thatstormygeek

[thatstormygeek]

This is from an older post of mine someone recently reblogged- discussing how PCOS was discovered to also affect people assigned male at birth, as ovaries and polycystic gonads were discovered to not be a requirement despite the name.

And this response really got under my skin. Every single one of these people responding this way were cis women.

This is what I and other trans men are talking about when we say that unfortunately we are being left out-deliberately or accidentally- of discussions that affect us- and that we are at an increased risk of medical malpractice and medical neglecy.

Over 10% of people with PCOS are trans men or trans masc. Over 50% of trans men and trans mascs actively avoid going to the gynecologist, and this number jumps to over 90% reporting feeling anxious about making and attending appointments. Anywhere from 40-60% of trans men and mascs WORLDWIDE report intentionally poor care from medical professionals, including and especially at a gynecologist.

PCOS has already dramatically affected men, even before it was discovered to affect those assigned male at birth. While I understand the bitter response, as medical misogyny affects both cis and trans women alike, the choice to leave off the three little letters which would clarify the point also serves to silence and erase the way trans men and mascs are and have been treated by the medical community.

(It also inherently labels all people assigned male at birth as "men", inherently misgendering and erasing trans women and fems as well. Not that I think many of these responders care about that either, being that at least a few of them were TERFs when I investigated their blogs).

[thatstormygeek]

Some boundaries matter. Some things shouldn't be content. And if we can't agree that using AI to puppet dead children crosses that line, then we've lost something fundamental about what journalism is supposed to be. About what decency looks like. About what we owe to the dead.

Joaquin Oliver deserved better than becoming a chatbot. All the dead do. And the fact that Jim Acosta can't see that, or worse, can see it and doesn't care, tells you everything about where media is headed. This isn't beautiful. It's not insightful. It's not amazing.

[thatstormygeek]

It may be politically easier for state attorneys general to file lawsuits against the Trump administration—even knowing that a deeply conservative Supreme Court is likely to side with the president. But the more critical, and perhaps more difficult, task lies in enforcing state laws against institutions that cave to Trump’s threats despite no federal law requiring them to do so. These threats, often little more than bluster or executive pressure campaigns, are not binding. And yet, too many institutions—colleges, hospitals, nonprofits—are treating them as mandates. If these organizations won’t stand up for their transgender constituents on their own, then state governments must compel them to do so. Without such enforcement, the slow erosion of rights will continue��not by law, but by surrender.

To date, however, state attorneys general have largely failed to act. Only a couple, such as New York Attorney General Letitia James, have even hinted at enforcing state law against institutions that drop transgender care. In a letter sent to hospitals dropping such services, she wrote, “Regardless of the availability of federal funding… Electing to refuse services to a class of individuals based on their protected status, such as withholding the availability of services from transgender individuals based on their gender identity or their diagnosis of gender dysphoria, while offering such services to cisgender individuals, is discrimination under New York law.” It was a promising start. But so far, the letter appears to have gone unheeded. Several hospitals in New York have still moved forward with cutting care, leaving patients without options and the state’s legal protections unenforced. Unless institutions are held to account under state law, they will continue to treat compliance with Trump’s anti-transgender agenda as the path of least resistance. If Attorneys General choose to look the other way, they are functionally allowing the President to override state protections without a fight.

[thatstormygeek]

If your ex can ‘bait’ you into having a meltdown and reacting poorly because she posted a video of herself and her new boyfriend 3 years after you divorced, that is totally on you and not her. If you’re so fragile that you can be set off by the tiniest irritant then I think she SHOULD be able to use that in court against you. Unfortunately, like many cases with domestic violence lingo, the term ‘reactive abuse’ has been co-opted by abusers. If you are so unhinged and full of rage that your ex moving on makes you seethe and lash out, that is not ‘reactive abuse’, that is you lacking all self control.

[thatstormygeek]

Maybe it's just my privilege talking, but I really don't see the positives in telling a group "you are not the most oppressed so listen to these other people."

Yes, this can be a factually true statement. But how often is it a helpful statement?

And then there are the issues with applying standards of objective measurement to a subjective experience.

As well as the often invisible political decisions being made about what gets measured how and when; the way these decisions form the basis of "neutrality" from which future decisions are made, and so on.

All of that aside, even presuming the statement is objectively true - what has been accomplished by making it?

Unless your goal was to cause hurt and anger and encourage this person to lash out and/or distance themself from you, you likely did not achieve your goal. You've probably also hurt the cause of whatever others you were advocating for because you've attached them to the unpleasant feelings from this interaction.

