#we never agreed to arbitration!

[apleasurableillusion]

This lawyer sent me back a “revised” version of an agreement I wrote and she completely rewrote it in ways that make no sense? And somehow turned it from a modern docx to a windows 98 doc?????

And I wouldn’t really care if she just said, hey this agreement doesn’t work for me because X, Y and Z but instead to just say she’s “amended it per the client’s wishes” when the client’s wishes are below in the email chain and don’t say anything like what you’re saying? Just tell me you’ve changed things and why

Honestly why the fuck did I waste my time writing an agreement if you were just going to use your own precedent. Insane behaviour on a non-contentious file

[aux-squiggle]

Daughter or Abortion #1

Conclusions at the bottom

The other week I made a tiktok post about how I will get an abortion if my fetus is male because I will only birth daughters and I found it hilarious how much it pissed off supposed "pro choicers."

And it's made me realize a lot of mainstream pro-choicers reasons for being pro choice isn't because they truly agree with the meat of pro-choicism, but rather because they approve of abortion in more cases than what we consider prolife.

They approve of abortion in cases of rape, poverty, medical necessity, lack of parental skill, career aspirations, unpreparedness etc. But that's not why pro-choicism exists. Pro choice is not about having a good reason to abort, or extending abortion to enough reasons, but because of arbitration.

Whether a woman will carry a fetus to term or not is a complete arbitration. She could decide to flip a coin on whether or not she'll have the baby and that's completely morally neutral. If that makes you uncomfortable, get over it.

Mainstream pro-choicers can justify the above "good reasons to abort" via an array of arguments including the argument that fetuses are not people (which is true). But in their complaint against me saying I will abort a male fetus when I am trying for children (via a separatist method btw I couldn't be caught dead fucking a man), they expose that they have not taken the "fetuses are not people" thought process to its logical end.

Fetuses pre-24 weeks are no better than an organ. They are just rapidly growing cells, that will mostl likely become a baby but is not yet a baby. But until it actually becomes a baby, it is just as "unbaby" as every other organ in your body.

Post 24 weeks fetuses have the brain structures necessary for consciousness (though when this consciousness actually "turns on" for the first time is debated. Let's say it's 24 weeks for the sake of the conversation even though it may be 28 weeks or even later).

Maybe you consider consciousness the start of personhood or maybe you consider being born the start of personhood (I personally consider first consciousness the start of personhood, however fetuses beyond 24 weeks still are at arbitration because the mother has the right to remove it at any time, same way if your body was hooked up to keep someone else alive, you can unhook it anytime).

Therefore I consider first consciousness the time a fetus becomes a baby, and babies are people. Fetuses are not babies, and are also not people.

Discrimination* is only a thing that happens to people.

*In the social sense of treating a group differently and/or unfairly because of their traits. Not the literal meaning of discriminate which is essentially akin to sorting or approaching things differently.

What does this mean? Fetuses cannot be discriminated against.

Abortion typically happens before 24 weeks (and any abortion I have will be pre-24w). Therefore no person is suffering or being treated differently if I abort it for being male, because fetuses aren't people.

Of course people immediately snap "oh what if someone aborts daughters huh?" First of all, a pre-24w abortion is incapable of harming the female fetus because it's not a person. That "potential daughter" did not experience the (presumed) misogyny behind the decision because it can't experience anything. It's not conscious, it was never conscious, and it's a not a person.

If the woman aborted the female fetus because of misogynistic messaging she's received in society, that's still her choice, and I still support her choice to do anything regarding her own pregnancy. The only victim in the situation is her from the misogyny she already experienced in life. An aborted female fetus is the consequence of misogyny and not a method of misogyny in and of itself. Her womb is not real estate for social justice and equality.

Let me say that again. Her womb is not real estate for social justice and equality.

If carrying a female fetus to term would upset her, because misogyny has told her it's better to have sons, then it doesn't matter if she ends up becoming the next Andrea Dworkin ultra feminist 20 years down the line, because the stress and anxiety she experienced from having a pregnancy she didn't want (even if I don't agree with the reason why she didn't want it) will become birth trauma which is one of the deepest forms of trauma someone can have.

It would be better for her to have aborted and be happy than give birth and be sad, even if I think the reason for the happiness and sadness is ridiculous or misogynistic.

Complete arbitration is necessary to be pro choice. If you don't like complete arbitration, then you're not pro choice, you're pro-abortion-for-more-situations-than-typical-pro-lifers. The two are not the same.

Additionally, had the daughter been born to a mom who doesn't want her, she'd be traumatized so it's better to never have known that suffering in the first place.

Inversely, if you are pro-choice it doesn't matter whether you agree or not with me not wanting sons. I don't want a walking liability, I don't want a ticking time bomb who I could feed feminism from the moment he says his first word yet can grow up into a sneako rat or the next Andrew prostate. The most laterally misogynistic daughter is not enabled to do as much harm as a mildly misogynistic son.

We've got to remember that the patriarchy doesn't give a fuck about women's opinions and feelings. The patriarchy only exists to serve men. Women tend to become internally misogynistic and/or laterally misogynistic to ease the cognitive dissonance that occurs from being a human woman, in a system that treats women as subhuman. But the patriarchy does not actually care if you internally agree or not, it just wants to control you. Internalized & lateral misogyny make you easier to control. But you could be a complete anti-patriarchal ultra radical feminist, but as long as you're as easy to control as a believing tradwife, patriarchy doesn't care. Men don't care.

Because the patriarchy doesn't give enough of a shit about you to truly care about your deepest opinions and just wants to control you, no woman in a patriarchal sphere of influence will be elevated to the level of authority and control as a man. Because of the fact she could use her authority to spread anti-patriarchal dissent by hiding her deepest opinions to get that authority in the first place.

This is especially concerning when it comes to intimate relationships and what men can get away with.

An ultra far right laterally misogynistic tradwife daughter posts bs propaganda on the internet and ruins her own life. A casually misogynistic man (on the right or the left) rapes women. Or beats women and calls it kink, or buys sex (another form of rape) and calls it female empowerment. The misogynistic daughter is an embarrassment, the misogynistic son is a targeted nuclear warhead heading for women that I helped fashion. Absolutely not, under no circumstances will I create such a risk to the female class.

A poor person who supports capitalism will never be as bad as an actual capitalist who benefits from labour they did not do, and often makes the material conditions for the proletariat unfair or abusive.

It's funny though because you need a LOT of abuse, social conditioning and often straight up programming to turn a daughter into such a class traitor, which my future daughter(s) will seldom have due to the fact they will grow up without a patriarch and without brothers.

Single sex schools are still fairly common in Ireland too so they'll most likely be going to those (and most of said single sex schools ban makeup for students too, and are uniformed, so way less expensive trends and self consciousness about the face). And Ireland, while not some beam of patriarchy-less sunshine, is one of the best for gender equality and as a woman living here I can attest it is much better Nigeria which I'm originally from. And honestly from what I see my American friends going through it seems to be a lot better than large swathed of the USA.

My future daughter(s) with all that, on top of a radfem GNC separatist mom, will be hard pressed to turn into a misogynistic tradwife, whereas a son only needs an internet connection to become a danger to humanity.

But ultimately it doesn't matter if you dislike my reasons for aborting male fetuses if I have one, because my womb is not real estate for social justice and equality.

Additionally it is majorly disrespectful to me but also any mom/future mom to say "don't have children if you're going to hate your child for their sex." Lol what? Obviously if a stork flew down with my magic male full-term or near-full term baby, that is my child and I will obviously love him and raise him as best as I can to be a feminist ally. A pre-24w fetus is not my child because it's not a person. Even after that, until it's born, it's up to a woman's interpretation when a fetus becomes a baby, and further when the baby becomes HER baby.

Overall wider culture but even people on the left, even so-called pro-choicers, seem to take issue with sacrifice minimization. It makes them uncomfortable that a woman will exercise her liberties to bring about the best and happiest outcomes for her child(ren) with the minimal amount of input.

Like described above, bringing about a son who truly respects women and isn't a misogynist at all, is magnitudes much harder than bringing a daughter who has female class consciousness. Why would I out myself through the stress for a son for the high likelihood of failing, when I could live a much more relaxed life with a daughter who is not only class conscious but happy, with way less stress?

I also find people invoke this kind of shame when they try to guilt women into having more than one baby. "Give your kid a sibling, they'll be lonely otherwise!" meanwhile having a sibling can also be lonely and it can cause actual trauma if the siblings don't get along. A lot of one-and-done moms talk about how much easier and more fun life is compared to their friends with 2+ kids. Not saying it's common for pro-choicers to shame women into having more kids, just saying there is a similarity between their distaste for sacrifice minimization.

The sacrifice minimization concept is also allegorical to the conversation about the ethics of aborting disabled fetuses.

Many people abort fetuses for congenital/antenatal disabilities because they view disabled people as lesser, people who don't belong in their family, invalid, they straight up hate disabled people which is extremely ableist. Which makes having kids contraindicated entirely, as any kid can become disabled or have an indetectable disability.

Issue is, the abortion of disabled fetuses is the culmination of extreme ableism, not an act of ableism in and of itself. Because fetuses aren't people, therefore no person was victimized or discriminated against when aborting.

