#and were more aware of the facts of the uk court case and how much evidence from that was barred from the us case

[branmer]

i find it really fascinating that fauxmoi and ontd are two of the worst cesspits of misogynistic celebrity gossip and the lingering miasma of 90/00s tabloid culture and yet somehow they were among the very few places on the internet that weren't fucking horrendous about amber heard. so strange

[stina-is-a-punk-rocker]

jacqueline wilson’s ‘love lessons’

tw: abuse, pedophilia, characters making Bad Decisions, long unnecessary spiel about my childhood like I’m running a recipe blog

It’s funny how loads of the authors who helped shaped me into the vaguely humanoid being I am today have names beginning with the letter ‘J’; Judy Blume, Jeff Kinney, John Green, J.K. Rowling (yikes, I know) … and Jacqueline Wilson.

I’ve never owned a Jacqueline Wilson book of my own; they were always borrowed from a friend, or from a friend of a friend, or from a friend of a cousin- you get the gist. Her books, for me, come with an entire aesthetic: something reminiscent of yard sales, and reading under the covers with a flashlight, and being lulled into a false sense of security by the deceptively innocent Nick Sharratt illustration on the cover until someone’s best friend gets mowed over.

So I knew what I was getting into when I picked up Love Lessons. I knew this was going to be Fucked Up; and boy, was I right.

(Here’s the part where I warn you about spoilers.)

From an abusive dad to creepy child predator teachers to slut-shaming and victim blaming, this book has it all.

The main character is Prudence ‘Prue’ King, who is homeschooled at the beginning of the book, along with her sister, Grace. Their parents remain rooted in the early twentieth century, and are very strict about- well, everything. No TV, no computers, not a single mobile phone in the house; their clothing worse than the orphans’ from Annie; and their father remains distinctly distrustful of modern institutions like the school and the hospital; and so on, and so forth.

Daddy King suffers a stroke, and has to be taken to the hospital. Meanwhile, Mrs. King (a floppy, spineless woman who lives in fear and awe of her, frankly horrid, husband) sends the girls to school, behind the then invalid Mr. King’s back. Cue Prue and Grace being the freakshows of the school, with their strange clothing and overbearing mother.

Grace manages to make friends, but Prue remains alone. The kids are dicks, the teachers are dicks… well, all of them but one. And that’s the art teacher, Mr. Raxberry (I just couldn’t get over that name; it seems like something you’d name a mythical plant from Pixie Hollow or some shit. I’m assuming it isn’t an actual name, since the spelling & grammar check on my computer doesn’t seem to recognize it), or Rax, as he’s called.

Oh, yeah; Prudence’s favorite subject in school is art, and she’s a whiz at it. This is relevant, because reasons.

And here’s where stuff gets murky. Prue develops a crush on Rax- which is perfectly normal. I’m definitely no stranger to it; I’ve had crushes on my teachers, my mum admitted she used to think one of her professors was cute. And yeah, as I grew older, I grew out of those crushes and now have a markedly more refined taste in men (unless he’s 5’ 7’’, born in ’97 and named Bang Chan, I don’t want him); and my mum married my dad, so I’m assuming she did, too. Admittedly, now that my dad teaches at a university, it’s icky to think that there might be students who have crushes on him- but I digress.

My point is, loads of us have liked our teachers. But I doubt the majority of us have acted on it.

And Prue actively showing her interest in Rax isn’t the worst part. That’s a spot reserved for Rax reciprocating her feelings.

Guess Ezra Fitz and Ms. Grundy (yes, I watched Riverdale; please don’t cancel me) have a new addition to the Creep Club.

The age of consent in the UK is 16, if I’m not mistaken. Prue is 14. She’s just barely become a teenager, and she’s being preyed upon.

Because that is what Rax is. He’s a predator; he preys upon this vulnerable girl who’s never been in a relationship before- hell, she’s never even had friends- her father’s abusive, so she obviously doesn’t have the best experience when it comes to men- she’s unpopular at school, with the students and staff alike- and he lures her in. I don’t care how bloody nice he is to Sarah, or what a good dad he is (well, he’s really not, seeing as he cheated on the mother of his children WITH A BLOODY FOURTEEN-YEAR-OLD CHILD)- the guy’s a fucking pedophile.