"Do unto others" isn't just another way to say "be nice." It's a reminder that those other people are actual fully realized individuals with their own thoughts and feelings and lives. Consider how you would feel if someone treated you some way, and understand doing that to them will likely have the same result. BUT - it may not. That's the thing about "fully realized individual."

This isn't "marginalized people are to blame for those embracing fascism." This is "your words and actions have fucking consequences." This is "if you don't want your notes to immediately devolve into a pissing contest about who is the most oppressed, maybe don't start your post by telling a marginalized group they should shut up and listen to those more oppressed than them."

Is it fair? I don't know - probably not. Most things aren't. Is it right? I don't have nearly enough information to make that call. What I do know is that it happens, and it's a predictable result, so the failure to rephrase is on you.

I guess I can get why the urge is there: it sucks to see people ignoring your issues, or discussing things in a way that seems to be/is speaking over you. And obviously y'all are free to do what you want. I'm not your boss and I sure as hell am not your parent. I haven't seen a lot of progress come from "conversations" started this way, but ymmv.

It might be worth considering, too, that if you're not a part of this group that you're insisting isn't the "most oppressed," maybe you aren't seeing the whole picture, either. But again - you do you. If you're not getting the results you want, though, a different approach costs nothing.

[thatstormygeek]

This whole thing about scanning your face to prove tour age is making me remember, in 2018 while out in paris we got our wallet stolen during a particularly busy night at a lesbian bar. It was very late and with no money to buy metro tickets we were effectively stranded, but some people helped us and we ended up staying the night at a really sweet older man's place. His face was deeply scarred and he was missing an eye. We chatted on our way and he told me about his life, probably to help calm me down. He explained he had been stuck in a house fire 20 years ago and had had multiple rounds of facial reconstruction and a skin graft, but there's only so much surgery can do so he just learned to live with it. I remember he said he liked the queer bars because they're the only place people don't really stare at him.

At some point I took out my phone, and at the time I was using face unlock. This prompted him to tell me all the ways this technology doesn't work on him. How his phone selfie camera doesn't focus right because it's not detecting a face. How he had to update his ID the old fashioned way, because the website kept rejecting his photos. And how it was becoming more and more common, and how it was making his life way harder.

This was 7 years ago, and now whenever I see this sort of technology I think of how that guy can't use it. And how house fires are pretty common, and how anything from being born this way to a skin condition to heavy tattooing can probably cause the same issue. Can these people get age verified ? Will they just lose access to all social media, which are increasingly necessary in society, if this becomes the norm ? These are people who are already driven out of public spaces due to how they look, and they're getting pushed out online too all in the interest of companies wanting more money.

[thatstormygeek]

this is a fucking twisted thing to say in general but it's extra wild for sugary-sheep of all people to be complaining about people taking her framework "in the worst faith possible"

[thatstormygeek]

as a fat person who's always clamoring for more interesting fat characters in media, I honestly think one of my all-time favorite depictions of a fat character is Jumba from the original Lilo and Stitch - both visually and personality wise

from a design perspective, even though he's an alien, he has so many little anatomy quirks that make him a more believable fat character than many fat human designs in other media. I love the realistic sag and layering of the fat on his arms, the lack of neck definition, the rim of chub around his face and upper back, the way his back is rounded. his clothes pull taut and pinch in anatomically accurate places (e.g. shoulders are firmer = smoother outlines, the sides and back are squishier = bumpier outlines).

and he's stylized so well! all these great details boiled down to some simple shapes and pen strokes. IMO the Lilo and Stitch art style is extremely appealing - it's warm and clean and visually pleasing, but every character is super unique. Jumba isn't supposed to be pretty, but even though he's a very large, very fat, bald older guy who spends most of the movie in crop tops, the way he's stylized and staged makes it clear the audience is supposed to find him interesting to look at, and variably intimidating/cool/powerful/capable. he's often funny, but the physical aspect of his comedy is derived from being so hefty the other characters struggle to prevent him from barreling ahead and doing whatever he wants; being fat makes him come off more in control of the funny situations he gets into, not less. also, because the art style is what it is, a lot of his character acting also just makes him look kind of cute ... though that's universal across the cast