And like I said before, no one's womb is real estate for social justice and equality. It's no one's place to judge what is or isn't evicted from someone's uterus (or who, if the pregnancy is post-24w).

Additionally, not everyone aborts disabled babies because they hate disabled people. To preface, of course disabled people as a whole are very very much not a privileged group. However within the demographic that is disabled people, most of us activists are privileged in comparison. Frankly any one of us who is able to access the internet is very privileged in comparison to some disabled people's difficulties, and this is the stuff that rarely gets posted.

I used to work as a healthcare assistant (for a short time before I had to quit due to my own disabilities) and without exposing anyone's private life, I can comfortably say that as a childhood torture survivor & ritual abuse survivor, still dealing with the physical injuries of torture, there are antenatal disabilities that cause such pain and suffering (to the disabled person) that makes my worst experiences as painful as bumping into a wall in comparison. And such disabilities are not as rare as we'd like them to be.

When it comes to the topic of sacrifice minimization, it's not about whether or not people think such people "deserve" to live or not or if aborting them "saves them from misery," let's put that aside. It is utterly ridiculous to tell a hopeful mom that she SHOULD go through the level of grief, stress, depression, and anxiety to a) go through the more dangerous pregnancy as these in-utero disabilities tend to come with higher risks and b) actively know her entire life will be changed to care for a child with such a high level of need, and then purposefully go through with that, and have that weight and guilt on her shoulders.

Mothers already deal with guilt when it comes to health issues completely unrelated to them, like freak accidents they weren't even present for or had any control over. That (misplaced) guilt is magnified an indescribable amount of times when she has a test showing fetal abnormality and she chooses to keep. That choice to keep, if it occurs, should not be egged on by detached so called pro-choice telling her aborting over this is somehow creating cruelty and hate. It's nobody's business to be swaying her either way.

On top of that, while one should prepare for one's child to be disabled, those possible disabilities often stack onto whatever congenital disability is under scrutiny in the first place. It's not like you get a set of illnesses and that's it, disability parking slots booked out for the future. Many disabled people are at higher risks for other disabilities too. Using one's given medical information to abort disabled fetuses also means only birthing babies with a relatively decreased risk of further disability as well, which means higher potential quality of life (depending on the disability, QoL varies a LOT, and some measurements of QoL are ableist in and of themselves and assume disabled ways of living are inherently worse. I mean QoL in the abstract here).

Babies without many certain antenatal disabilities have not only a far higher chance of survival, but also the mom has a lot more available resources to secure that child's wellbeing, safety and happiness, and are in a better position to address disabilities that appear later while the adults are still caring for the child (or even at birth conditions such as CP). Aborting disabled fetuses is often a form of sacrifice minimization (and probably the most common form of said minimization amongst selective abortions), not always from ableism (although I agree it often is both or just ableism). And mainstream pro-choice left clearly takes issue with sacrifice minimization to some degree.

—

Conclusion: 1) Fetuses (at the very least pre-24 week fetuses) are not people. Fetuses cannot suffer from being aborted. Fetuses that would grow to belong to certain demographics don't experience discrimination for being aborted because they're not people.

2) Abortions based on the future demographic of a fetus is not an act of discrimination in and of itself but is often a culmination of pre-existing discrimination.

3) People's uteruses are not the places for social justice or moralisms. There's no "wrong" thing to do with the contents of one's womb.

4) It is perfectly fine for women to use abortion to minimize their sacrifices in raising children, while still working for the best possible outcomes for the children they do decide to birth.

5) Some people who call themselves pro-choice don't understand point 1 or point 3 and need to work on that stat.

6) If you don't agree with the underlying principles of pro-choice, you're not pro-choice, you're just abortion-permissive to more situations than pro-lifers.

Note: Edited some sentences for clarity. Message of the post is the same

[gmggmgracielasblog]

DO NOT ARGUE WITH DONKEYS

The donkey said to the tiger:

- “The grass is blue.”

The tiger replied:

- “No, the grass is green.”

The argument became heated, and the two decided to submit it to arbitration, and for this they went to the lion, the King of the Jungle. Before reaching the clearing in the forest, where the lion was sitting on his throne, the donkey began to shout:

Your Highness, is it true that the grass is blue?”.

The lion replied:

“It is true, the grass is blue.”

The donkey hurried on and continued:

“The tiger does not agree with me and contradicts me and bothers me, please punish him.”

Then the king declared: “The tiger will be punished with 5 years of silence.”

The donkey hopped happily and continued on his way, happy and repeating: “The grass is blue”...

The tiger accepted his punishment, but first he asked the lion:

“Your Majesty, why have you punished me? After all, the grass is green.” The lion replied: “Indeed, the grass is green.”

The tiger asked: “Then why are you punishing me?” The lion replied: “That has nothing to do with the question of whether the grass is blue or green. The punishment is because it is not possible for a brave and intelligent creature like you to waste time arguing with a donkey, and then come to bother me with that question. The worst waste of time is to argue with the fool and the fanatic who does not care about the truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions. Never waste time on arguments that make no sense... There are people who, no matter how much evidence we present to them, are not able to understand, and others are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment, and all they want is to be right even if they are not.

When ignorance screams, intelligence is silent. Your peace and tranquility are worth more. OR NOT?

لا تجادل مع الحمير

قال الحمار للنمر:

- "العشب أزرق."

أجاب النمر:

- "لا، العشب أخضر."

واحتدم الجدال، وقرر الاثنان عرضه للتحكيم، ولهذا ذهبا إلى الأسد ملك الغابة. وقبل أن يصل إلى الفسحة في الغابة، حيث كان الأسد يجلس على عرشه، بدأ الحمار بالصراخ:

صاحب السمو، هل صحيح أن العشب أزرق؟ "

أجاب الأسد:

"هذا صحيح، العشب أزرق."

أسرع الحمار وتابع:

“النمر لا يتفق معي ويخالفني ويضايقني، أرجو معاقبته”.

ثم أعلن الملك: "سيعاقب النمر بالصمت لمدة 5 سنوات".

وقفز الحمار سعيدا واستمر في طريقه سعيدا وهو يردد: "العشب أزرق"...

قبل النمر عقوبته، لكنه سأل الأسد أولاً:

"يا صاحب الجلالة، لماذا عاقبتني؟ ففي نهاية المطاف، العشب أخضر." فأجاب الأسد: «في الواقع، العشب أخضر».

سأل النمر: لماذا تعاقبني إذن؟ أجاب الأسد: لا علاقة لذلك بمسألة هل العشب أزرق أم أخضر. العقوبة لأنه لا يمكن لمخلوق شجاع وذكي مثلك أن يضيع وقته في الجدال مع حمار، ثم يأتي ليزعجني بهذا السؤال. إن أسوأ مضيعة للوقت هو الجدال مع الأحمق والمتعصب الذي لا يهمه الحقيقة ولا الواقع، بل انتصار معتقداته وأوهامه. لا تضيعوا الوقت أبداً في حجج لا معنى لها... هناك أشخاص مهما قدمت لهم الأدلة لا يستطيعون الفهم، وآخرون يعميهم الغرور والكراهية والضغينة، وكل ما يريدونه هو أن يكون على حق حتى لو لم يكونوا كذلك.

عندما يصرخ الجهل، يصمت الذكاء. السلام والهدوء الخاص بك يستحق أكثر. أم لا؟

[talkfastwalkfaster]

Moonglade ~ AOTC!Anakin Skywalker

˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊˚ˑ༄ؘ˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊˚ˑ༄ؘ˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊˚ˑ༄ؘ˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊˚ˑ༄ؘ˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊˚ˑ༄ؘ˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊˚ˑ༄ؘ˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊

A/N: this took me way too long to write & i'm not completely happy with how the beginning turned out but. also, this quickly became a purely self-indulgent fic, especially during the end portion. but i hope u guys enjoy this as much as i ended up doing ♡ WC: 2,035 Warnings: fluff, making out

˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊˚ˑ༄ؘ˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊˚ˑ༄ؘ˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊˚ˑ༄ؘ˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊˚ˑ༄ؘ˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊˚ˑ༄ؘ˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊˚ˑ༄ؘ˚ ༘♡ ·˚ ₊

You glanced around the temple halls — despite knowing that the chances of you two getting caught after hours were slim, you still wanted to be careful. “Are you sure we should be doing this out in the open? Anyone could walk past and see us, Ani,” you whispered, wondering why you agreed to meet him behind a column instead of in one of your quarters.

Anakin chuckled softly before leaning in and kissing you. “You worry too much, angel. What’s the point of sneaking out if there’s no excitement to it? We’re not even truly doing anything. Besides, I missed you.”

Your heart fluttered at the sentiment. Since the war started, you hadn’t seen much of each other lately — with Anakin co-commanding the 212th with his master and you the 104th with yours. You supposed that he was right. The two of you had done worse when sneaking out — from taking a speeder and exploring Coruscant to hiding on top of the temple, this seemed insignificant compared to them.

You smiled and unconsciously leaned closer to him, wanting nothing more than to be intertwined with him so you would never have to be apart again. “I missed you too. I’m sorry for missing your comm yesterday. Master Koon was very insistent on having no distractions during training.”

