1 of 7

The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust had originally refused to release the details of the meetings between 2014 and 2018, relying on an exemption under Freedom of Information law which said it would have a “disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress”. 

When the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) asked them to justify that refusal, the Trust withdrew it and said that following “an extensive search of emails … the Trust does not hold the requested information”.

The ICO said that “on the balance of probabilities” it did hold the information and threatened to refer them to the High Court unless they complied with the request from a parent. The Tavistock has now released 322 pages of communications between 2014 and 2018.

They include emails between Dr Carmichael, who still works at the Tavistock, and Ms Green, who has left Mermaids and now works for an online GP which prescribes puberty blockers. In one exchange from 2016, Ms Green contacted the head of the service to question the decision of staff to refuse a referral she had made.

Upset not to be seen as a professional

Ms Green, who has no known medical training, said that she was told “that the referral was not validated or risk-assessed by a professional” and that is why it was rejected.

She added: “I can only assume from this statement that I am not seen as a professional? I am now very confused, as my understanding was that your service would accept referrals from Mermaids, but this statement appears to suggest the opposite….

“If you do NOT accept referrals from Mermaids due to the fact that I am not a professional I would like to know the reasoning behind this? Referral by a non-healthcare professional is acceptable from schools, social services etc, and my understanding has been that Mermaids referrals were accepted.

“Your admin person made it clear that immediate action was needed or this referral would be refused, so can I ask for a level of urgency to be applied to dealing with this issue?”

Dr Carmichael replied: “We do accept referrals from third sector groups and I know that you have helpfully sent in referrals in the past. This continues to be the case. Third sector groups often play a vital role in supporting young people and their families and we greatly value their involvement.”

Referrals 'unsupported by their GP'

Ms Green sent referrals for young people who were “unsupported by their GP” and in one case she sent the referral noting that the GP “has consistently refused to refer”.

The documents show that as early as 2014 she was involved in the “redraft of the service specification” for the NHS’s gender identity development service (GIDs) for children. She was one of the 10 people who attended a meeting.

Others include Dr Carmichael, who chaired the session, Rob Senior, the Trust’s medical director, Prof Gary Butler, a University College London Hospital consultant who is now the clinical lead for the children’s gender clinic, and Bernard Reed, the founder of the campaign group the Gender Identity Research and Education Society.

The minutes show they agreed that they would act as a “task and finish work group” and that “the content of the discussions were expected to remain within the group”.

They noted the initial findings of “research into the age for hypothalamic blocker treatment” which “suggest that the blocker could be prescribed from early puberty”.

The Tavistock has not provided minutes relating to any further meetings of the group, despite notes stating that they would meet two to three times and share details of their review. As a result, Ms Green’s contributions remain unclear.

Greater emphasis on medical treatment

A new service specification was published by NHS England in 2016, which placed greater emphasis on medical treatment for children.

The new specification said for the first time “that hormone blockers will now be considered for any children under the age of 12 if they are in established puberty”.

It also updated the “informed consent” section to state that: “Age alone does not determine capacity to give consent. If it is concluded that a client has sufficient autonomy and understanding of what is to be offered, plus other key eligibility and readiness criteria have been met, they can consent to treatment.”

The involvement with the service specification came as Mermaids were putting pressure on the Tavistock to lower the age for cross-sex hormones to 14, as Dr Carmichael revealed in an interview at the time.

The charity was also calling for a reduction of time that teenagers had to spend on puberty blockers before they were prescribed cross-sex hormones.

In one email chain Ms Green was involved in, her fellow campaigner Mr Reed questioned if there “are proposals to speed up” the process. He noted that children had to be on puberty blockers for six months to a year before being given cross-sex hormones, which they had to wait until they were 16 to access.

In the response in November 2016 Sally Hodges, one of the Trust’s directors, said that “the situation is rapidly changing” as the service had received more money and “Polly Carmichael is in touch with Susie to ensure that you have the most accurate and up-to-date information”.

Gender reassignment at 16

Ms Green, who now works for Gender GP, an online service which prescribes cross sex hormones, had taken her own child – who was born male – to the US for puberty blockers before their 16th birthday. On their 16th birthday she took them to Thailand for cross-sex surgery.

In one exchange she sought “clarity” from Dr Carmichael on whether the Tavistock would treat children whose parents had sought hormone blockers or cross-sex hormones privately either because of waiting lists or because the drugs were not prescribed on the NHS to under-16s.

“This would be a huge weight off parents’ minds,” she wrote. “Many want to access blockers privately for their children due to the distress caused by ongoing pubertal changes and the huge wait to be seen and assessed, but are then caught in a position of having to fund blockers indefinitely themselves.”

Dr Carmichael replied that she was “very sorry to hear that there has been confusion” and said that “individual circumstances vary widely and so it would be a case-by-case basis”.

She said if the child was already seeing an endocrinologist through the Tavistock they would be removed from their care if they started getting drugs privately, though could still have therapy. But she added that patients “may choose at a later date to be referred to the endocrine clinic, if for example they started cross-sex hormone treatment outside the service at an earlier age than the service offers”.

Charity boss invited to take part in research

In 2018, Dr Carmichael emailed Ms Green again to invite her to take part in research which was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). She wrote: “We are in the process of submitting an application to NIHR to follow younger service users. It would be great if Mermaids would be involved.”