I also really like the fact that his size clearly gives him both realistic advantages and realistic disadvantages. along with having a stronger sense of agency in the comedic scenes, his size in combination with his impulsivity also makes him a more intimidating antagonist. you never know what he's going to do, and his size makes it difficult for other characters to stop him when he's made up his mind. at the same time, it seems to take him longer to catch his breath, he sometimes grunts when moving around a lot to imply it takes more effort, and he clearly struggled to find clothes that fit him when putting together his disguise. I think it's awesome that the character's size impacts how he interacts with the world so much, and again, in relatable ways

and personality wise, it is ALWAYS great to see fat characters portrayed as intelligent - not only is Jumba an accomplished scientist, he's also crafty and witty! a few quiet scenes imply a philosophical side, as he ponders on Stitch's existence and feelings as a living weapon. with Stitch explicitly being made in his own image to an extent, I'd argue there's even room to interpret some of the things he says about Stitch being hints to how he sees himself; we never learn much about Jumba's past, but it's clear he's a social misfit and strongly defiant. I don't think it's a stretch to assume some of what he said to Stitch about being a monster who can never belong anywhere was intended to read as projection (which makes it all the more heartwarming when both of them find a place to belong on Earth)

it's also a nice twist that toward the end, Jumba is the one who is unexpectedly compassionate toward Nani, while Pleakley tries to urge him to ignore her. again alluding to a level of emotional depth and intelligence that is often missing from even well-intentioned depictions of fat people. his character isn't even fully explored, and yet he's one of the most dynamic and interesting supporting characters in a movie full of fantastic characters. the audience is expected to find him fascinating and even sort of mysterious, and he is!

the sequels and spinoffs were more merchandise-driven franchise fluff for kids than the artsy direction of the original movie, but even so, I remember Jumba went on to become Lilo's lovable, amoral uncle figure, which I also thought was so fun as a kid. I love that they committed to the fact that he was more caring and compassionate than he seemed. not only was he a cool evil mad scientist character, but he was also eventually ... a friend ...

and he was even gay

[thatstormygeek]

Faced with an unimaginable horror—years of abuse, filmed and distributed by a confessed predator—the Church responded not with humanity or accountability, but with stone-cold legalism and repeated efforts to bury the truth. They weaponized confession as a shield for monsters, then had the audacity to celebrate a legal loophole that let them off the hook. They’re propping up a system designed to protect predators and abandon victims.

The reason religious institutions don’t want the exemption taken off the books is because they value their secrecy more than others’ safety. Their religious dogma is more important than another child getting sexually abused. They believe confessions are a sacrament and anything less than complete confidentiality would be an obstacle to the practice of their faith. More simply, they just don’t give a shit about abuse victims. The rule turns religious leaders into moral monsters, preventing them from helping those who need it. (You may recall that in the state of Washington, lawmakers recently passed a law that would make priests mandated reporters even if they learn about abuse during Confession, but the Catholic Church and the Trump Administration sued to undo that law, and a federal judge has temporarily blocked the law from going into effect.) ... That religious “glaring loophole” has been a blessing for abusers everywhere. They get to pretend they’re getting right with God, all while continuing their predatory ways.

[thatstormygeek]

[O]n one hand, yes, I am glad that it seems that maybe the Catholic hierarchy is finally waking up to the absolute mess we are in. But on the other hand I am sitting here scratching my head because I genuinely don’t know what they thought was going to happen. The entire MAGA movement, from Trump all the way down, has always been about cruelty. They never hid what it was they were planning on these issues. It has always been about being so utterly cruel and violent towards those they deem as less than that they are able to either run us out of the country or kill us.

None of this should have been a surprise, so why are they acting like it is?

“Leopards eating people’s faces” has become my favorite piece of Internet shorthand. It’s become increasingly relevant over the past decade as we’ve experienced the ever increasing consequences of the far right shift of the American political mainstream. Whether it’s cis gays that embraced anti-trans politics now facing down the increasing risk that Obergefell is going to be overturned or conservative voters facing the closure of their local hospitals due to cuts to public health spending, self-centered political myopia has become a recurring theme that we’ve needed to address time and time again. ... There’s a problem beginning to appear, however, which is that it is increasingly clear (as it was to many of us) that the conservative Catholic/Protestant political love affair was always conditional. Catholics were only ever going to be welcome in the growing tide of Christian nationalism so long as they were useful. But now that Trump is back in the White House, and the Protestant power players are more confident than ever, it seems they’re no longer as convinced of the utility of keeping the Catholic hierarchy around, and the leopards are getting hungry. Because the thing is, while abortion has been the main priority of the USCCB for decades, it is not the only core issue, not for the Bishops and certainly not for American Catholics at large. Immigration, healthcare, poverty, violence, climate change – these are all issues where the Church is staunchly at odds with the Trump administration and its supporters.  ... Trump’s removal of “sensitive spaces” protections, which prevented immigration officers from taking action in certain places like churches, schools, and hospitals was also met with major opposition, leading the USCCB to put out a statement condemning the horrifying increase by the administration in unjust immigration enforcement actions. A short time later the Bishop of San Bernardino issued a special dispensation releasing Catholics in the area from their obligation to attend Mass Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation if they feel that doing so would be a risk to their safety due to increased ICE raids. These types of dispensations are incredibly rare, as receiving the Eucharist is one of, if not the most, important aspects of Catholic religious practice, and typically are only granted during times of major crisis; think wars, natural disasters, etc, which should be a sign of how serious the ICE crisis is becoming in the eyes of the hierarchy.