Anakin had returned from a mission yesterday and craved to see you again after being apart for the better of two weeks. Despite having possessed this longing, he waved off your apology, knowing that he only commed to inform you that he was back, nothing too important. “It’s alright, I understand. We all get busy.”

You shook your head, feeling guilty that you weren’t able to welcome him back as soon as you would have liked. “Still, I should’ve at least sent a message, even if it was a small one.”

Anakin gave a soft shrug, his blue eyes glanced over to you before looking up at the murals — he didn't really mind that you hadn't messaged him, though he found it sweet that you felt bad about not being able to do so. He let out a soft laugh as his eyes wandered back to you. “You really gotta cut yourself some slack, angel. You're always getting stressed over the little stuff," He said softly, his hands slipping from his robe’s pockets to rest on his hips.

While it may not seem like a major thing to anyone else, it was important to you. You took your relationships very seriously, always ensuring that you were not purposely ignoring someone and always attempting to ensure everything went smoothly. You supposed that was why you were a Consular —  you consistently made sure that issues were arbitrated and were more than ready to be the mediator if needed. 

You scrunched your nose, not liking how dismissive he was. You knew that if the roles were reversed, he would be doing the same thing you were attempting. “I’m trying to apologize here,” you argued adamantly, wanting him to understand this was meaningful to you, despite him waving it off as nothing.

Anakin understood why you were being pushy about this, he knew you didn’t enjoy avoiding people, regardless of it being your intent or not. Truthfully, he hadn’t expected you to answer in the first place — he understood that your life was getting hectic now, especially with your trials coming up soon.

 He snickered softly, his eyes crinkling at the corners. “Oh, that was an apology?" He said with a grin as he nudged you playfully. He couldn't resist teasing you, having already forgiven you before you even attempted to make amends with him — despite there not being a reason for you to apologize. 

You nodded, unwilling to give in. “Mhm, I apologized, and now you’re supposed to accept it and forgive me. That’s how this works.”

His eyebrows raised slightly as he shook his head — you could be the most difficult person sometimes. He couldn’t complain about it though, it was one of the qualities he loved most about you and something that drove him to you. “Is that how it's supposed to work? Because it sounds like you're being a bit pushy." He taunted.

You crossed your arms and leaned back on the pillar, investing in the banter. “I’m not being pushy; you’re just not cooperating.” You weren’t truly attempting to force your apology down his throat — you knew there was no need. But you did enjoy this type of conversation with Anakin; it allowed you to detach from the turbulence that was becoming extremely common in your life.

Anakin gave a low chuckle as he looked down at you. “Has anyone ever told you how stubborn you are," He teased, leaning closer to you while his mouth curved into a playful smile.

You shrugged, “Once or twice.”

You both knew that you were the most determined person he had ever met, and he adored you for it. Anakin laughed softly before lowering his voice and leaning even closer to you, his sapphire eyes shining in the darkness.

“Let me rephrase that —  do you realize how insanely stubborn you are?"

You scrunched your nose and attempted to hide your growing smile, “So I’ve been told.”

Anakin chuckled, leaning his forehead against yours as he spoke softly, “Mhm, you're a stubborn girl who doesn't easily yield."

You smiled tenderly, loving the closeness between the two of you. “You say that as if it’s a bad thing.”

Anakin's cheeks heated at the proximity, glancing down at you with those twinkling blue eyes that made you want to dive in and be engulfed in him forever. “I actually think it’s quite an endearing trait.” His voice was soft as he spoke in a whisper, as though he was telling you his greatest secret.

You tilted your head up to look into his eyes — you knew you would never be tired of looking into them — they were one of your favorite features of his. They were like a siren’s call, pulling you in until you could no longer have any thoughts that didn’t involve Anakin. Before you got too lost in his eyes you quickly remembered he had spoken to you and murmured back, “Is that so?”

Anakin nodded softly as he smiled at you — his heart raced at your admiring gaze, and he couldn’t help the soft blush that spread across his cheeks. “Oh, most definitely.” His voice was low and gentle as he lowered his head a little closer so that his nose was hovering just above yours.

You leaned up and kissed him tenderly, a reflection of the love you hold for him. His breath hitched at the sudden but pleasant contact of your lips. One of his arms wrapped around your waist while the other found its way to the back of your head as he gently pulled you closer, his lips pressing firmly against yours.

The feeling of your body pressed against his made his heart rate skyrocket as he kissed you back with equal passion and fervor.

You wrapped your arms around his neck and deepened the kiss. You wanted to be encased in his hold forever — to simply be with him and never have to worry about anything else. The soft proclamations of love that came from both of your lips said everything the kiss did not: how much you ached for each other while he was gone, the unspoken promise of spending as much time as you could before one of you was shipped off onto another mission.

Anakin panted lightly as he pulled away from you — his need for air overcoming the urge to kiss you for all eternity. He slowly brought the hand that was behind your head to cup your cheek, softly caressing your skin with his thumb and looking at you as if you hung the stars. His eyes roamed your face taking in every freckle and scar, wanting to burn you into his memory in hopes that you would haunt his dreams when he was unable to see you physically. 

He dipped his head to quickly kiss you again before gently murmuring, “Let’s get married.” He had fantasized about this for ages now — never having enough courage to reveal his deepest desire to you, but now seemed like a better time than any. 

“What?” You whispered incredulously, not quite believing the words that came out of his mouth.

Anakin laughed softly and lowered his voice, “You heard me. We should get married.”

You moved your hands to his shoulders, lightly gripping them, “Is this your way of proposing to me?”

His eyes twinkled with amusement, his gaze never breaking yours. “Maybe,” His voice was soft and soothing as he lowered his head once more to briefly press his lips against yours. “Yes.”

You thought about it for a moment — secretly dating is one thing, but getting married would mean you were fully going against the Code, something you could never come back from. However, a part of you rationalized that you had already done that, and if you had already broken it, what was the harm in going one step further?

“Okay, let’s get married,” Your face broke out into a grin and you giggled softly, not quite believing this was truly happening, but you wouldn’t oppose it if it meant you were wholly committing to your love for Anakin.

Anakin felt as though his heart would burst out of his chest as a smile spread across his face and his eyes lit up with excitement. His mind was quickly filled with thoughts of being tied to you forever, of never having to worry about losing you to someone else. He couldn’t contain himself and brought his other hand to your face to cup both of your cheeks while he smothered you with kisses all over your face. 

His voice was soft as he pulled back slightly, “You’re completely okay with this?” Despite your agreement, he wanted to ask again to ensure you were completely on board with the idea. He knew you wouldn’t lie to him or say yes just to make him happy, but he wanted to be reassured that you were committed to going through with this.

You nodded and brought your hands up to cover his, unable to contain your smile. “I’m sure. I want to be with you, Ani, forever.”

Anakin laced his fingers with yours and squeezed them gently; a warm, fuzzy feeling spread throughout his body — he was overjoyed with your answer. It was difficult for him to believe how he got so lucky with you; he liked everything about you — your smile, the way you spoke, the way you carried yourself… You were simply perfect in his eyes and he was grateful that you were willing to spend the rest of your life with him.

The thought immediately made his heart sing — he was going to marry you; he would have you all to himself and soon be able to call you ‘his wife.’ “I love you, angel,” He spoke softly, his voice full of love and joy. He buried his face into the crook of your neck and gently kissed where it met your shoulder. 

His actions made your heart melt — you cherished every moment with him. You kissed the side of his head and lifted a hand to cup the back of it while you murmured, “I love you too, Ani.”

A small, content sigh escaped his lips and he squeezed you tighter against him, enjoying your soft, comforting embrace. 

You ran a hand through his hair and whispered, “We should head back to one of our quarters before we’re out here too long.”

Anakin hummed softly in response before lifting his head from your neck and giving you one last kiss. He took your hand and interlaced his fingers with yours as he started to lead you out of the temple’s halls and toward his room. 

You leaned against him and lightly squeezed his hand as he guided you. The walk to his room was filled with silent bliss, and you knew that despite the chaos happening throughout the galaxy, you would always be able to rely on Anakin. 

[dailyanarchistposts]

Anarchists and Neo-anarchists: Horizontalism and Autonomous Spaces

It is not uncommon, particularly in North America, to see anarchism defined as an ideology rooted in ‘direct democracy’, consensus decision making, and the maintenance of ‘horizontal’ (i.e., ‘non-hierarchical’) social relations, particularly in autonomous zones or public spaces.

This idea of anarchism is unusual in that it places at the centre of its definition an adherence to very specific forms of procedure and interpersonal behaviour while downplaying the political ends a ‘horizontal’ movement should be trying to establish. From this perspective, reclaiming public space as an opportunity to hold non-hierarchical public assemblies, where we can hammer out decisions by consensus, is, in itself, ‘anarchist’ – whatever the result of such processes.

This has little to do with the classical, mass-anarchist tradition and its politics of revolutionary socialism. It is, instead, an approach which is better described as falling under the banner of ‘neo-anarchism’ (or ‘small-a anarchism’). Neo-anarchism is a modern conception of anarchism largely informed by the feminist and peace movements of the 70s, the environmental movement of the 80s, the alter-globalisation movement of the 90s, and the Argentinian uprising of 2001; which coined the term horizontalidad (‘horizontalism’) to describe the movement’s rejection of representative democracy, the use of general assemblies to coordinate activity, and converting abandoned or bankrupt factories into cooperative businesses.