Ms Green replied that she would be “delighted to look at working with you on the NIHR application and delivery”.

The study looking at the development of gender identity in children aged 3-14 started in 2019 and it was hoped that it would “inform health and education providers”.

Stephanie Davies-Arie, founder of Transgender Trend, said: “The Tavistock were really in thrall to these activists. They were ideologically captured.” 

Ms Davies-Arie, who campaigns for evidence-based healthcare, said that she had first contacted the Tavistock in 2016 amid concerns about the treatment they were offering and was told that they would welcome her input as they were keen to hear from different voices.

However, when she emailed Dr Carmichael with concerns, she got no response.

Ms Green said that it was “not a secret” that she was involved in the service specification and she applied to be involved “as the CEO of the largest UK (and probably European) charity to support transgender children, young people and their families”. 

She said that she was “pleased” that the new specification “removed an arbitrary age range” for hormone blockers and agreed to consider them for children under 12.

[uncloseted]

what do u say to a friend who seems to be falling to a transphobic path (via insta shorts). before she told me she supportss ppl's identities and pronouns but now shes repsoting bathroom trans women in bathroom content. where do i find resources and good evidence to help her im rlly sad abotu this

Ahh, that’s a hard situation to be in. Social media algorithms are so powerful in pulling people further and further towards prejudiced viewpoints. What to say kind of depends on the person- what their stated concerns are, what they’re actually worried about, and what kind of points usually get them to change their minds. That said, there are a few things I’ve had at least some success with:

The first one is to try and get the person to empathize with trans people. Usually this involves asking them how they would feel if people insisted on calling them [opposite gender version of their name] and using [opposite gender pronouns]. This is especially effective if the person has a nickname they exclusively go by, because then you can ask them how they feel when people insist on using their “birth name” instead of the name they go by. You can also ask them to reflect on their own relationship with gender. What makes them feel like they’re the gender that they are? How do they know their gender? Is their gender identity important to them? What does gender mean to them? Sometimes just getting them to reflect on what the trans experience is like makes a difference in terms of seeing trans people as people who just want to be respected instead of as a political football. Depending on how they feel about that line of questioning, another tact you can try is “born this way” - that trans people are born trans, and that it’s unfair to discriminate against them for something they can’t control. That was relatively effective when people were debating over gay marriage, and I think it works reasonably well here, too. This can also be a good place to point out that people who we might consider “trans” - that inhabit a cross-gender role in society, who cross dress, who occupy the social role of a third gender, etc. - have been documented for tens of thousands of years. It’s not a new phenomenon, despite the fact that people treat it as if it is.

Going off of that, it can be helpful to put the trans rights movement in a historical context. I like to remind people that they were losing their minds in this exact same way about gay people ten years ago, and then they all kind of got over it and the world hasn’t ended as a result. Is this really, substantially different than that, or do people just not like change? A lot of reactionary movements are just people who don’t like change trying to retroactively justify their discomfort, and I don’t think this case is any different. This works particularly well with the bathroom debate, because you can say, “we’ve always had moral panics about bathrooms. Until the 1960s, bathrooms were racially segregated in the US. Politicians argued that desegregating bathrooms would lead to a public health emergency because because “venereal diseases were commonplace among blacks, and an integrated ladies’ room would put white women at risk of catching VD from black women”. In the 70s, the Florida Legislative Investigative Committee issued a report warning of the dangers to the “health and well being of our population” due to gay men using public bathrooms, with particular concerns about gay men assaulting young boys in bathrooms. Obviously, neither of those things happened- there was no increase in VD after desegregating women’s bathrooms nor an uptick in child molestation because we allowed gay men to use public restrooms. Do we really have evidence to suggest that trans people pose a credible threat to public health or public safety? Or are the talking points about trans people in bathrooms the same as these previous pro-segregation talking points in that they’re not based in fact?

You can also ask them about the practicalities of their concerns. Assuming we did want to make sure that the only people allowed in women’s bathrooms are people who were assigned female at birth, how do we enforce that? Is there someone who will stand outside every public restroom and check people’s ID cards? Will women have a special key that allows them access to women’s restrooms? It’s not practical to go by “well, I’ll just know,” because lots of trans women “pass” and a lot of AFAB butch women don’t. In fact, AFAB butch lesbians have reported that they’re facing more harassment in public bathrooms than ever before. And ironically, this creates a situation in which trans men can’t use the bathroom that transphobes think they should be using- lest they be accused of being a man in a women’s space. Depending on the person, this may be the time at which you can point out that bathrooms bills aren’t really about protecting women in women’s bathrooms- they’re about creating a situation in which trans and gender nonconforming people are excluded from public life.