They’re getting what they wanted on abortion. We live in a post Dobbs world after all. And with abortion and trans healthcare increasingly merging into a single political framework, they’re getting their transphobia cookies too. But I have to ask if it was worth it? Because they might have won (for now) on this singular issue, they are losing their ability to actually enact any other aspect of Catholic social teaching. And to rub salt into the wound, they lost that ability over something that the majority of American Catholics do not agree with…or even view as a top priority at the polls.

[thatstormygeek]

proud boys

[thatstormygeek]

humans love to categorize and then assign personality traits based on those categories, ranging from the mundane to the incredibly concerning. its orange cat behavior. everyone is either an introvert extrovert of ambivert. whats your mbti? enneagram? your classpect? hogwarts house? i'm just a typical taurus. what's your IQ? don't blame me im just a girl. boys will be boys. take this online personality test to determine which of the 9 types of human you are. everyone fits into these boxes. you know what their kind are like.

[thatstormygeek]

I wish more people understood that sexual assault and harassment happen regardless of whether the perpetrator is attracted to the victim. Sexual harassment is frequently a social punishment for being undesirable

[thatstormygeek]

Bailey has made it clear that employers should expect legal harassment for exercising their rights to association and free speech in Missouri.

Bailey has also sued Starbucks. His brief argues that the Starbucks workforce has become “more female and less white” — and that this is unacceptable. 

But frivolous lawsuits against out-of-state corporations are not the only way to light taxpayer dollars on fire. Bailey can burn up twice the Missouri tax dollars by having Missouri wage legal warfare against itself. See for example, Bailey’s investigation of the Hazelwood School District over an off-campus fight between students of different races, the three year lawsuit against the Springfield School District over demands to search thousands of documents for a list of possibly DEI-related terms that the District estimated would cost $170,000, or his new investigation of the City of Columbia over whether it might be trying to advance diversity and equity. How does a successful, powerful white man come to have such resentment towards women and people of color for the modest gains we have made that he treats it as Missouri’s biggest problem? How does someone once known as a “reasonable and smart attorney” become a “warrior in the culture wars”? What could compel him to regularly use dehumanizing language about diversity proponents who merely want more people to have opportunities? Did he get radicalized online? Bailey has filed a surprising number of lawsuits based on tweeted statements or videos. His IBM lawsuit cites a video circulated online. He sued Media Matters in response to an Elon Musk tweet (that lawsuit was thrown out as I predicted, but Media Matters had to cut staff due to the costs of Bailey and Musk lawsuits, so that’s another extra-legal win for Bailey). Bailey sued Planned Parenthood over a Project Veritas video, without bothering to get the unedited tape. Another possibility is that this is how Republicans feel they need to make a name and impress Trump and MAGA. Still, I just can’t muster the cynicism to make it make sense.

During Dr. Bailey’s tenure as dean, she oversaw the development of a Diversity and Inclusion Champion Professional Development and Certificate Program. She supervised PhD theses concerning the need to diversify the health work force and bone marrow donors. She was lauded for her personal involvement in a program that recruited young Black men into medical professions. I asked Bailey’s office whether the attorney general thinks his mother was engaged in illegal “woke political trends and blatant racial discrimination” in general, or specifically with the mentorship program for Black men. His office responded: “Attorney General Bailey has no knowledge of these programs administered in another state, years ago, when he was not in office. What he does know is this: DEI programs that condition opportunity on skin color violate the Missouri Constitution and the foundational American promise of equality under the law. Whether it’s in corporate boardrooms, public universities, or government contracting, he will continue to fight race-based discrimination in any form. He has led on this issue since taking office.”   That’s a clearer “yes, my mother did illegal, racist things” than I was expecting. 

[thatstormygeek]

Back when "cringe" and "based" were first entering their current popular usage, SJWs (because yes, that's what we were called then) pushed back because it was already well known that adopting alt-right slang terms helped normalize the concepts.

Here we are, a few years later...

From @.abcnews_au on Instagram. "Author Ocean Vuong says he finds it "unsettling" to see how "cringe culture" is holding young people back, and that they're "embarrassed when sincerity is in the room."

[thatstormygeek]

[thatstormygeek]

Not even pretending to be a functioning country anymore. like 'so your governor has become a despot, what is your country gonna do about it?' Nothing. 'There's been a flood, people need aid' No, we're gonna spend 8 news cycles deciding on the best wording to blame the victims for having it coming to them, then never help.