Take, for instance, the insistence by neo-anarchists on the use of consensus decision making. Though consensus (or ‘unanimity’, as it was typically called) was sometimes a feature of anarchist political organisations, and often seen as an ideal to work towards through comradely discussion, it was never a fundamental component of the anarchist movement. Anarchists have generally agreed that the appropriate form of decision making depends on the circumstances concerned, and frequently endorsed variations of majoritarian voting; particularly in mass organisations based on commonalities other than close-ideological affinity, such as unions. The focus for anarchists has generally not been the form of decision-making, but instead the principles of free association and solidarity. Furthermore, though anarchists have always stressed the right ofthe minority to be free of the majority’s coercion, it is even more important that the great majority be free of minoritarian rule or sabotage. As Malatesta wrote in his pamphlet Between Peasants: A Dialogue on Anarchy:

everything is done to reach unanimity, and when this is impossible, one would vote and do what the majority wanted, or else put the decision in the hands of a third party who would act as arbitrator, respecting the inviolability of the principles of equality and justice which the society is based on.

In response to the concern over minoritarian sabotage, he continues by asserting that such a situation would

[make it] necessary to take forcible action, because if it is unjust that the majority oppress the minority, it’s no more just that the contrary should happen. And just as the minority have the right of insurrection, so do the majority have the right of defense, or if the word doesn’t offend you, repression.[3]

As for ‘autonomous zones’ and the tactic of reclaiming public spaces (as seen in the Occupy movement) – here we have no connection to anarchism as a revolutionary tradition, and an example of a tactic which has repeatedly shown its inability to extract significant reforms, let alone revolutionise production and destroy the State.

The fundamental limitations of the ‘public occupation’ or ‘autonomous zone’ , and the defeats which have followed from these limitations, have led some former advocates of the strategy to make a notable transition from neo-anarchism to parliamentary politics. Though inexplicable to some outside observers, the change is easily understood when we consider neo-anarchism’s peculiar view of ‘direct democracy’, or ‘horizontally organised spaces’, as the defining characteristic of anarchism, and not a theory of libertarian revolution against the State and capital.

If we accept the idea of anarchism as proposed by the neo-anarchists, there is no fundamental contradiction between anarchism and involvement in parliamentary politics. If the political party is a directly democratic one, composed of social movements, and committed to horizontal interpersonal relations, what difference does it make if the decision made (ideally by consensus) is to campaign for political candidates, or even administer the State?

We have seen this with the so-called ‘Movements of the Squares’ in Europe. Activists who took part in the 15M (or ‘Indignados’) movement in Spain abandoned their dismissal of all politicians (“¡Que no nos representan!” – “They don’t represent us!”) with the formation of Podemos and various other ‘municipalist’ parties.[4]

A similar trajectory was followed by the anthropologist David Graeber towards the end of his life. Graeber – a figurehead of Occupy Wall Street and, prior to that, a participant in the alter-globalisation movement – apparently saw no contradiction between his professed (neo-)anarchism and his efforts to join the British Labour Party in support of Jeremy Corbyn. In particular, Graeber was enthusiastic about the Labour-affiliated organisation Momentum; an outgrowth of the Corbyn leadership campaign, which he argued constituted a unique attempt to fuse a radical social movement with a traditional parliamentary party.[5]

More recently we have witnessed the absurdity of a self-proclaimed ‘libertarian socialist’, Gabriel Boric (who touts his association with Chile’s radical student movement), ascending to the presidency in the aftermath of a militant popular uprising.

The damage caused by these supposedly ‘unique’ attempts to translate the ‘horizontalism’ of neo-anarchism into the party-form – which, in reality, hardly differs from the historic approach offered by Marxists as an alternative to anarchism – has been outlined well elsewhere, and there is no need to go over the details here.[6] It suffices to say that in each case there was bureaucratisation, accomodation with the necessities of administering the capitalist state (or even just campaigning to administer it), and zero empowerment of workers against the bosses.

The reality is that there is no way to fully ‘prefigure’ anarchy and communism through ‘directly democratic’ spaces of ‘autonomy’. Anarchism requires a specific anarchist movement and anarchist practice. Though we must certainly organise ourselves from the bottom up, with a consistent federalist structure, we can not simply bring about our ideal by ‘living anarchisticly’ or relating to one another as ‘horizontally’ as possible. Similarly, the content of anarchism can not be limited to the structure of our movement – its content of revolutionary class struggle must be maintained. To quote Luigi Fabbri:

If anarchism were simply an individual ethic, to be cultivated within oneself, and at the same time adapted in material life to acts and movements in contradiction with it, we could call ourselves anarchists and belong to the most diverse parties; and so many could be called anarchists who, although they are spiritually and intellectually emancipated, are and remain, on practical grounds, our enemies.But anarchism is something else… proletarian and revolutionary, an active participation in the movement for human emancipation, with principles and goals that are egalitarian and libertarian at the same time. The most important part of its program does not consist solely in the dream, which we want to come true, of a society without bosses and without governments, but above all in the libertarian conception of revolution, of revolution against the state and not through the state… [7]

[annieqattheperipheral]

Ok just watched episode 3: learning to win. sway vs. mchucky

This episode was crafted so well. Gave us the introverted intellectual vulnerable hearthrob musician vs. the boisterous popular shit-talking quarterback jock storyline.

Since i like neither the bruins nor panthers it was more like watching a fun sports movie and letting the characters make me fall in love with them with those tropes in place. I really do compartmentalize how i interact with these teams and their players so ok let's break it down, here's how my heart and head battles it out:

Bruins? A bigass boo from this leafs fan. I hate them on principle just for that, for a generational og6 rivalry. But. But i respect their locker room. Their leaders have created a cohesive unit i envy tf out of for generations past present and future. They're a good group of ppl ...with a shittastic front office of old world hockeymen. Sorry to bruins fans for having to deal with that bs

Panthers? Another huge groan but for both personal reasons and the leafs thing. Yea kicked leafs ass in playoffs '23 round 2 but that's like whatever (that was leafs own doing, didn't bring it. or anything really). It's that personally i hate their style of play, it takes the fun out of watching the skill and speed of hockey. I can't abide by the dirty shit, just makes it un-fun for me.

Ok this is where it gets weird. Let's talk about the people

mtkachuk: i love him, i loved him with the flames, i love him still. Amazing kind gracious funny personable. But put him on the ice with the panthers and who? Who dis? No sir i do not know this man. I cannot explain why my brain does this but it's the only way i know how to enjoy Matthew while also having disgust for the panthers playing style. I mean maybe this is how/why we love/hate the teams we do. It hits the right or wrong chords in your own heart. So yea, that's the logic, rational or not.

Paul Maurice: i love this man and if i knew him in real life like maybe my uncle or someone, i would chat with him for hours during a family dinner party like i do with my favourite relatives who i respect so much. His interviews hug me to the core. He fascinates me with his clarity on life. I don't agree with what he has his players do, but i respect tf outta his drive and purpose and how he leads. Once again, a battle bw my heart and head *shrug*

Swayman: honestly i never paid much attention to him. I've never been a goalie crazy person so while i had classified him as one of the elite ones in the league, i wasn't ever taken by him (yes even thru all the cutesy goalie hugs). That said, it was really lovely getting to know him and what a beautiful voice. His dad was endearing as heck, reminded me of one of my colleagues. What a sweet gentle-hearted family, but also so tough mentally to get your kid into the nhl, while holding true to their vulnerable emotional side. Pretty fucking incredible i think. Sway got thru arbitration and used it as a checklist to drive himself further. Amazing. Fuck yea he's got an element of corniness to him but Matthew's corny as heck too in 24/7 florida frat boy party mode so whatever everyone's being their own true selves I'll embrace that.

I laughed very hard at the tkachuk family scenes. Good stuff. But hell no, no ty, i could not survive in that environment lmao. I do jokes yes, I'm usually the funniest person in social settings but i don't do shitting on each other stuff (why i hate hanging out with stand-up comics. improvisers tho? my favourite ppl, all about yes and'ing each other)

But all of that was great insight into the who what how why's of matthew and brady beyond any interview ever could. Pretty great what they've got going on. god how open those tkachuks can be with one another with sentiments disguised as insults and jokes, and not have feelings hurt. Ofc that family keeps on thriving. They can say anything to each other and know that they can fight back and still be supported. Like that's fuck awesome. I'm envious as hell. Just as i am tho, with how i was raised, i wouldn't survive them lol.

Lmao this epi review got loooong. Like i said,

fun sports movie vibe

Made me love sway and hate matthew lollll. I would show this to non-hockey ppl as a gateway into hockey.

Also someone pls tell matthew to get seat belts for his golf cart wtfffff!!! He's driving that shit on the road with actual cars!!! My heart could not take it😳

[indiesellersguild]

Etsy’s Plan to Prevent Class Action Lawsuits

Did you know that when you agree to Etsy’s Terms of Use, you agree never to join in a class action lawsuit against them, no matter what they do?