Along with the practicality concern, you can ask about practicality on the part of the trans person (or person they think is pretending to be trans in order to game the system). Sticking with the bathroom example, being a rapist who dresses up as a women and assaults people in bathrooms is a terribly impractical plan. They would have to, what, buy women’s clothes, dress up as a woman, wait outside a public restroom, wait for it to be totally empty, then wait for an unsuspecting woman to go in, follow her and sexually assault her while hoping nobody enters the bathroom during the assault or hears from the outside? Purely from a practical perspective, who would bother to do that? I’m sure it’s not zero people, but I don’t think the legality of trans people being in public restrooms is going to meaningfully change the number of sexual assailants that choose that method, right? If they’re going to do that they’re already doing it, legal or not. This type of argument also works for “men entering women’s sports to get an advantage” - practically speaking, would it be worth it to physically and socially transition and face the social repercussions of being trans all to try to get a slightly better chance at a college scholarship or to get a slightly better chance to win a professional sporting competition? Maybe those people are out there somewhere, but to me that seems like a huge, lifetime commitment for a very temporary career, and I just don’t think many people are going to do that. Plus, these kinds of arguments are red herrings- what they’re worried about isn’t actually trans people, but (mostly) cis men pretending to be trans for some sort of perceived advantage. It feels unfair that trans people should have their rights taken away because cis men might try to take advantage of those rights.

Again down the practicality route, you can try the, “what are you actually worried about?” tactic. People who are anti-trans will often claim that they’re not against trans people; they simply have concerns about a specific threat that trans people pose. They’re not against trans people; they’re worried about sexual assault in public bathrooms or they’re worried about fairness in sports or whatever. At this point, you extrapolate what they’re “actually” worried about- “oh, so you’re worried about sexual assault against women, that’s a really big concern for me, too.” Then you hit them with, “so surely you’re this concerned about [bigger problem], right?” This can look something like, “you must be really concerned about the 70% of sexual assaults that are perpetrated by someone the victim knows and the 67% of assaults that happen in the victim’s home or the home of a family member. What do you think we can do to protect women in those circumstances?” If you want to be a bit cheeky, you can say something like, “if you’re worried about sexual assault, you must be really concerned about the fact that 66% of trans people will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime.” Putting their concerns into a larger perspective forces them to either acknowledge that there’s a bigger issue they should be paying attention to or it forces them to admit their problem is just with trans people, regardless of where harm is actually being perpetrated.

In terms of resources, a lot of you will probably know that I really like Natalie Wynn’s YouTube channel, Contrapoints. It provides a lot of thoughtful and nuanced discussions of trans identity and transphobia, as well as discussing the mentality of people who are transphobic and how their minds might be changed.

I’m sure there are other trains of thought you can try and that these may or may not work for everyone, but they are tactics or arguments that I’ve found to be useful in my day to day life. Hopefully they’ll help a bit for your friend, too.

[mckitterick]

a summary for those who don't have time to read the full text:

What Is Project 2025? Inside the Far-Right Plan Threatening Everything from the Word "Gender" to Public Education

by Kyler Alvord for people.com

June 22, 2024

A sweeping proposal for how Donald Trump should handle a second term in office has sparked concern for its implications on the role of federal government and its calls to eliminate a number of basic human rights.

The 2025 Presidential Transition Project, more commonly known as Project 2025, released a 900-page manifesto last year titled "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise."

The policy guidebook — compiled by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation in partnership with more than 100 other conservative organizations — lays out a far-right, Christian nationalist vision for America that would corrode the separation of church and state, replace nonpartisan government employees with Trump loyalists and bolster the president's authority over independent agencies.

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, a rumored candidate for Trump's chief of staff in a second term, promoted his group's extreme positions during a July interview, saying, "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."

Shortly after Roberts' controversial interview, Trump attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, saying on Truth Social that he knows "nothing" about it and has "no idea who is behind it," before adding that he disagrees with some of its propositions.

(full overview under the cut)

While Project 2025 is not formally a part of Trump's campaign platform, it has been led and supported by several influential people in his orbit. The project's top leaders all worked in Trump's White House and a number of the manifesto's contributors also served in the Trump administration, including but not limited to former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson and imprisoned former trade adviser Peter Navarro.

Equally damaging to Trump's claim that he is unfamiliar with Project 2025 is that he worked closely with the Heritage Foundation when he was first elected president. He was provided a similar "Mandate for Leadership" back in 2016, and enacted nearly two-thirds of the group's proposals within his first year in office.

The Heritage Foundation also reportedly played a behind-the-scenes role on Trump's presidential transition team and had a significant hand in staffing the administration.

Olivia Troye, a former adviser to Mike Pence, called Trump's denial of Project 2025 "ludicrous" in a CNN interview. “I think what this is telling us is that Donald Trump knows that what is written in this plan is so extreme that it is damaging to his possibility of getting elected,” she said.

A breakdown of the most noteworthy policy proposals in Project 2025's "Mandate for Leadership" -

Christian nationalism

Project 2025 establishes a framework for guiding the federal government through a biblical lens. Across nearly 1,000 pages, the mandate pushes an unpopular interpretation of the Christian agenda that would target reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ people and people of color by effectively erasing mention of all related terms, protections and troublesome historical accounts.

Though the mandate accuses the "woke" left of infringing on people's religious freedoms, its policies are rooted in a singular, extremist view of how society should function based on its authors' own Christian nationalist values. It repeatedly calls for the punishment, even imprisonment, of people who do not conform to the think tank's platform.

The proposed policies in Project 2025's mandate stem from four stated goals: restoring the family as the centerpiece of American life, dismantling the administrative state, defending the nation's sovereignty and securing God-given individual rights.