I was staunchly stuck at a yellow light with him; like, sure, maybe Prue thinks he’s flirting with her- maybe she’s looking at this all wrong, she doesn’t know how relationships work- see, he drew a picture of Sarah, too, in his secret notebook- Prue’s just reading into this too much- up until he says he loves her.

Dude. Humbert fucking Humbert. She’s fourteen, for Christ’s sake, and you’re married. You have two children. She’s a child. She’s probably closer to your son’s age than she is to yours.

(This is the part where I bury my head in my pillow. And scream. Extensively, and with passion.)

The book does make some genuinely good commentary on slut-shaming and victim blaming and abusive parenting. And on one hand, I can see why so many people find issue with the romanticization of the when I kissed the teacher trope- but I can defend it, too.

The book is in Prue’s perspective. She thinks she’s in love with Rax, so obviously, she’s not going to throw in some valuable moral at the end- because she’s too young and inexperienced to think otherwise. And sadly, there are loads of instances of child abuse that go unreported because the victims just don’t know better.

What I have issue with is how the school dealt with it, ultimately. Prudence, a child, has to deal with the consequences of the actions of a literal child predator. Sure, Rax ‘clears his name’ by cooking up some bullshit story about how it was only a crush and he didn’t encourage it, but you’d think other adults would know better and, oh, I dunno- dig deeper into it, instead of blaming it on a child?

“She says you told Mr. Raxberry you loved him and he held you in his arms and fondled you.”

Which Prudence denies, because, again, she doesn’t know better. She then goes on to say that they did nothing wrong. To which the adult speaking to her, in this case, the principal, Miss Wilmott, goes on to say:

“I’m not sure that’s entirely true… I feel that there are some aspects of your friendship that could be considered inappropriate.”

FYI, lady, he kissed her- multiple times (not that kissing her once makes him any more redeemable), and told her he loved her, and admitted to fantasizing about running away with her and leaving his family behind. Fun fact: do you know Prudence is underage?

You’d think that Miss Wilmott would maybe give this whole fiasco a favorable ending, but it turns out she listens to school gossip;

“I haven’t been at all happy with your attitude. You don’t seem to understand how to behave in school. I’ve heard tales of unsuitable underwear and then a silly romance with one of the boys in your class. I feel that in the space of a few short weeks you’ve made rather a bad name for yourself… I don’t know whether you intend to be deliberately insolent but you certainly come across as an unpleasantly opinionated and arrogant girl… I can’t help feeling that you’ll be much better off elsewhere. I shall try hard to engineer a suitable transfer to another school.”

And then she comes out with this gem:

“If you won’t leave, then I shall have to ensure that Mr. Raxberry finds another position.”

“No, you can’t do that! He’s a brilliant teacher.”

“You should have thought of that before you started acting in this ridiculous and precocious manner. If I were another kind of headteacher, I would have Mr. Raxberry instantly suspended. There could even be a court case. He would not only lose his job, he could find himself in very serious trouble. Did you ever stop to think about that?”

Girlboss, gaslight and gatekeep. The fucking trifecta.

Also, by ‘another kind of headteacher’, does she mean the kind of headteacher WHO DOESN’T LET CHILD PREDATORS ROAM FREELY WITHIN THEIR HALLS?

This bitch is out here blaming a child, a literal child, for the crimes of an adult man.

The only time Prue seems aware of the fact that Mr. Raxberry is actually a very shit person is her immediate thoughts that follow after she tells Miss Wilmott she’ll take the fall;

I so wanted to save darling Rax- and yet why hadn’t he wanted to save me? Had he told Miss Wilmott it was all my fault, that I’d got a ridiculous crush on him, that I’d made ludicrous advances to him? … I wanted to tell this horrible, patronizing woman how hungrily he’d kissed me, but I couldn’t do it. I loved him. I had to help him.

NO, SWEETHEART; YOU MOST DEFINITELY DO NOT.