At least, that’s how it used to be. Until very recently, Etsy had a mandatory arbitration clause. It stated that by using their service (or continuing to use their service) we automatically agree that any disputes we have with them will be handled individually by the private arbitration company that they have chosen.

They’re making a change to their arbitration clause – as outlined in their recent email, “A quick update on our terms of use & policies”...

Read the full blog post on our website for further details and calls to action.

[nym-wibbly]

Some themes should be banned on ao3 like incest and underage. How do you support a web site that treats things like that as normal?

Firstly, I don't particularly support - or even like - AO3 as a platform for publishing or reading fanfiction. I accept AO3 as the currently best-available tool and venue for sharing my fanfic with the widest possible audience, for finding things to read with relative ease, and I deeply appreciate the OTW's efforts to protect and preserve fanworks and create a space that's just for fandom. It's more than we deserve with all our pointless infighting, goodness knows.

As to what "should" be allowed there... Do we use your list of fictional never-events or mine? There's a bunch of stuff on mine that you didn't mention, and neither of your things is on mine. If not yours or mine then whose? "Underage" in your location or mine? (Mine is 16.) Highest age of legal consent in the world? (Currently 21 as far as I know.) Lowest? (About 11, I believe, or "anything goes if married" in places that don't pick a number.)

To what degree of affinity is fictional incest unacceptable, and does your view on that nuance agree with that of everyone else who objects to incest-fic on principle? Is it okay to depict incest as long as the piece doesn't glorify or eroticise it? What do we do if even the "no incest" crowd can't agree on where to draw the line on incest? Do we vote as a community on each individual controversy and debate that arises? If so, how do we make sure it's a fair and democratic process? Do we ask a team at AO3 to do that for us? If so, who appoints them and how do we avoid bias - or outright political agenda and manipulation - in their selection to ensure that arbitrating questions of good taste doesn't become knee-jerk censorship and a power trip?

I'd sooner live in a world where [insert Nym's bugbear] wasn't even a thing, let alone archived alongside the kind of works that I do want to see - but that's just me and my personal preference. And what I think about [insert Nym's bugbear] is no more or less valid than what that champion of [insert Nym's bugbear] over there thinks. How can it be? Who decides that? Who is objective enough to decide? I'm not. I know I'm not! My bugbear thing would be down the censorship toilet and stranded on an archive all its own if I got the mad boss power but - objectively speaking - that content I dislike so much is harming no one who doesn't go looking for it, or choose to click on it having found it. AO3 even makes it easy for me to filter it out of search results so I don't have to see it. So why should anyone respect my preference about content that's perfectly legal? Or yours?

By setting the bar at "it's not illegal to publish this content in the United States", AO3 avoids appointing someone from our fandom ranks as a subjective arbiter of good taste and decency. The choice is a practical one: the OTW is a US organisation and subject to US law. Letting local law in the archive's homeland have the final say is the least-worst option in terms of fairness, in a fandom community that's generally quite passionate about censorship being a bad thing, whatever else it's fighting about. So if there's content you, personally, don't want on AO3, you first need to fight to change decency and censorship laws in the USA. In the current judicial climate over there, who knows - you may just win, eventually, and get that content you disapprove of made illegal. At which point AO3 would remove it. But what will you do, then, when someone else does the same for some content that you do want to see on AO3?

[dragonmuse]

YAY Ivan and Fang! What are their reactions to Lucius dating Izzy and how long does it take Izzy to be willing (and therapized enough) to sort apologize to them? He did it for Eddy, I feel like he'd end up doing it for Ivan and Fang as well.

(you got it!)

It took a few weeks before Fang was thoroughly convinced that Lucius could handle whatever was happening with Izzy. The man seemed none the worse for wear, was if anything beautifully obnoxiously pleased with himself. 

“Do you mind, sweetheart?” Lucius asked, belatedly, nearly a month on. “I didn’t think about that, I’m sorry.” 

“No need,” Fang assured him. They were going through closing rituals, the Swede sweeping behind them as they put up chairs.  “Your choice. Wouldn’t be mine.” 

“Man is a nightmare,” Ivan agreed.  

“Yeah, I can imagine working for him wasn’t fun,” Lucius glanced between them. “I’ll make sure he gives you both a wide berth.” 

That was fine by Fang. It wasn’t that he hated Izzy particularly. The man had been rough, crude and unnecessarily harsh, but no one in their line of work had been particularly cuddly or warm. Certainly Eddy had been just as capable of casual cruelty though she had generally been more fun on the day to day. Easy to hang out with, if not to get to know. Fang had learned more about her in the last few months than all the years working directly under her that was for sure. 

No, Izzy had kept them alive, made sure they all get paid not one dime less than what they were owed, and kept the place ticking over. But he wasn’t going to be your friend while he did it. He didn’t want to know what shows you’d been watching or how your mother was doing. But he wouldn’t use any other name than the one you said you wanted to go by, no matter what he had to print on checks, and he’d gone out drinking with them every weekend, arbitrated inebriated squabbles and usually kept anyone from doing each other permanent harm. 

“He was an asshole,” Ivan summed up when Pete asked him one night. “But he was our asshole.” 

“Yeah,” Fang nodded. “He was an asshole on our side.” 

“So you think he’s...he wouldn’t hurt Lucius?” 

“Don’t think so,” Fang frowned.  “He’d push us around sometimes, but that was just the way we did things. Don’t think he’d try that on a civilian. Never saw him do it anyway. ” 

“Me either,” Ivan agreed. “Might hurt his feelings though.” 

“Can’t do shit about that,” Pete muttered and they nodded along in sympathy. 

It was easy to forget it was happening at all after a few weeks. The bar kept on, Lucius was his usual self, and no one mentioned it. 

Fang was home with a cold the night that Izzy came back to the bar. Ivan had to tell him about it, but the man wasn’t  much of a gossip, so it had to wait an agonizing week before Fang got actual details. 

“Eddy just took him outside,” Frenchie told him. She flicked her brush at him, dusting gold over Fang’s nose. He always liked a little shine and Frenchie liked to anoint him when he stopped by to chat. “The rumor is that his ban’s been lifted.” 

“How solid a rumor?”

“Paper is off the cash register.” 

“Huh.” 

“Right? Is this guy the devil or something? Scarier than Eddy? I don’t get it.” 

“Not scarier,” Fang didn’t even have to think that one through. “Maybe the same amount in different ways.” 

Izzy was fast, but more final. Easy to predict too. Eddy could come at you sideways and you never knew when it would end. 

“Don’t love the sound of that.” 

Fang had no comfort to offer. He wasn’t sure the Revenge folk knew the kind of things he and Ivan had done just as easily as Eddy or Izzy. They seemed to know that they’d worked with Eddy once, but not followed that thought to its natural conclusion. Neither Fang nor Ivan sought to enlighten them on that point.  

It was nice, really. No one was scared of them here except the occasional rough bar patron. They weren’t in a rush to change that. Maybe Izzy wanted that too. Seemed unlikely, but hey, who was Fang to say?

So when Izzy came to the front door on a Friday night a few weeks later, looking ready to run off in the other direction, Fang just took a step back from the door and let him in. They said nothing to each other, strangers in this new strange place. Izzy went straight for the bar, picking the seat that Fang could’ve predicted he would: the barstool in the furthest corner, back to the wall with a few of the room and shadows to hide in. 

Ivan watched him from across the room then caught Fang’s eyes. They spoke into the silence, fingers and eyes and eyebrows. They settled on ‘Fine. Monitor.’  

Izzy sat, Lucius buzzed over to him, fussed a little, gave him a drink that didn’t look like anything Izzy would ever order, then left him there. 

And Izzy just stayed. He talked to no one, but he also bothered no one. He finished his drink. He watched the show. After, Lucius came down and flirted a little with him, brushed a kiss over his lips. Then Izzy stood up and left. 

Fang wasn’t sure if he was more relieved or confused. 

“Guess that’s done,” Ivan shrugged. 

But it wasn’t done. Izzy came back every few weeks. Every time, he just sat down at the bar and had his drink, watched the show then left. It went from being an event that caused ripples of talk and gossip to another quiet regular. There were a few like that, people who came in alone and spoke little.  

It was hard to say when the thaw came. It was probably Pete first, coming down still in makeup to ask Izzy something. Fang caught the moment already in progress, the two of them chatting amiably.  Or maybe it was Eddy herself, grabbing a bottle of water and giving Izzy an acknowledging nod. That turned into a more regular ‘hello, how goes?’ sort of thing, the two of them cautiously talking.

That was weird to see too. Once upon a time, the two of them had been thick as thieves and twice as mean to each other as they were to anyone else. But they both seemed to thrive like that, biting and clawing, teasing too hard, but still making each other laugh sometimes and seemingly reading each other’s minds on occasion. 

This stilted acknowledgement was almost painful to see. A well oiled machine, left to rust on the side of the road, abandoned, rotting and now trying to restart with a wheeze.  But it was running. That was something. 

Then on a very ordinary Friday night, Izzy didn’t leave as the bar closed down. He sat, quiet as anything, so still that Fang almost missed him. He was supposed to make sure everyone left for the night, but the idea of telling Izzy to leave felt insurmountable. They hadn’t exchanged a word in nearly a year now and it seemed bad to break that silence with a request to get the hell out. 