Through a holistic approach to restructuring the government, it would seek to give Trump heightened authority to enact his backers' platform in every city and state — often encouraging the president to creatively subvert congressional approval.

Firing disloyal government personnel

One of the most concerning expansions of presidential authority would come if Trump found himself in a position to reinstate an executive order titled Schedule F, which is strongly endorsed by Project 2025. Trump introduced Schedule F at the end of his first term and it was quickly reversed by President Biden.

If Trump wins this time around, he could use Schedule F to transform the U.S. government into a MAGA machine by reclassifying thousands of nonpartisan federal employees into "at-will" workers who can be replaced via political appointment.

Project 2025 suggests that Schedule F be applied to discharge career civil service workers whom Trump deems "nonperforming," or those who get in the way of the administration's attempts at reform.

In practice, Schedule F could easily purge qualified subject experts from advisory positions at the first sign of disobedience and turn federal agencies into ultra-partisan arms of the Heritage Foundation's mission.

Rolling back reproductive rights

Project 2025 encourages Trump to "push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America," by targeting abortion, contraceptives and transforming the Department of Health & Human Services into the "Department of Life."

"Conservatives should gratefully celebrate the greatest pro-family win in a generation: overturning Roe v. Wade, a decision that for five decades made a mockery of our Constitution and facilitated the deaths of tens of millions of unborn children," the document reads. "But the Dobbs decision is just the beginning."

The mandate suggests that Trump should lobby Congress to pass nationwide abortion restrictions and gives him guidance on how he can use his federal agencies to limit abortions in the meantime. It also calls for the FDA to reverse its approval of abortion pills and criminalize their distribution, and directs the CDC to back anti-abortion studies.

In an effort to stop "woke culture warriors," Project 2025 demands that the terms abortion, reproductive health and reproductive rights be deleted from "every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists."

Eliminating LGBTQ+ protections

The Project 2025 mandate — which diminishes LGBTQ+ labels as a "bullying" product of "woke" politics — calls to allow discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc.," by "refocusing" enforcement of sex discrimination laws so that they only apply to the "biological binary" of sex.

The document takes specific aim at the transgender community. Aside from using a variety of dehumanizing terms, the mandate signals an intent to attack trans women in sports, end gender-affirming care for minors, decrease accessibility for gender-reassignment surgeries and reinstate Trump's trans military ban. Trump has already incorporated those views into his 2024 platform.

The following related terms would be blacklisted in legislation and on every federal document: sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, and gender-sensitive.

Banning broadly defined pornography

Project 2025 says that pornography should be outlawed, and that anyone who produces or consumes it should be imprisoned. That restriction, though seemingly unrelated to LGBTQ+ rights, carries larger implications based on how Project 2025 defines pornography.

The authors write that the "omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology" is a modern-day example of pornography, claiming without merit that it has caused children to suffer by invading school libraries. It also says that the "sexualization of children" — a favored Christian nationalist phrase for anything related to gay or trans people — counts as pornography.

The group's broad definition of pornography suggests that the Trump administration could seek to imprison LGBTQ+ people, drag queens, librarians, teachers and allies with little cause. Their proposed Justice Department reforms, described next, would make prosecution of that nature easier.

"[Pornography] has no claim to First Amendment protection," the manifesto reads. "Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime."

It continues: "Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered."

Politicizing the Justice Department and FBI

Project 2025 suggests that Trump take partisan control of the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation to oversee a "top-to-bottom overhaul."

The DOJ is traditionally insulated from the White House, and while attorney general appointees are likely to share a number of the president's views, they are expected to act in the best interest of the U.S. government as a whole. A section of the Project 2025 mandate authored by a former Trump official calls for increased communication between the White House and DOJ, because "litigation decisions must be made consistent with the President's agenda."

Project 2025 says that the FBI is currently ineffective and should be refocused to increase federal law enforcement presence in select areas of the U.S. where the administration believes laws aren't being enforced strictly enough. It advises that the administration sue local government officials who don't prosecute crimes to the administration's liking.

The mandate adds that the Trump administration should immediately review all ongoing federal investigations and terminate the ones that the president doesn't approve of, including those related to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. And it encourages Trump to work with Congress on ending the FBI director's 10-year term limit, so that the president can replace them at will if they refuse to serve the president's agenda.

Trump has already used veiled "retribution" language on the campaign trail that implied he would consider using the Justice Department to retaliate against his political rivals.

New immigration and border control practices

Project 2025 calls for a consolidation of the various border enforcement and immigration agencies, and for Trump to greatly increase their power if elected so that he can accomplish more than he did in his first term.

Under the mandate, the Mexico-U.S. border wall would receive extra funding to get completed, and Trump's administration would be urged to militarize the border.

Temporary protected status would also be stripped from nearly 700,000 individuals, many of whom settled in the U.S. decades ago, putting them at risk of deportation. And Trump would be advised to dismantle the DREAM Act, limit the DACA program, reduce visas of various kinds and try again to get a citizenship question on the national census.

American citizens would not be allowed to get federal housing subsidies if they live with any non-citizen.

Education reform and student loans

Project 2025, which partnered with the far-right "parental rights" group Moms for Liberty, calls for the Department of Education to be eliminated, if Congress allows it, and it also calls for the elimination of every teachers union, which was likely influenced by the group's anti-union partner, the Institute for Education Reform.

