a-side-character

[a-side-character]

the sense of horror when you finish a book that was Ass Bad and you go to see what fellow haters are saying but all the reviews say it is the best thing they've ever read. feel like i just saw my reflection in the mirror move all by itself or something

[a-side-character]

My body is already an inhospitable environment, there’s no way a friggin baby would be able to survive in it

[a-side-character]

best thing tumblr ever did for me is the term "rotating it in my mind". it's really true that sometimes you think about something real hard but you can't tell what the thoughts are exactly. it's revolutionary stuff, i might even say

[a-side-character]

do men have resting bitch faces as well or do they not have negative characteristics ascribed to them for putting on a neutral rather than a deliriously happy facial expression

[a-side-character]

"women are always like—"

"men are always like—"

shut up shut up shut up shut up shutupshutupshutupsHUT UP 🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄🐄 gender essentialism-hating herd of cows running you over

[a-side-character]

Something so profoundly fucked up between the inverse ratio of shrinking middle class and ever increasing aggression of advertisement

[a-side-character]

So the "don't call trans women dude" discourse is back on my dash, and I just read something that might explain why it's such a frustrating argument for everyone involved.

TLDR: There's gender-cultural differences that explain why people are arguing about this- and a reason it hurts trans women more than you might think if you were raised on the other side of the cultural divide.

I'll admit, I used to be very much on team "I won't call you 'dude' if it feels like misgendering, but also I don't really grok why it feels like I'm misgendering you, especially if I'm not addressing you directly." But then I read an academic paper that really unpicked how people used the word 'dude' (it's Kiesling (2004) if you're curious) and I realized that the way I was taught to use the word was different from the way most trans women were taught.

... So the thing about the word 'dude' that's really interesting is that it's used differently a) by people of different genders and b) across gender lines. This study is, obviously, 20 years old, but a lot of the conclusions hold up. The gist is, there's ~5 different ways that people use the word "dude":

marking discourse structure- AKA separating thoughts. You can use the word 'dude' to signal that you're changing the subject or going on a different train of thought.

exclamation. You can use the word "dude" the way you'd use another interjection like "oh my god" or "god damn".

confrontational stance mitigation. When you're getting in an argument with someone, you can address them as 'dude' to de-escalate. If you're both the same gender, it's homosocial bonding. If you're different genders, it's an attempt to weaken the gender-related power dynamic.

marking affiliation and connection. Kiesling calls this 'cool solidarity'- the idea is, "I'm a dude, you're a dude. We're just guys being dudes." This is often a greeting or a form of address (aka directly calling someone dude).

signaling agreement. "Dude, you are soooo right", kind of deal.

Now, here's the important part.

When [cis] men use the word 'dude', they are overwhelmingly using it as a form of address to mark affiliation and connection- "hey, we're all bros here, dude"- to mitigate a confrontational stance, or to signal agreement.

When [cis] women use the word 'dude', they're often commiserating about something bad (and marking affiliation/connection), mitigating a confrontational stance, or giving someone a direct order. (Anecdotally, I'd guess cis women also use it as an exclamation - this is how I most often use it.)

Cis men use the word 'dude' to say 'we're all guys here'. It is a direct form of male bonding. If a cis man uses the word 'dude' in your presence, he is generally calling you one of the guys.

Cis women use the word 'dude' to say 'we're on the same level as you; we're peers'- especially to de-escalate an argument with a cis man. Between women, it's an expression of ~cool solidarity~; when a woman's addressing a man, it's a way to say 'I'm as good as you, knock it off'.

So you've got this cultural difference, depending on how you were raised and where you spent time in your formative years. If you were assigned female at birth, you're probably used to thinking of the word 'dude' as something that isn't a direct form of address- and, if you're addressing it to someone you see as a girl, you're probably thinking of it as 'cool solidarity'! You're not trying to tell the person you're talking to that they're a man- you're trying to convey that they're a cool person that you relate to as a peer.

Meanwhile, if you were assigned male at birth and spent your teens surrounded by cis guys, you're used to thinking of 'dude' as an expression of "we're all guys here", and specifically as homosocial male bonding. Someone using the word 'dude' extensively in your presence, even if they're not calling you 'dude' directly, feels like they're trying to put you in the Man Box, regardless of how they mean it.*

So what you get is this horrible, neverending argument, where everyone's lightly triggered and no one's happy.