And maybe I’m going overboard with all these excerpts, but here’s what Rax has to tell Prue, after school, following her expulsion:

“I let her think the worst of you, the best of me, just to save my skin. I said it was ridiculous talking about a love affair between us. I said you simply had a crush on me, and that I was just trying to be kind… You were brave enough to stand up to me and force me to acknowledge the truth… I love you… That’s why I had to take a risk and see you this one last time. I didn’t want you to think I didn’t care… Every night when I close my eyes, I’ll think of us together in this car and how badly I wanted to drive off with you. I’ll imagine us walking hand in hand at the water’s edge… I wish I wasn’t such a coward.”

(I burrow into the pillow further. I’m trying to suffocate myself.)

And that’s where I think Wilson went wrong. Sure, Prudence getting expelled for something that was completely out of her hands is unfair, and horrible, but it’s real. That shit can happen.

What’s bad is showing Rax in a positive light after all that. If only Wilson had written Rax to not be the Romeo he thinks he is. Make him ignore Prudence, throw her under the bus in front of her face, instead of this star-crossed lovers bullshit it’s made out to be. Show your younger audience that Rax is not a good man. I’ve got a little over two weeks left for my twentieth; I can see why this is unacceptable. But I was a little younger than Prue when I watched Pretty Little Liars, and my only gripe with Aria dating Ezra was that Noel Kahn was so much cuter.

It shows when you scroll down the Goodreads reviews; you’ve got adults giving it one or two stars, and teenagers giving it four or five, with their biggest complaints being, “but Toby was cuter!!!”

Other non-pedophilia related complaints regarding the book include: Prudence being unlikable- which I didn’t really notice, considering she reacted to some people way better than I would’ve, even at 19 (which probably says a lot more about me than it does about Prue, but oh well). Still, Prudence obviously isn’t the most prudent of people- and again, she’s fourteen. Look me in eye and tell me you weren’t an arsehole at that age (unless you’re fourteen now, in which case, I assure you that you’ll look back on yourself someday and go ‘wtf was I thinking’). Bringing up Toby’s dyslexia in an argument was low, though.

There were people who thought the Kings’ almost-Amish lifestyle was exaggerated and unrealistic, but I assure you, it may very well be real. There are 8 billion people on the world- it’s fair to assume that several of them are complete weirdos.

Grace was a sweet character, and I adored her with every fiber of my being. As were her friends Iggy and Figgy. Honestly, I would’ve loved a book about Iggy, Figgy and Piggy’s (mis)adventures too.

[glass-rose-paperweight]

The Mysterious Case of Queerbaiting

BBC Sherlock

There’s one thing about BBC Sherlock that has never made sense to me. As I’m sure many of you are aware (and something I’ve talked about before), BBC Sherlock has been accused of Queerbaiting, of intentionally setting up John and Sherlock as being attracted to each other but never following through with that or even intending to do it. And it’s one of those things that has just always baffled me; I can’t make it make sense. A lot has already been said about the way things are portrayed in the show and what the subtext behind a million different things could mean (seriously, I love that I am part of a fandom with so many perceptive and intelligent people; watching the show is only half the fun) and how none of it makes sense. Today, I would like to use my powers of deduction get to the bottom of this mystery.

The way I see it, there are 3 possible explanations.

1. The Producers of the Show Queerbaited

I have to admit, this seems unlikely given that one of them is literally a gay man. Why would a gay man knowingly and intentionally engage in something like this? Why would a gay man write a script that constantly pokes at Watson’s sexuality if the only point was to make it into a joke? To say ‘oh, no, the poor straight guy is constantly mistaken as gay. Look at how defensive he is getting, hahaha, what a funny joke’. That just makes no sense. It makes no sense for Mark Gatiss to have gone to the lengths he has gone to within the show, from whatever direction he gave the actors so that they portray an obvious chemistry between Sherlock and John to having a jealousy trope at John and Mary’s wedding except it’s Sherlock getting Jealous over John’s ex commander to this interesting thing about the best man speech to Mary saying ‘neither one of us were his first’ or ‘the man we both love’ or ‘I know what the two of you could become’ to Sherlock putting John Watson face on The Ideal Man to all the gay artwork in TBB (I could not for the life of me find this meta even though I know I saved it, and I am so distressed) to a thousand other things that the fandom has discussed over and over and over again. Who puts that much effort into queerbaiting? Especially when you would have a vested interest representation? So, it just doesn’t make sense for those directly involved with the show the be the reason.