It guides the president on actions they can take to dismantle the public education system and privatize education with or without congressional approval.

Currently, federal education funding is provided to states with regulations on how it can be used, to ensure that the funds benefit a variety of vulnerable groups, including students in low-income school districts and children with special needs. It also prevents discriminatory institutions from receiving federal funding.

Project 2025 calls for removing federal oversight from that funding, allowing states to dole the money out as they see fit, including by prioritizing private and religious schools over public schools.

The mandate also suggests shuttering the Office of Federal Student Aid and ending student loan forgiveness, including income-driven repayment plans. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program — which was signed into law by George W. Bush in 2007 to make college more accessible — would also be targeted, affecting teachers, health care workers, law enforcement officers and other government and nonprofit professionals who have counted on having their remaining loans forgiven after 10 years.

Updating school curriculum and axing DEI

Along with encouraging private education, Project 2025 calls for school curriculum to be purged of anything related to "critical race theory" and "gender ideology" in public schools.

From the mandate: "These theories poison our children, who are being taught on the one hand to affirm that the color of their skin fundamentally determines their identity and even their moral status while on the other they are taught to deny the very creatureliness that inheres in being human and consists in accepting the givenness of our nature as men or women."

"States, cities and counties, school boards, union bosses, principals, and teachers who disagree should be immediately cut off from federal funds," the Project 2025 manifesto reads.

It's a similar strategy to what Gov. Ron DeSantis has done in Florida, where references to racial disparities and LGBTQ+ identities have been prohibited, educators must now teach that enslaved people benefitted from slavery, and many Black history lessons have been banned.

Project 2025 also brands diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts — which seek to mitigate discrimination and promote fair treatment of all Americans — as discriminatory and "racist."

The mandate says that in addition to squashing DEI programs around the nation, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division should spent its first year of the Trump administration "using the full force of federal prosecutorial resources to investigate and prosecute all state and local governments, institutions of higher education, corporations, and any other private employers" who engage in DEI efforts.

Federal rules and legislation would also be scrubbed of the term diversity, equity and inclusion.

Rejecting climate change

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts writes in the manifesto's foreword that environmental protections are "anti-human" and part of a "pseudo-religion" that puts the "god of nature" above human activity.

Project 2025 translated that argument into policy by suggesting that the Environmental Protection Agency be shrunk and that three offices in the Department of Energy be closed to stop investing in clean and renewable energy. Instead, the mandate suggests, the U.S. should "stop the war on oil and natural gas" by resuming oil drilling in the Arctic, expanding existing drilling projects and expanding coal mining to the western U.S.

The Trump administration would be encouraged to cut off funding of any "woke" climate change prevention efforts, pulling back from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

-

so, yeah, it's as bad as people are saying. no matter how you feel about the national Democratic candidates, we need an overwhelming Blue Wave and to fire all republicans, or else we're looking at The Handmaid's Tale as our future

However bad you thought this was... it's worse.

(And this is why the Republican candidate has suddenly started trying to distance himself from it, because word's starting to get around... and his fans are starting to realize that this leopard is going to be ENTIRELY happy to eat their faces too.)

Spread this around and help keep it from happening.

[qnewsau]

Is Melbourne really the VERS capital of Australia?

New Post has been published on https://qnews.com.au/is-melbourne-really-the-vers-capital-of-australia/

Is Melbourne really the VERS capital of Australia?

With dating apps unwrapping their stats for the year’s end, how honest are we online compared to the bedroom about being Vers?

It’s always fun to look at the end-of-year data breaking down of our favourite songs or online habits.

And it’s even more interesting when you look at our habits on dating apps and see where your country rates.

Grindr Unwrapped said Australia had the fourth-highest percentage of fem tops around the world in 2024.

Plus the second-highest percentage of Daddies and the fifth-highest percentage of Sides.

But it was through Squirt’s end-of-year data that Australia represented well in the breakdown of sluttiest cities.

Sydney rated fourth full of Tops worldwide behind Manchester, Calgary and Dallas.

Brisbane rated fourth of the Bottoms behind Los Angeles, London and Toronto.

And Melbourne rated third behind New York and Vancouver when it comes to being Vers.

But how accurate is the data?

As we barrel towards the end of the year I decided some investigative journalism was in order.

Is Melbourne the Vers capital of Australia?

How reliable is the data?

Since we are talking about statistics and data, I started speaking to experts in the field.

Every year during Midsumma volunteers at Thorne Harbour Health ask people to fill in the Melbourne GBQ+ Community Periodic Survey.

Which takes a snapshot of the sexual practices among men who have sex with other men.

The survey deals with data about the transmission of sexually transmitted infections including HIV.

However, a spokesperson said this specific data sample doesn’t exist purely from a sexual behaviour/position preference point of view.

“Data collected through surveys like ours typically investigate sexual positioning within the context of HIV risk,” they told me,

“Thus, the stats might only consider acts of casual condomless sex while excluding any condom-based sex or sex with regular partners.”

There’s much more important information where that survey is concerned, so I was barking up the wrong tree.

But does the data lie?

Reaching out to someone who works in statistics was my next port of call.

Athena was more than happy to lend their thoughts.