“It’s okay,” Lucius swung through before Fang worked up the nerve. “He wants to talk to you and Ivan, actually.” 

“....why?” he frowned. 

“Because it’s overdue. I’ll take care of the chairs. You want a drink? Think Ivan will?” 

They both got a beer and warily sat at the bar together. A short whispered conversation had produced no idea of what this might be about. They did agree that if he asked them to do anything like work that they would just leave. No need to argue. They could walk away now. 

Izzy turned to face them. He looked just the same and yet entirely different. There was something different about his face these days, some permanent tightness that had unwound. His clothes were all softer looking. He blended in better. Could’ve been anyone in a crowd. 

“You’ve both been....good. About not giving me shit being here.” 

“Why would we?” Fang shrugged. “Free country.” 

“You could’ve,” Izzy looked away. “Would’ve deserved that and more. Was a dick to the both of you.” 

Ivan elbowed Fang a little. Wild disbelief. 

“Uh, yeah. You were. A lot.” 

Izzy nodded. He rubbed his thumb over his fingertips, slow circles. “So. Sorry. For that.” 

Sorry. Could’ve knocked Fang over with a feather. 

“You are?” 

“Yeah, isn’t that fucking hysterical?” Izzy shook his head, not sounding at all amused. “You were good at your jobs. Better than the rest of them. Glad you found somewhere that treats you better.” 

“It does,” Ivan said quietly. 

“The free drinks alone,” Fang said, lifting his beer. “And less near death. Lot less. Been good for the ole body and soul.” 

Izzy nearly smiled at that, “Bit of a motherfucker, isn’t it?” 

It was, actually. Years of living the ‘high life’, thinking that nothing was better than running into danger and coming out richer for it and it turned out that it was far nicer to just stand by a door and gently usher out minors and drunks. It was so much better to go home at the same time every night and not think when you left for work ‘hope I make it home again’. 

“Fucking weird,” Ivan agreed. 

“To fucking weird,” Fang decided, raising his glass. 

Izzy lifted the glass that had the last dregs of some iridescent cocktail. The three of them clanged their glasses together and drank. 

It was still awkward for a while, trying to figure out how to talk to each other, but Fang at least said hello when Izzy came in and Izzy always said it back after that. One night, Izzy asked on his way in, 

“You still collect rocks?” 

“Sometimes.” 

And Izzy pulled out of his pocket a small stone, threaded in silver. 

“Found it on a rooftop. No fucking idea what it was doing there.” He held it out and it took Fang a second to realize he should hold out his hand. Izzy didn’t snap at him for taking the time to figure it out, just dropped the rock in once he did. “Mica, maybe.” 

“Yeah, maybe,” Fang held it up to study. “Thanks.” 

“Whatever,” Izzy shrugged. “Just a rock.” 

Fang held onto it as he watched Izzy take up his usual barstool, leaning in to receive a kiss from Lucius. 

It was not just a rock. Fang added it to the collection when he got home, putting it in a place of pride. 

[silverliing]

why is genderbending bad? /gen

This is kind of a loaded question and I will answer it to the best of my abilities and through my own understanding of genderbending and gender identity politics but if you don’t want to read all that i’ll just leave you with the short answer: It’s complicated. I don’t think “genderbending” is inherently a bad thing (i do it) what i do take an issue with is the actual name of this trend as well as some of the rhetoric and ideas about gender that run rampant along it that have largely been ignored or gone unchallenged.

I also do not think that the bulk of this work has been made with malicious intent, rather just out of ignorance in a cissexist society. so yeah, complicated. I would also like to point out that I am gender non-binary and identify as trans, so these are just my personal thoughts regarding this type of content in fandom spaces and the ways I think it (more often than i’d prefer) plays into the erasure of trans and intersex identities from the conversation and can perpetuate cissexist ideas of gender and gender identity.

Anyways, long answer is long so more after the cut -> -> ->

For starters I think the most egregious thing to me about this whole genderbend thing is the name. now, i absolutely hate the name because genderbending is never just about changing a characters gender is it? what we generally understand as genderbending in fandom is typically the changing or switching of a character’s sex from male to female or from female to male and assigning to them the gender that “matches” their sex. And if this is exactly what you’re trying to do then that’s fine! i don’t want to be the arbitrator of what people can or can’t do in fandom spaces so… just maybe call it what it is? maybe also understand how this trend feeds into the rhetoric that gender is a binary and how it conflates sex and gender as if they were interchangeable or one and the same as well as perpetuating some outdated and ill informed views on sex, gender and sexuality too!(since typically when a character gets genderbent their sexuality changes as well)

There’s a lot of discourse on this very topic and much of it might probably disagree with me on these points so i encourage everyone to seek alternative opinions on the matter, but from my own understanding of gender, gender identity and gender expression, i find that the idea of “genderbending” —in the ways it has been traditionally done by fandoms— can have some cissexist implications:

It implies that there are only two genders which are opposite from each other, and that those are (generally cis) “male” or (generally cis) “female”.

Gender is not a binary and gender is a social construct. this is something that psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, biologists, gender theorists and medical professionals have all agreed upon for decades. The thing that happens in genderbending where a character can only jump from fully mature phenotypical male “man” to a fully mature phenotypical female “woman” (or vice versa) without any wiggle room in between is ill-informed at best. And then there are people who will say “oh well that’s not true because i saw a non-binary intersex genderbend once!” and all i have to say to this is… okay. Yes this kind of NB “genderbend” does exist but it’s is not the norm. For the most part when looking up the genderbend tag will generally bring up a lot of stereotypically female petra parkers and harriet potters, and this is just the truth.

It implies that physical traits and gender are related.

Usually this type of work will have things like a tall, flat chested, muscly “masculine” character switch genders to become short, curvy, large breasted, “feminine” one (usually without any regard to how that character’s personality and lifestyle affect their physical attributes) typically the act of genderbending will come along with changes to a characters genitalia, gender markers, and phenotype, not just their gender. I trust you understand how this idea is inherently cissexist and reinforces the thought that things like the set of genitals you were born with ought to dictate the gender you identify as. This also gets into the territory of intersex erasure. Since our society has yet to come to a consensus of how intersex individuals ought to look like (and how could they!) it is less likely that you will find a genderbend that envisions a character as intersex given that genderbending isn’t just about changing someone’s gender but also making them look the part. Which is a whole other can of worms because what does a woman or a man look like? what does an intersex or a non-binary or an agender person look like? these nuances often get pushed to the side in genderbending. And if you have found genderbent art or fanfic that subverts all of these trends that’s awesome! But again, it’s still not the norm.

I know this one sounds bad, but there are some arguments against it that are very valid to me; namely that although not every trans person’s goal is to appear cis-passing, there are some trans folk whose goal is to look as cis as possible and their visions and fantasies of what their ideal gender presentation ought be reflected in this type of art is imo quite valid.

It implies that someone “changing genders” can be reduced to a thought experiment.

Maybe this isn’t the best wording but it’s when you see genderbend being done as a way to explore how a character would be different if they had just been born in a different body. This one doesn’t sound too bad, it’s just a little thought experiment right? and in a way it is but i still want to bring it up because again, it assumes that being born with a specific set of physical attributes will dictate a persons gender. This also could imply that anyone who identifies with a gender that is different to the one they were assigned at birth does not have an equally as meaningful relation to their own gender as someone who was born with the “right” set of genitals. It is also kind of funny to me that some of these genderbenders who just want to do a thought experiment with their blorbo would want to see said blorbo navigating the “opposite” gender from a cis perspective. Now i don’t have any sources to back me up on this but i’m just going to assume that between a trans person and a cis person, the individual who is most likely to be aware of gender identity politics is probably not going to be the cis person. just make the character trans just make them trans

Why I do it

Literally i had not thought about this topic in over a decade, and i had no genuine interest in seeing characters under this type of lens since i was like 12. However, the idea for lesbyler was born as a response to the critiques toward byler fans that said the ship would not be so popular if they had been two girls instead of two boys. I guess you could say it started as a joke or out of spite but in my personal case (which i know is true for many others in the fandom) it became a way to project my own sapphic youth into a ship that is so special to me. Of course i would love them more if those characters had been written as girls! Byler has such a soft spot in my heart because it’s the story of my first love —its the story of a lot of peoples first love— and so in that vein i thought it was permissible to make it all the more mine. I did not entertain the thought of “making” them girls because girls are the opposite of boys and i thought that was cool, or because i wanted to see lesbian rep instead of gay rep, i entertained the thought of two lesbian best friends navigating first love because it’s the story i would have liked to see in a show like stranger things.

Furthermore, i also do not see my lesbyler characters as inherently cis, I still see them as an offshoot or extension of the original characters, so in my head they’re just inherently trans. Of course that is just me and there is nothing wrong if you prefer to see them as cis as long as you understand the aforementioned discussions of gender at play.

Am I also perpetuating the harmful rhetoric by indulging in this type of trend regardless of my intent? Maybe. It’s so hard to put yourself on blast but I will for a second here. I think the vast majority of this type of content is ill-informed, but i don’t think the bulk of it was made with the intent of harming minorities, so i don’t think making it is inherently bad. I think what can be harmful is to have these ideas go unchallenged in this specific trend where they would have been more widely addressed if it were on any other more publicly available platform, and i think that talking about it and bringing this topic up when i make this type of work is a good opportunity to make others aware how cissexism can be perpetuated even in the ways we interact with fandom.