2. Higher Ups at BBC Told Them No

This seems much more plausible to me, however I still doubt it. I can’t say I know just a whole lot about BBC, but I do know they have tended to be on the more progressive side of things, and I just really can’t see any of the higher ups just flat out refusing to allow the writers to make Johnlock canon. The first season gets a pass because I’m pretty sure that openly same sex couples weren’t allowed in media at the time (I think it was allowed in 2011, but I’m honestly not sure. I’m in the US, not the UK, so if I’ve gotten this detail wrong, please correct me). But they had 3 other seasons and another 7 years to make it happen, and I just don’t think that the higher ups at BBC would have just flatly said ‘no’. So, that leaves the last explanation.

3. Someone Other Than Those Involved With The Show Stopped Them

The majority of the Sherlock Holmes stories are in public domain. Copyright expired in 1980 in Canada and in 2000 for the UK (X). This would seem to make it a pretty cut and dry case: in the UK, you can do pretty much whatever you want with the Sherlock Holmes stories. But it’s no quite so simple. The US works a little different because copywrite law isn’t the same (isn’t he US just great?). As it stands, there are still 6 stories today that the Conan Doyle Estate still has the exclusive rights to in the US. If I understand how the copywrite law works correctly, that would have been 14 stories back in 2010. But, that shouldn’t have affected anything going on in the UK, right? Theoretically, no. The Conan Doyle Estate wouldn’t have had any legal rights to coveting the characters and the stories in the UK. However, that doesn’t mean that those involved with the show wouldn’t have been extremely apprehensive of the power that the Estate wielded, especially considering the previous decade of legal battles. Only 3 cases are listed here, but the Conan Doyle Estate is very protective of its copyright of the work (as evident by the fact that they are literally trying to sue Netflix, among others, for portraying characters in a way they supposedly weren’t portrayed until later books). There were other court cases after 2010, however. A decisive court case in 2013 declared once and for all that the stories written prior to 1923 were completely in public domain and that a license wasn’t needed to create things based on any of the stories prior to those dates (something the Estate had convinced BBC of when they first created BBC Sherlock). However, an appeal by the Estate was later made, stating “Sherlock Holmes is a ‘complex’ character, that his background and attributes had been created over time, and that to deny copyright on the whole Sherlock Holmes character would be tantamount to giving the famous detective ‘multiple personalities.’” The appeal was, thankfully, thrown out. But it’s the attempt that matters. 

Oh, and here’s a fun little tidbit, the 2 stories that have, perhaps, the strongest evidence of there being more than just friendship (this quote, this quote, and this quote (which was said after Holmes stated that, if he had hypothetically loved someone, he would kill the person that killed the person he loved)) come from the stories The Problem of Thor Bridge (the first quote) and The Adventure of the Three Garridebs (the last 2), which both belonged to the Estate in the US until after the final season of the show.

So, let’s get into the minds of BBC, for a moment. Someone has decided they want to reimage Sherlock in a new and unique way: modern day. The Holmes Estate has been fighting legal battles in America for the past decade and has won all of them, and has also issued the verdict that to make stories, you need a license. You say ‘okay’ and go along with it because you’re a big corporation that can afford to do such a thing. When the first season of the show airs, it isn’t legal to have openly gay characters, so everything has to be regulated to subtext. You outright state that being gay is okay because you want to let people know you are in full support of homosexuality, even if it isn’t legal yet. The writers and producers of the show are huge ACD fanboys and BIG fans of The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, so, yeah, there’s some gay subtext. By the second season, hey! Homosexuality is legal! Except the 2 stories with the biggest indication of Sherlock and John’s attraction towards each other are still very much in the hands of the Estate, who has spent the past decade fighting legal battles. You may be able to pay for a license, but a lawsuit really isn’t something you’d like to go through. Whether the Estate has any legal standing to do such a thing or not, a lawsuit would be a long, messy battle. By the third season, a court case in America has decided that anything written prior to 1923 doesn’t need a license (damn, that’s 2 seasons of being successfully intimidated into a license). However, the two stories with greatest evidence still belong to the Estate, and the Estate tried to weasel their way into owning more of Sherlock than they should by arguing about his character. They probably wouldn’t take well to an openly gay Sherlock, would they? By season 4, the same problem still exists. Cut to 2020. Both of the stories with those quotes have entered public domain. But, uh oh, a month, a month before the 10th anniversary of your show, the news breaks that the Estate is filing yet another lawsuit, this time against multiple different parties, one of them being the mega corporation of Netflix (god, that’s some balls right there) that what they did broke copyright law because it portrayed characters in a way they supposedly weren’t portrayed until later stories, stories the Estate still owns (that is some balls right there). So you might feel the need to cover your ass a bit. Despite the past decade of saying that they characters you have portrayed are nothing but platonic, the fans don’t seem to buy it, and, in hindsight, there’s a lot of reasons not to. Maybe something needs to be created that subtly tells fans that they really are just looking too far into it. And, what great luck, a YouTube channel is asking you to make something for the 10th anniversary. 