“As we move through time, the population is getting more gender diverse,”

“That’s not a direct result, but I think there is a link that we are becoming more versatile as well,” they said,

“As we break down gender roles, we are going to break down sexual gender roles as well,”

“And as much as we all don’t want to admit it, topping is still seen as very masculine, bottoming is still seen as very feminine.”

But does that lend some explanation to the rise in people acknowledging sexual versatility?

Are we breaking down gender and sexual tokenism thus freeing up our sexual fluidity?

Photo by Dean Arcuri

Maybe ask the experts…

My 2024 sex life hardly created helpful quantitative data, so I asked those who work in the field.

After all, content creators and sex workers have first-hand practical knowledge.

They directed me towards Saturday Sessions, an invite-only drug-free orgy and social event.

Held on the last Saturday of the month, it facilitates a space for queers, gay, bisexual men and trans masc people to connect.

As part of the event, people wear wristbands denoting their position.

Organisers Vers Al and Down Under Bri were happy to share their experiences.

“Before the pandemic, it was a pretty equal spread, getting a third of Tops, Bottoms and Vers guys.” Vers Al said,

“People used to always ask how we did it, and I’d always say it’s the bit we don’t curate.

“Most of our guests are referred by friends or people on the guest list.

“You go to our website, create a profile and get invitations to future sessions.

“By curating their profiles and sharing where they’ve come from that has allowed us to build a community.” Vers Al said,

“Curating a space where people can be themselves, to feel safe, relaxed and social.

“A few days before the event we have a look around stats of tops versus bottoms, and post-pandemic they’ve changed.

“We’ve noticed that at least 50% of the guest list will be Vers,

“With slightly under a quarter denoting Bottoms and slightly under a quarter saying Tops.

“The remainder might be a Side, which is also a new addition to our profile selection.”

Image: satsesh.org

Tops, Bottoms, Vers and Sides oh my!

A Side is someone who doesn’t participate in anal or includes people who are just there as a voyeur.

At Sat Sesh they don’t distinguish between Vers Tops or Vers Bottoms in their statistics.

You have four options you can choose from on the night when you arrive.

“When you show up we’ll ask you in our welcome what you feel like identifying as.”

“We don’t hold people to what is written on their profile.” Vers Al said,

“If a person says their vers, but wants to start as a top and see how they go, we give them a top wristband.

“So when you’re navigating the sex space, at a glance at someone’s wrist you know what they are up for before you’ve said a word.”

“But the problem with unquantifiable data is the stigma of bottoms and tops.” Down Under Bri added,

“There is the reason why a lot of people are saying they are Vers for Sat Sesh,

“Because they fear saying they’re a bottom will make them less likely to be accepted.

“While others just enjoy having the ability to decide as they go.

“There are people who put themselves down as a Top, but suddenly they’re Bottom, I call them Trick Tops.” he laughed,

“They’ve come along and are secretly Vers, but are unsure about the vibe so they start as a Top.

“It’s a compliment to us as hosts when the Tops come to us and ask to swap their wristbands.”

  View this post on Instagram

  A post shared by Saturday Sessions (@satsesh.party)

So what’s the verdict?

The anti-viral medication PrEP, which lowers the risk of HIV infection has also played a role in the rise of Vers.

“Medical protection has also helped people to own their Vers side and say they want to bottom.” Vers Al said,

“But some people still have a stigma towards those who are femme presenting, but I think the lines are starting to blur.”

And with that blurring comes more freedom for people to own their preferred sexual roles.

And with communication comes a healthier and more welcoming way for people to connect sexually.

I know everyone has their own opinions based on their sexual activity throughout the year.

But there’s no denying that people identifying as Vers is continuing to climb, as it should.

Part of growing up gay, queer, bisexual and so on is dealing with the celebration, stress and stigma many have when it comes to sex.

But through online spaces, medical advancements and continued communication we can open up to what we prefer, and be honest about it.

Because being able to be honest about what you like in the bedroom (or other places) should be a welcoming thing.

And bring as much joy as the act itself.

So if you’ve been secretly wanting to own your Vers side, maybe 2025 will be your year!

For the latest LGBTIQA+ Sister Girl and Brother Boy news, entertainment, community stories in Australia, visit qnews.com.au. Check out our latest magazines or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

[coochiequeens]

Primary school children are encouraged to believe that they can change sex. Secondary schools cheerfully enable vulnerable adolescents to be targeted by the zealous supporters of a disputed ideology. And our national health service promotes potentially dangerous medical procedures to teenage girls under the cover of ‘kindness’. "

By Susan Dalgety 7th Sep 2024,

This article contains affiliate links. We may earn a small commission on items purchased through this article, but that does not affect our editorial judgement.

Primary school children are being encouraged to believe that they can change sex, while the Scottish Government is encouraging the donation of eggs, a potentially dangerous medical procedure, for IVF and surrogacy

Standing in a queue for a kids’ show about science recently, my 12-year-old grandson announced, with his tongue firmly in his cheek, that he could have a baby if he wished. “Nonsense,” I said firmly. “Only females can do that.” His cousin, days from entering her final year at primary school, looked up from her bag of sweets and said firmly, “No, granny you’re wrong, if he was trans he could have a baby.”