I don’t believe i am spreading hate or harm when i make this type of work, but maybe i’ll cringe at this and change my opinions for the better in the future who knows. All i’m saying is that i think the best way to approach this trend is through information and awareness and on that regard i do consider myself more well-read on this topic than your average joe 🤷🏻

There’s many people that will disagree with me who will say genderbending is more harmful than i claim it to be or that it is not wrong at all, so i would just like to reiterate that this is all based on my experience, understanding, and knowledge on the topic of both genderbending and gender identity politics.

One more time I don’t think imagining a character as a different gender is inherently bad but i do think that a lot of the ideas perpetuated by fandom genderbending are some of the same rhetoric and propaganda that has been used to erase and harm trans and intersex individuals.

Last thing and i am saying all of this in good faith, if you ever looked at my lesbyler (or any genderbent art really) art and thought “those characters are cis girls”, or that they had to have been “born” girls because the opposite of boy is girl, i would like you to consider and challenge why you had those thoughts. Maybe even question why little compulsory cissexist thoughts like those are part of our every day lives. I also just want to say that if you want to make genderbend art or fic go for it, but I do strongly urge you to first consider understanding and acknowledging the arguments i’ve made here. Just know what you’re getting into and know that there is more than meets the eye with this topic. aaaand just remember that these arguments feel hidden and compulsory for a reason, cissexism is everywhere, even in fandom spaces.

Also there’s a chance you’ll probably go your entire fandom career without ruffling anyones feathers about it but i would just advise to be careful, be respectful and know when to apologize and move on. And most importantly don’t forget that trans, non-binary, intersex, agender, gender fluid, etc. identities exist so there’s a lot more options and experiences for you to think about if you do decide to play with the gender and identity of a character.

[septembersghost]

I'm feeling embarrassed that I show so much love for Taylor and like all my friends know and I've gotten a lot of them into her too because now idk what to say to them about this situation and it feels. bad. do you feel like you should stop posting or anything?

well, i am not here to invalidate your emotions, sometimes we just feel how we feel and that's okay. people are different, people are flawed, people make choices (people are people and sometimes we change our minds...). and we don't have to like or agree with all of those choices or behavior, or even understand them (or have to like them if we do understand them!). i also feel like some are forgetting that liberal dirtbags unfortunately persist - someone can be quite progressive in their ideals and yet still say/do harmful things because of lack of empathy or foresight or tact or intersectionality, etc, which is i think an issue here regarding mh. though it doesn't in any way excuse it. that said, while you have every right to be upset about association, how much that affects your engagement is entirely up to you. i feel it's important to remember this doesn't change things we know to be true, and on a wider/more fundamental level it doesn't change the artistry or the music. if that's important to you or something you've loved and found comfort in, i don't believe you should give that up or even allow that to be tainted (easier said than done at times, i understand).

so here's a bit of a tangent - obviously i love classic hollywood and old music. the studio system was corrupt and abusive (towards women and poc especially), the music industry is often terrible, and i recognize that, but it doesn't cause me to dismiss the art that was made in those films or the joy the music brings me. there were perhaps decisions and behaviors i don't agree with even from artists i love dearly, and i can parse that some of that is because it was a very different time, some was down to individual circumstances and traumas and experiences, some was just people being imperfect humans. we decide what we can keep and what we can't. (like i won't watch w**dy all*n films, but i enjoy a bunch of hitchcock. granted, he is no longer profiting off of that work, but it's ultimately not about him for me, it's the actors' performances, the stories, the design, the costuming, and so on. i saw a post the other day joking about how nobody today would survive fleetwood mac and i laughed). if i judged the performers i enjoy for every misstep, i wouldn't be able to be a fan of anyone's. i know a lot of actors (gn) and musicians i love simply weren't perfect, so i ask, did they try to do better? did they work to grow, did they ultimately share more kindness and good? humans are fallible, but also beautiful. love and compassion and art live on. separation of art and artist is a necessity at times, but i really like the approach, where possible, of lending understanding to the artist through their art too.

i don't think moral arbitration and judgment based on art an individual enjoys does much for real social change and justice, because where does it end? there are things we should have no tolerance for, and yet even on those topics not everyone agrees where the line is? then you have to ask, is someone intentionally hurting others, actively harming marginalized communities, spreading prejudiced ideology with no compunction, profiting off of that harm or exploitation, and doing more damage? or did they mess up personally because they're human, but still do more net good?

she's not suddenly revealed something monstrous about herself, though it’s disappointing that she’s willing to overlook things he’s done. tbh it seems like she's…going through it or whatever and maybe not thinking too clearly. human. we can dislike a choice without discarding every other true and meaningful thing. you shouldn't be embarrassed by something you love that makes you happy. you should never be embarrassed about sharing that love with others, that's really special and helps it grow. the music is what it always was. the meaning to you is paramount. even if you need to take a bit of space, i would encourage you to not let anything steal your love or your joy.

[captainfanoftheceiling]

Close, but it is actually family member of anyone that has used Disney+. The living person used Disney+ signing they agree to arbitration always, no word on if the person they killed did.

Maybe we can just have 1 person per family that signs all terms of use and agree that person never files lawsuits.

[tyrannosaurus-trainwreck]

For everyone being like "The fucking what?!" about the other Mullenweg lawsuits, there's JENNIFER L. WESTMORELAND VS. MATTHEW C. MULLENWEG ET AL and ASMAHAN ATTAYEB VS. MATTHEW C. MULLENWEG ET AL.

The defendants tried to get both bounced to arbitration, the plaintiffs said "We never agreed to the arbitration agreements your software says we signed," and the judge didn't think the defendants adequately demonstrated that the plaintiffs had in fact given their electronic signatures agreeing to arbitration.

They seem to be heading to jury trial. The tl;dr of the lawsuits seems to be: moving homecare assistants across the country, installing them in company-owned housing so their employer had 24/7 access even when they stopped paying for 24/7 access, forbidding them to leave specific geographic areas, making them put spyware on their phones to let their employer enforce that prohibition while they were off the clock, multiple wage theft schemes even in the face of HR employees going 'this doesn't comply with California law, bruh', and sundry other workplace abuses.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"St. Vincent psychiatric ward: Gazette team finds relative calm, order," Montreal Gazette. December 20, 1969. Page 3. --- By RICHARD NUTBROWN In a continuing probe by The Gazette into conditions at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, a reporter-photographer team has found the psychiatric ward to be relatively calm and well-kept. A visit was made to the ward a day after charges that guards are being "constantly bombarded by sudden deafening outbursts of yells and cries of men clinging to cell bars in the psychiatric ward, screaming to high heaven about their desperate state" were made by Robert Deslauriers, assistant research director for the Publie Alliance of Canada.

The accusations were presented in a brief to an arbitration tribunal in Ottawa by the alliance on behalf of 2.000 prison guards.

Mr. Deslauriers also claimed that the psychiatric ward at St. Vincent de Paul was "awfully dirty."

Dr. Bruno Cormier, head of the prison hospital, told The Gazette the alliance's statements were "completely false" and that he has never heard of or met Mr. Deslauriers.

"Sure there has been some noise at night," he said, "but this is a mental hospital. The last time we had trouble with a patient was in July. Since then it has been very quiet, this I can assure you.

The psychiatric hospital is located in a wing which has been isolated from the rest of the prison, and to which was added a pre-fabricated construction for offices, occupational therapy, nursing-post and treatment rooms.

Psychiatric services first began in 1965 and it was decided then to set up facilities similar to those in the general community, with full hospitalization services, including an out-patient clinic, Dr. Cormier said.

Several inmates, many so troubled they had become psychotic, are alive today because of the hospital, Dr. Cormier said.

Experience in the psychiatric hospital at St. Vincent de Paul has been that most psychotic inmates are not dangerous," he pointed out.

"The difficult offender is not generally found among the psychotic ones, but among those with severe character disorders."

One patient is serving 30 years. When young he decided on an armed forces career but was discharged for psychiatric reasons. He was first convicted in 1960.

He was released in 1968, but four months later was back on the 30-year term. This patient would cut deep gashes into his flesh then burn the open wounds with matches or cigarets. "I suffered so much he told The Gazette.

"Now with a staff of five psychiatrists things are much better, he said. "Before, Dr. Cormier was all alone and I could only see him about once a month.

Another patient is serving his second term. Prior to being placed in the mental hospital, he had seizures and was difficult to deal with

All I had was a loud speaker prison closed-circuit radio)," he said, "and I didn't have anybody to talk with when I got nervous

He is receiving treatment daily and is recovering slowly. He said the food was good but and stopped, looking at the prison official listening to the interview.

In the hospital cell section itself, there is an unpleasant mingled odor of antiseptic and perspiration. The walls, remnants of a 100-year-old former convent, were painted last December.

The windows are very dirty. The bleak light, refracted through the glass and dirt, gives the ward a medieval air.