Is this what happened? I don’t really know. I have nothing more than circumstantial evidence and guesswork here to go off of. I’m not privy to the private thoughts of Mark Gatiss or Steven Moffat or any of the head honchos at BBC. I don’t know what kind of executive decisions are made in the best interest of the company. All I know is that the Conan Doyle Estate is hanging on to whatever copyrights they can possibly manage, that they are willing to level lawsuits on, quite frankly, ridiculous terms, and that having a lawsuit put against you is no laughing matter and that those whose work revolves around Sherlock Holmes and creating stories about him would want to tread carefully. This explanation is, admittedly, far fetched. But it’s the only one that really makes sense. It’s the only one that would explain why a gay man and a generally progressive company would have a show that has layer upon layer upon layer saying that there is more between John and Sherlock than just friendship, as well as a rabid fanbase that they know ship it, and still not deliver, even attempt to squash such mindsets. 

There is, however, one final note I would like to end this on. I have talked before about how I think there will be another season, if the stars align and schedules allow such a thing. The best estimates of when another season might come out is 2022 or 2023, and I’m inclined to think the later year (god, that seems so far away). The year that the last story will become completely open to the public and the entirety of Sherlock Holmes will be public domain is 2023. So, maybe there is hope. 

[acti-veg]

Animal Rights vs Welfare

Gaining some knowledge of these animal rights issues is only the start, our next step has to be deciding how we respond to them. Most unbiased people who have made a conscious effort to learn about animal agriculture will recognise that much of what we do to animals is cruel and cannot be justified. We all agree that animals should not suffer unnecessarily, that chickens being crammed into cages and pigs lying in their own faeces is wrong, but not everyone agrees on what we should be advocating as a solution to these problems.

There are essentially two schools of thought on this, the animal rights view, also known as ‘abolitionism’ and animal welfare, as advocated by welfarists.  The differences between these two philosophies are profound, and understanding them can shed light on where a lot of the disagreements between animal advocates come from.

The theory of animal welfarism essentially holds that it is okay to exploit and kill animals, so long as they are treated humanely. An animal’s welfare is the primary concern, not their rights, and so advocates of this philosophy generally support animal welfare reforms such as bigger cages, cleaner conditions, CCTV in slaughterhouses and better stunning procedures. Most people who aren’t vegan are welfarists, or at least pay lip-service to the ideals of welfarism. A good example of an animal welfare organisation is the RSPCA or the ASPCA - they support inspections of slaughterhouses, stricter slaughter standards and better conditions, but they are not opposed to killing animals for food and even host barbecues as fundraising events.

By contrast, advocates of animal rights, or ‘abolitionists,’ believe that the central problem isn’t how we use animals, the problem is the fact that we use them at all. Abolitionists don’t generally support welfare reforms, since their ultimate goal is a vegan society and for all animal agriculture to be abolished, hence the name. For abolitionists there is no such thing as humane slaughter, and the act of killing an animal is intrinsically wrong, regardless of how it is conducted or which welfare measures are in place before and during slaughter. Abolitionists will often dismiss campaigns for larger cages or cleaning conditions on the grounds that they do not address the real issue, and instead see advocating veganism and for a legal change to the property status of animals to be their primary concern.