Before I could explain the facts of life, the venue doors opened and we spent the next hour learning how smoke bombs work and other scientific truths. But my granddaughter’s assertion that boys can give birth, if they so choose, has bothered me ever since. Where did she pick up such a ridiculous notion?

Two days ago, I found out. I was sent photographs from a concerned parent at a large state primary school in Edinburgh which show how deeply gender identity theory – which argues that humans can change sex – is embedded in our schools. A gallery of photographs, entitled ‘Inclusive and Positive’, showed the teaching team with their pronouns proudly on display.

On another wall was a trio of ‘inspirational’ quotes. One from Elliot Page, the Hollywood actor who four years ago had a double mastectomy and declared she was a he. Another from Chaz Bono, whose mother is Cher, the world-famous singer. Like Page, Bono underwent medical procedures to change their female body so they could declare they were male. And a third anodyne, inoffensive quote from Cassandra Duffy, a writer who explores sexual themes in her work. A blurb for her book of short stories promises tales of “voyeurism, mind-control, domination/submission… a taste for every palette and kink”. Hardly Enid Blyton, yet it seems Duffy is considered a suitable role model for primary school children.

‘Manipulative’

Ask any parent, and most will have a tale to tell of how their child’s school normalises the theory that humans can change their sex under the guise of being inclusive. Some schools even encourage children to socially transition – ie, change their name and pronouns – without informing their parents. And the charity, LGBT Youth Scotland (LGBTYS), which promotes trans ideology with substantial funding from the Scottish government, has a presence in more than half of Scotland’s secondary schools and dozens of primary schools.

Its annual report states proudly that it “monitors” how teachers and school staff create “inclusive environments”. Respected educational psychologist Carolyn Brown warned only last week that LGBTYS guides, available to schools across the country, are “manipulative”. She said: “These guides are unbalanced, unequivocal and clearly not written by any expert. They simply should not be accessible to our schoolchildren.”

Male hormones on prescription

The charity’s influence in our schools has mushroomed over the last decade. At the same time, testosterone prescriptions for young women in their 20s have jumped almost 50 times, from 47 in 2013 to 2,194 in 2023. During the same decade, there has been a ten-fold increase in the number of girls under the age of 19 receiving hormone treatment, from 47 to 484.

Little wonder that a group of GPs wrote to MSPs earlier this week expressing their concern about the lack of safeguarding for young people who are currently prescribed cross-sex hormones. Dr Anne Williams, one of the letter’s signatories, was blunt in her criticism. She said: “We are experimenting with our young people, which is dangerous…”

Egg donation campaign

The Scottish Government is not only an enthusiastic enabler of gender identity theory being promoted in our schools. It is the first national government in the world to run an advertising campaign to encourage women, as young as 18, to donate their eggs for use in IVF and surrogacy.

Egg retrieval is nowhere near as straightforward as sperm donation, since it involves an intrusive medical procedure which can cause ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), a potentially fatal side-effect where a woman’s ovaries swell to ten times their normal size and trigger life-threatening blood clots.

At least one woman in the UK has died from OHSS and singer Kesha almost died during egg retrieval last year. A recent freedom of information request by campaign group Surrogacy Concern revealed that the Scottish Government has not commissioned any reserach into the health risks of egg donation on young women.

As Julie McGee, founder of Scottish Women’s Coalition on Surrogacy, told a meeting in Glasgow last weekend, young women’s bodies are not “public resources to be mined for the benefit of older, wealthier couples”. Yet that is exactly what the Scottish Government advertising campaign suggests when it tells young women that their egg donation has “the power to give the gift of becoming parents”.

Slavish adherence to ‘inclusion’

The Scottish Government should come with a health warning: “Harmful to our young people.” Primary school children are encouraged to believe that they can change sex. Secondary schools cheerfully enable vulnerable adolescents to be targeted by the zealous supporters of a disputed ideology. And our national health service promotes potentially dangerous medical procedures to teenage girls under the cover of ‘kindness’.

In recent years, the guiding principle of the Scottish Government has been inclusion. “It encapsulates what we stand for as a party,” Nicola Sturgeon told an SNP conference in 2016. Neither Humza Yousaf nor John Swinney have demurred since. What Sturgeon didn’t say was that a slavish adherence to ‘inclusion’ comes at a cost. And it is our children and young people who are paying the price.

[thaoworra]

Laomerica 50 Now Open!

In the Lao language, democracy is ປະຊາທິປະໄຕ “Pa-xa Ti-pa-tai”. The idea of diaspora, or Lao living outside of Laos is often considered as ລາວນອກ “Lao Nawk” two ideas that are relatively new to the Lao people.

2023-2025 marks the 50th anniversary since the end of the US Secret War in Laos and the transition from the Royal Lao Government to the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and the start of a journey for many with roots in Laos around the world, including the US.

How have these communities transitioned from monarchy to democracy? This is a question we are exploring in Minneapolis at the Minneapolis Central Library in downtown with an exhibit of over 80 items reflecting over 100 years of history in Southeast Asia, the US and across the globe. This exhibit runs until September 27th on the 2nd floor in the Cargill Gallery, at 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401 on most days starting at 9AM until 8PM (M-T) and 5PM (F-Su).  This exhibit is free to the public and is suitable for families of all ages. You can see some of the images from the opening week here.