But the floors are swept daily, and each inmate cleans his own cell. Nothing is spotless, but an attempt is made to keep things clean. The choice and taste of the food is the prisoners main complaint

One inmate in the mental hospital described the food as 35 per cent bad and 75 per cent needing improvement while a disgruntled prison official listened. He also complained that "food delivered to the patients is always cold."

The Gazette's photographer-reporter team tried a sampling of prison food. Both agreed that the soup was good, but neither could figure out what it was. The rest of the meal, hamburger steak, peas and potatoes, was edible not palatable.

Caption: Prisoner scrubs floor of St. Vincent de Paul psychiatric ward

[libraryofcirclaria]

05 October 1281

Library of Circlaria

Third Level Society: First Version

Story Six: Meona Bell

Dyla will not hear of it, the caution part. She went up in front of the whole group and got them to vote on a name for their group: "Legalize Darkfire."

I would not have done that myself. But I do agree with her, so I will not stop her.

Unfortunately, it did spark a turn of events. I was about to go back to the Arturian Realm to find out more about the White Baroness when Taylor Lorens stopped me in my tracks and urgently bid me follow her. There was apparently an ongoing public confrontation happening between Dyla and Kara.

The confrontation was happening between the Fountain and Fleming House, and it had escalated to Dyla and Kara shouting at each other. Kara had supposedly responded to "Legalize Darkfire" by accusing Dyla of "witchcraft by darkfire" which is an accusation that is, thankfully, not legally recognized. Nonetheless, Kara called for Dyla's lynching. Before Kara, herself, arrived, Dyla's supporters responded by forming a human chain around Fleming House; and Kara's cronies confronted them with fistfights. The Campus Watch had intervened and arrested those cronies.

Then Kara, herself, arrived, and went up to Dyla's window, challenging her. Dyla came down to her in a fit of rage, and thus the screaming match.

It was in the midst of this, and the gathering of Dyla's friends and more of Kara's friends around the two when I showed up. I tried to calm Dyla down but then she took a black glove out of her pocket and slapped Kara in the face with it.

"I challenge you to a DUEL!" Dyla said.

I'll never forget the response of the crowd. Some of Dyla's friends gasped, while others cheered. Meanwhile, Kara's friends jeered, shouting "Wrayther!" and "Witch!" Kara, herself, reached into her pocket and pulled out a glove of her own. She struck Dyla with it, except I believe no part of the glove hit Dyla's face, rather it was the back of Kara's hand. "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!" Kara screamed fiercely.

Honestly, I did not know this until now, but duels are actually legal here in the Retunian Republic. This one, a spellfire duel, is going to happen between Kara and Dyla, as stupid as I think this is on behalf of both women. And this is going to be facilitated by an Arbitrator under certain safety and conduct standards to determine the outcome. This went to University Affairs, who scheduled the duel to happen on Friday October 15 at 300p along the sidewalk between Fleming House and the Flagstaff.

I met with Julian Mackwell and Ivella Ogden to put a stop to this. We tried to convince the University Affairs Office otherwise. When they would not listen, we tried to hopefully get the Headmaster to at least say something.

Even that was over-hopeful though, however. We waited outside his Office only to receive a short written note from him explicitly stating that he is completely okay with the duel happening on the honorable Cabotton University Campus.

And I'm even more furious with the Flagstaff joining the other newspapers across Gentry County giving dramatic coverage of this, saying how "this is the very first spellfire duel to take place at Cabotton University," and how "this is the very first spellfire duel between two women to take place in the Province of Ereautea."

I am going to take a break and visit my wife, Sari.

<- 04 October 1281 <- || -> 15 October 1281 ->

[polarisbibliotheque]

So, ok. You guys know I don't reblog this kind of thing here, but hey, IT MIGHT HELP ANY OF YOU WITH EVENTUAL LEGAL TROUBLE WITH THIS KIND OF MOTHERFUCKERY.

'Cause you know. Lawyers have a degree on motherfuckery. And I happen to be a Lawyer ✨👍🏻✨

The Disney+ thing doesn't even make sense in their argument saying the person has to arbitrate any disputes. It seems like common sense, but ✨Why?✨

Well, because that happens to be a Contract clause (or section, if you prefer). That means that THAT thing that's been set on the clause applies ONLY for the Contract.

Meaning, yes. Any disputes should be resolved with arbitration - BUT ONLY DISPUTES PERTAINING TO THE CONTRACT. The Contract is binding for a service provided by them to the person who is receiving - so, say they want to sue because Disney+ isn't working or whatever... They can't because they agreed on arbitrating first.

(Which in my country could be argued because we call those Adhesion Contracts and Abusive Clauses, which are contracts you can't negotiate the clauses and only agree with them, so one of the parts is clearly in disadvantage and there's a huge discussion to be had there, but that's a whole other side tangent)

THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO ANY OTHER ISSUES THEY HAVE WITH THE SAME COMPANY OUTSIDE OF SAID CONTRACT. You go to a Disney Park and you sign Disney+? Being at the Park is a completely different kind of service that has NOTHING to do with Disney+ and NONE of the Disney+ contract clauses apply to your stay at the Park. Plus (pun intended), being at a physical location has their OWN laws and rules they MUST abide to - specially when it comes to responsibility, both civil and criminal.

Now, I'm not North American and Law works differently everywhere, but if there's a thing that's kinda worldwide (it has exceptions) it's principle of territoriality. Basically: if it happened in your backyard, you're responsible for it. "Oh, but I didn't see it happening" - too bad, it's still your backyard and you SHOULD KNOW what happens there.

They didn't ~waive their right~ to an arbitration; they gave up on this ASURDLY FUCKING FOOLISH piece of an argument, because it would NEVER hold on court. Judge would look at them like "are you fucking kidding me, mickey?" and dismiss without a second thought.

Because you CANNOT apply a clause of a Contract that ISN'T EVEN LEGALLY BINDING ANYMORE (newsflash, when the service is done/canceled, the contract is over, even Satan knows that) to try to bullshit your way out of something COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE that happened out of NEGLIGENCE right ON YOUR BACKYARD by someone wearing YOUR COMPANY LOGO AND NAME.

(We have a few principles here. I'm directly translating from my language, but you should find something similar in yours: temporality - regarding the contract and how long it lasts - civil and criminal responsibility - an employee is seen as an extension of your company thus it's your responsibility even if you, owner, wasn't there - crime out of negligence - when someone doesn't have the intention but it happened anyway - and just general irresponsibility - that one isn't a Law one, it's just common sense)

They NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO BEGIN WITH.

I was a company Lawyer for years, and trust me, half of my arguments were just me trying to bullshit my way trough the case and see if the judge would be too tired or, being honest here, too stupid to notice.

Sometimes, it worked. Most of the times, it didn't and the judge called me out on my apparent stupidity - but there wasn't much I could do when the company did SO many wrong things I was like "I don't even have an argument to win this" and my boss used to forbid me from trying to cut a deal with the other part because I was in a "loser mindset".

No, asshat, it isn't a loser mindset. It's a "we are completely wrong and there isn't anything to help us win, if this goes to court we'll have to pay double the amount, lemme try to at least cut it to half so we don't end up losing too much money with this" kind of mindset.

Also, funfact. When you have legal cases, you have provisions - meaning you have to predict how much money you're gonna lose with that case and tell the ~money department~ to hold that money so you'll have funds to pay for it eventually. If the case lasts YEARS, the money is stuck for YEARS.

What companies want from legal departments is to get rid of cases so that money can be used for business and not just sit there, stuck. Every paid decision, every lost case, is seen as lost money that could've gone to business and generate more money. I used to go for settlements when I absolutely couldn't win and was certain I'd lose, so it was already seen as a loss - if the provision was 50k and I cut a deal in 30k, it was a 20k win for me even if the person thought they were winning 30k.

In a 50k case, for instance, we'd start negotiating with 10k and people would settle for 15k or 20k, when I was authorized to go up to 35k, 40k. People don't even KNOW how much power they have in those situations. Companies settle because they are AFRAID of losing MORE, not 'cause they're being nice.

SO. IF YOU GUYS ARE EVER IN A LEGAL BATTLE WITH A FUCKING BEHEMOTH OF A COMPANY. KEEP IN MIND THEY ARE USUALLY (not always, but it's usual) IN DISADVANTAGE, CREATING THE MOST LUDICROUS ARGUMENTS TO SEE IF IT STICKS ON COURT - AND IT'S YOURS, AND YOUR LAWYER'S, DUTY TO REMAIN WITH YOUR CONVICTIONS AND CALL THEM OUT ON THEIR BULLSHITTERY. GO TO THE HIGHER COURTS IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT KNOW THIS IS AN ABUSE AND A COMPLETELY BASELESS ARGUMENT.

Oh, and no Contract binds your soul forever to anything (unless, Satan). If that was the case, heaven forbid you tried to protect your rights against anything in this world.

Can you imagine? You'd literally sell your soul for a bag of chips, c'mon. At least Satan knows we're worth more than that and offers more to bind you for eternity. Think about that.

And fuck big corpos and their legal departments. Study the basics on Law to protect yourself and kick their sorry asses.

Thanks for coming to my very-fucking-annoyed punk-against-the-system Lawyer TED Talk

straight up cartoonishly fucking evil corporation