There is a widespread lack of understanding of this distinction. This is what leads non-vegans to so often ask why we aren’t ‘doing something useful’, like petitioning animal agriculture corporations to improve on how animals are treated, or supporting local farming instead of large corporations. It is also the reason people are confused when we tell them that we don’t support eating eggs from backyard hens, or why we won’t join protests which other people view to be in the best interests of animals. For many of these people, the concept of abolitionism is almost unthinkable, so they assume that when we say we are advocating for animal rights, we are advocating for their right to good living conditions and a quick death, not for their right to life and bodily autonomy.

Mainstream dialogue about animal ethics is still driven by welfarism, and all of the larger animal rights charities have campaigned for welfare reforms, even if their mission statement is to advocate for animal rights. The reason for this is primarily budgetary. In order to gain supporters and financial backers animal rights groups need to have wins, so they can inform supporters of where their money is going and advertise the good work they do. 

For example, animal rights groups will pressure a corporation to stop using veal crates, the corporation will co-operate and just keep the calves in slightly larger enclosures so that they’re not called veal crates anymore. The animal rights group sends out a press release claiming victory and praising the supplier for co-operating, which nets them more support. In turn, the corporation gets rid of the negative press attention and can boast that their veal is humane - it must be because even the animal rights groups support it. They get to increase their sales by easing the conscience of their consumer, then a short time later conditions usually return to normal with little to no fuss - only rarely are these reforms permanent.

The issue with this thinking is that despite almost seventy years of legislative welfare reform, things are perhaps worse for animals now than they have ever been. When welfare reforms are won in courts or agreed in boardrooms, like the CCTV in slaughterhouses campaign in the UK, the impact on the animals themselves are small. The real impact is on consumers, since it makes people feel better about consuming animals, which in turn increases demand. 

Consumers will respond to anyone asking them to give up meat that the animals are treated really well, how could they not be, since CCTV will be in all slaughterhouses in the UK? They won’t know that these CCTV videos aren’t made public. They won’t know that the footage will be reviewed by a small number of vets who will not have anywhere near enough time to watch even a tiny percentage of the animals being processed, and many have a direct financial incentive not to challenge what they see. Consumers will not know that almost all the cruelty inflicted on animals in slaughterhouses is perfectly legal, and so a vet seeing it won’t make any practical difference to the procedures themselves, or what animals are forced to endure. All they will know is that their meat was produced ‘humanely’, so why should they ever give it up?

This is why animal agriculture corporations who fairly obviously don’t care about animal welfare will nevertheless still negotiate with animal rights groups, because they know that these reforms will make people buy their products. The result is that more animal products are bought, which increases demand, which in turn increases the number of animals being consumed.

This really took off in the 1970′s in the boom of ‘ethical meat,’ with a growing awareness of the evils of animal agriculture people were becoming more concerned about where their animal products were coming from. Producers realised that they could capitalise on this concern for animals rather than losing profit from it, and so marketed their products as ‘humane,’ free range, cage free or humane approved, despite the fact that these labels legally mean very little. This is how consumers can see RSPCA approved sausages and humane certified veal, and never question why a group supposedly devoted to protecting animals would support products which literally cannot be acquired without their exploitation and slaughter.

Animal welfarism plays into this toxic idea that it is somehow possible to clean up the slaughterhouses and to make the industrialised slaughter of trillions of animals humane. Many argue that it is unrealistic to suppose that we will ever stop animals from being slaughtered, but the same could be argued of many other cruelties inflicted upon humans and animals. We don’t advocate for people to treat prisoners of conscience more ‘humanely’, we argue for them to be released. 

Similarly, Westerners don’t generally advocate for dogs to be treated more humanely when they are eaten elsewhere, or when they are used in dog fights, they recognise that a change in living conditions alone would not be enough. In no other context would the idea of reforming exploitation, violence and death be taken seriously, and it seems that the only reason it is advocated in the case of animal agriculture is because its victims aren’t human.