Minnesota has the third largest Laotian refugee population in the United States, which includes over 13,000 ethnic Lao, Khmu, Tai Dam, Iu Mien and others, and over 60,000 Hmong per Census 2020 and the American Community Survey. Our history with Minnesota in many ways began with Vice-President Hubert Humphrey’s historic visit to Laos in 1966, and our global stories are still intertwined with Minnesota’s history in many unexpected ways. For example, the United States dropped more bombs on Laos than on any other country in the 20th century, and 80 percent of all bombing casualties in Laos were civilians. The war is estimated to have killed 10 percent of the population. Over 30% of Laos remains contaminated with cluster bombs, many initially manufactured in Minnesota. Many fled to the United States because of their role in assisting the US during the Vietnam War, but few Americans know the full story.

As a community, fewer than 14% successfully graduate college and fewer than 1% go on to a Masters degree or higher. Many live in low-income multigenerational households with limited English, with an estimated 30% below the Federal poverty line.

Over the decades the community grappled with culture shock, anti-Asian racism, gang issues, early teen pregnancy, untreated PTSD and depression, substance abuse and gambling addictions, extreme domestic violence concerns, police brutality, challenges and gender equity issues. These issues were particularly challenging during the pandemic.

At the same time, Minnesota has served as the home to internationally recognized writers, artists, educators, entrepreneurs and community builders who’ve represented Laos and Minnesota at the Olympics, the Smithsonian, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Library of Congress and many other institutions.

While Laos has often been described as a quiet peaceful Eden, much of its history is marked by turmoil and invasion, occupation and upheaval. Lao arts often searched for the best of their traditions, celebrating harmony and nature, the search for truth, wisdom and compassion, and the rejection of violence. More easily said than done at times. Over the last 5 years we gathered archival photographs, visual art, short films, textiles, ephemera, rare books, and cultural objects that reflect the inner and outer lives of our community, not only focusing on our memories, traditions and customs, but our dreams and visions for our community in both Minnesota and across the globe.

We hope you'll join us and tell others about this ground-breaking exhibit, one of the first of its kind in the Minnesota library system. "Laomerica 50: Democracy and Diaspora" coincides with Lao American Artist Heritage Month in August.

Related events include:

Wednesday, August 7, 6-8 p.m. – Artist Reception at Minneapolis Central Library Doty Board Room

Saturday, August 10, Noon-3 p.m. – Artists in Focus: A community conversation and reflection with Lao artists Bay Koulabdara, Tou Her, and Bryan Thao Worra at Minneapolis Central Library Pohlad Hall

Saturday, September 14, 1-3 p.m. – Nakavi Lao Poet Convention at Minneapolis Central Library Pohlad Hall

Sunday, September 15, 1-4p.m. – Laomerica Film Festival at Minneapolis Central Library Pohlad Hall

1-2 p.m. Lao American Short Films

2-4 p.m. Origin Story: The Documentary

Friday, September 27, 3-5 p.m. – Closing Reception at Minneapolis Central Library Doty Board Room

Several of these programs are made possible through money from Minnesota’s Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund. These were made possible by the voters of Minnesota thanks to a legislative appropriation from the arts and cultural heritage fund.

[originalleftist]

I think this is where you end up when you start falling into single issue politics, or take a position and just run with it to its most extreme conclusion without any regard for any other issues.

Concern about continuing the long history of Western European colonizers imposing their cultures and values on the rest of the world? Yeah, that's a really valid concern.

But then people take it and run with it to the point of "Anything done by the government of a non-Western/not predominantly white nation is above reproach/inherently superior, and criticizing them is racist." And the problem is that to maintain that position, you have to effectively disregard any other rights, any other forms of marginalization or oppression, such as that which the Taliban inflicts on... basically everyone who's not a male heterosexual member of the Taliban's very specific subset of Islam. You find yourself in a position where you have to choose between being anti-racist and being feminist, for example (the fascist Right loves this shit, they love trying to pit the interests of one marginalized group against another and then make progressives choose, because either way we end up divided, and can be branded as hypocrites- see "gender critical (ie, transphobic) feminism", for example).

Also, one could probably argue that the very existence of the Taliban is itself a product of Western imperialism. The Taliban are not the traditional culture of Afghanistan. I am admittedly no kind of expert on Afghan history or culture, but I do know that the Taliban were at least in part an outgrowth of the Mujahideen, who were backed by Western governments to oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the Cold War.

One might even argue that the assumption by many Western Leftists that the Taliban represent what the Afghan people collectively want/should be is ultimately based on a deeply racist assumption that Afghans/Muslims/Middle Easterners are all naturally "backwards savages"- of course they don't give their women any rights, but that's okay because that's just how they are, unlike us enlightened Westerners!

And, this isn't me arguing for any kind of external intervention in Afghanistan- we can argue forever about what we could have been done differently to get a better outcome, and I do reject the idea that the current outcome was always inevitable, but we failed to unfuck that situation twice over multiple decades, in fact both times we ultimately left it worse than when we went in after we finally got tired and decided to walk away, leaving the Afghans who couldn't with the ruins of their country. And I'm not convinced that enough has changed for a third try to go any better, even if there was political will to do it (there isn't).

But we can acknowledge that the current government of Afghanistan (which we in the West played no small role in making) is completely horrific.