The takeaway here: Obviously, don't call people things they don't want to be called, regardless of gender! But no one in this argument is coming to it in bad faith.

If you were raised as a cis woman and you're using the word the way a cis woman is, it is a gender-neutral term for you (with some subconscious gendered connotations you might not have realized). But if you were raised as a cis man and you're using the word the way a cis man uses it, the word dude is inherently gendered.

Don't pick this fight; it's as pointless as a French person and an American person arguing whether cheek kisses are an acceptable greeting. To one person, they might be. To another person, they aren't. Accept that your worldview is different, move on, and again, don't call people things they don't want to be called.

*(There is, of course, also the secret third thing, where someone who is trying to misgender a trans woman uses the word 'dude' to a trans woman the way they'd use it to a man. This absolutely happens. But I think the other dynamic is the reason we keep having this argument.)

[a-side-character]

Trying to prove my worth to my girlfreind's mom via a game of Yahtzee

[a-side-character]

THIS THOUGH LMAO

PLEASE CYBERBROS DRIVE YOUR TRUCK INTO THE NEAREST LAKE. DONT WORRY ITS A FEATURE

[a-side-character]

"comrade in arms" yeah i bet he was in your arms. every night. fruit

[a-side-character]

Hi! This is kind of a weird question but how/why was influenza (and other diseases that we have vaccines for now) so deadly 100-200 years ago? Obviously vaccines help tremendously, and probably immunity over time, but are there other reasons that the flu was a much bigger deal a century ago? Sorry if this is oddly specific, but my current project is historical. Thank you!

This is a very interesting question and there are a couple of different ways of looking at it.

Let's start with influenza:

[Note: it's surprisingly difficult to get good worldwide flu data, so I'm going to use US numbers for the purposes of this post.]

I think the first thing to understand is that unlike many other infectious diseases, influenza is substantially different every year. That means that the immunity that you build in 2017 from either the flu or the flu shot won't necessarily help prevent you from getting the flu in 2023. By then it will be a different enough virus that your previous immunity won't be as helpful. Though it might make it a little milder. But keep reading, I'll give you some fun facts to share at parties:

We name flu (A) viruses based on two different proteins on the surface of the virus. The proteins are "H" and "N". There are 16 different "H" proteins, and 9 different "N" proteins that we currently know of. The combination of the two forms the "name" of a particular flu virus. Think H1N1, or H5N6, or any other combination. Each combination has their own attributes, which contributes to how infectious or deadly they are in any given year. And which ones circulate are different every year.

Just mathematically, that's a lot of substantially different flu viruses. Hundreds of them, in fact. And you have to build immunity to each one individually. You could, say, build immunity to H2N5, but that would do little to save you from next year's H4N3. And not only that, but within a single type there are many smaller variations. For example, say you got H5N3, but then it went and mutated. If you then got exposed again, you might have some immunity to new!H5N3, but it could also be just different enough that you still get sick.

Like I said above, different types of flu virus are deadlier or spread faster than others. H5N1 (a type of avian flu with a human mortality rate of 52%) is terrifyingly deadly but fortunately doesn't spread particularly well, while H1N1 (the star of both the 1918 and 2009 flu seasons) spreads rapidly and kills primarily young adults (weird, since flu usually kills babies and old people).

This is why in 2009 we did the whole "close the schools vaccinate the teens hide the president" routine. Because if it was *that* H1N1 we were all about to be screwed in ways we had never experienced before. Fortunately it wasn't, but thank goodness we did it. Also if you got vaccine #2 in 2009, you are also protected against the 1918 strain of H1N1. You're gonna be a hit at parties with that one.

Now, if you look at only deaths (not the best measure, but one with some emotional punch), within the last decade alone we have years where 12,000 people died of flu in the US (2011-2012) and years where that number is as high as 61,000 (2017-2018). These numbers are similar throughout recent history (relative to population), but then you get years like 1968 (where 100,000 people died in the US) and 1957 (where 116,000 died), and then sometimes you get these wild whopping years like 1918 where 675,000 died (equivalent to 1,750,000 people dying in today's US population). These fluctuations have happened since Hippocrates was around, and probably long before that, and there's really nothing to suggest it's getting any milder in any statistically significant way.

Now, outside of these natural fluctuations, we do have some ways of driving down these numbers. We do have a vaccine. It is different every year, based on our prediction of what the most likely or dangerous types of flus will be this year. Fortunately, you do get to keep this immunity for some time, so you can look at the flu vaccine as a personal collection of different flu viruses you have immunity to- you can collect 2-3 different ones every year in one shot and you didn't even have to catch them!! Yay! Unfortunately, since we never reach herd immunity with the flu vaccine, and we can't perfectly predict and incorporate all the strains that will circulate in a given year, while you do get some protection, it's not ever perfect. But it *is* still worth it.

We also have other feats of modern medicine as backup to the flu vaccine. We have oxygen, antiviral drugs like tamiflu, immune modulating drugs, and technology like ventilators to help keep people alive in ways we would not be able to in previous generations. So that's also an advantage. Unfortunately, these don't always work either, and we are still at the whim of those yearly fluctuations in influenza virus deaths.

And really, if you ask any epidemiologist, covid is just a little trial run for the next Big One. Which is both extremely likely to be a flu virus and which we're statistically overdue for.

TL;DR: The flu isn't getting milder so much as it varies wildly in severity every year. The next major flu pandemic is probably going to be in our lifetimes, so start collecting your flu immunity now if you haven't yet. New collections drop every August and are available until April. Get em' while they're hot. This year's included a 2009-like strain of H1N1 and a delightful H3N2 number from Hong Kong.

As for All the Other Vaccine Preventable Illnesses:

*ahem*

Yes, it's vaccines. It's obviously vaccines. Its basically only vaccines. Anyone who has ever told you it's not vaccines is lying. No other major discovery of modern medicine has ever saved as many lives, prevented as many disabilities, and created as many opportunities for a life well lived as vaccines have. No antiviral drug, no antibiotic, no ventilator can even hold a candle to vaccines. The answer is f*cking vaccines*.

I hope I have made myself clear.

Enjoy this table:

*Yes I do have a masters degree in public health and am a registered nurse that interacts with the public regularly, how did you know?

-Ross @macgyvermedical

[a-side-character]

This is a tea checkpoint.

Is your tea getting cold?

Did you turn on your kettle and forget about it and now the water is cold again?

Is the tea bag still in?

Did you intend to start the tea making process and forget?

Congratulations! You remember now.

[a-side-character]

These two back-to-back from someone I don't follow and have never interacted with is very funny to me

Sorry @bbnotumbl that people keep fucking up your name :(

[a-side-character]

It's the difference between gender preference and genitalia preference tbh. As a cis lesbian who is only romantically attracted to women and has a sexual preference for vaginas, here's how I see it.

Would I date a trans woman? Absolutely, and I've gone on dates with both cis and trans women before.

Would I have sex with a trans woman who had a penis? Probably not, because I'm not attracted to penises.

Would I have sex with a trans man who has a vagina? No, because I am not romantically or sexually attracted to men.

This makes sense to me. My attraction to women is what makes me a lesbian, not my genitalia preference. It would be like saying "I'm only attracted to women with green eyes. My attraction to green eyes is what makes me a lesbian". Like. Babe. I think it's the liking women part that does that.

A cis woman says that A) she is a lesbian, B) she will only have sex with people who have vaginas, and C) this is why she identifies as a lesbian. Is she transphobic?

Yes, she is transphobic

She isn't necessarily transphobic, but that belief is

It's not transphobic, but it's poor form in another way

No, this is fine

Nuance button

[a-side-character]

Provenance is like. Space jane austen to me.

[a-side-character]

In the temple on Omaugh station, when Breq finally confronts the Lord of the Radch, Seivarden is given multiple opportunities to walk away. She repeatedly affirms that she will stay by Breq’s side.

Seivarden said Breq is my ride-or-die in front of Amaat’s High Priest, and that’s kind of a big deal. Actions in the temple have legal significance and Seivarden is old-fashioned.

Breq, who is dense as lead when it comes to certain things, doesn’t realize the importance of this interaction. Anaander Mianaai knows exactly what Seivarden said and (the right one) thinks it’s hilarious.

TL;DR Seivarden professed the kind of love a client has for a patron and Breq is oblivious.