None of this is to say that animal welfare isn’t important; animals must always be treated well wherever they are kept. Yet so long as an animal is viewed as property, as commodities to be bought, sold and killed, their welfare will never be taken seriously. No matter how ‘kind’ the farmer, the needs and preferences of farmed animals will always come second to profit. If animals are to have any rights, surely the most fundamental of these should be the right to life, not just the right to have their life ended in a slightly less horrific way, or to live in a better cage before they have their throat slit. Those of us who claim to advocate for animals must surely defend their right to life as a bare minimum.

-An extract from my free eBook: The Green Road - A Practical Guide to Veganism

[itsbebachan]

Unfortunate Soul Chapter 5

Hello my lovelies, I'm back again. I'm sorry for the wait but it is what it is. Works got me busy and to make things worse they have me working on Thanksgiving, but even with everything that is going on I still find some time to write. Again, thanks to everyone that has commented and given me kudos. I do read all my comments and respond to them. It might take me a while but I will write back. I hope you enjoy this new chapter and I will see you all soon.  

Gif From hahae-ichihara

Arriving at our home Tenga came running out. As soon as I stepped foot outside, he bombarded me with a million questions. "Are you ok? Is the baby alright? Do you need anything?" He looked out of sorts. His well-groomed hair was disheveled, his clothes all wrinkled, and he had heavy bags under his eyes.

"I'm ok; Ten, so is the baby. It was just a slight scare. But the better question is if your feeling well. I'm sorry to say this, bro, but you look like shit." I caressed his face trying to put him at ease. I worry that the stress of my situation was too much for my kind-hearted brother.

"I'm fine, I promise. I'm more concerned with what the doctors had to say." He looked at my parents expectantly, then turn his gaze back at me, expecting an answer. I just stared at him, realizing that I had no idea what had happened.

"I'm not sure." I was at a loss.

My dad got out of the car, approaching us both.  "It was due to high blood pressure caused by stress. He needs to get plenty of rest and follow the doctor's instructions. Damn, Katsuki almost killed them both! I swear that kid will not get away with the trouble he has caused to our family." Blue lighting was coursing through his arm, the anger in his eyes evident.

"Toshi, come down. This anger is not suitable for your heart. Please, baby, let's take a deep breath and calm down." Mom embraced him and kept speaking in soft tones. My mom's scent clearly washed away the stress and anger that my dad was feeling. "Tenya, please bring Izuku's thing in the house where we continue this conversation." With that, he led my dad inside our home, caressing his back and saying comforting words.

"Are you sure your ok?" Tenya asked one more time to make sure that I wasn't hiding anything from him.

"Yes, TenTen. I promise to let you know if anything has changed."

We followed my parents into our home, where I continued to my room. I wanted to get settled before having this conversation. My nerves were still a bit shaken up after my ordeal. Laying down on my bed, I closed my eyes, letting the silents of the room calm me. I still couldn't wrap my head around the thought that I needed to decide soon which of my three potential mates I should meet first. I wanted to make a well-informed decision by getting to know each of them, but my heart was still torn. I felt like I was cheating on Kacchan just by having their profiles, let alone going out on dates with them. I was so scared of what Katsuki would do if he found out I was even considering meeting them, but a part of me knew that he wouldn't care.

I reached into my bag and pulled out the folders wanting to give them one more read before deciding. A knock on my door let me know that I had a visitor, but with the destressing scent coming through the door, I know it was Tenya. "Come in, Tenya."

"Hey, I just wanted to see if you needed anything."  He replays as he walks into my room, closing the door behind him. "Nope, just about to go through these files one more time before telling mom which guy I want to meet first." My voice was low and tired. I just wanted everything to go back to normal. I didn't want to have to go through this pregnancy alone, and the fact that Katsuki didn't give a crap about me made the whole situation worse.

The scent of fear and sadness was unmistakable in the air. Tenya put his arm around me, pulling me to his side, scenting me in the process. "Hey, honey, don't worry about it. I'm sure everything will turn out ok. I know that this is all overwhelming, but it will all turn out fine in the end. "How do you even know that, Tenya. I'm an 18 yr old Uke, unwed and pregnant. My child's father wants nothing to do with us, and now I have to go out and meet this Seme that God only knows why they would even waste their time with a used Uke, like me.  I hate all of this. I just want my life back. I just wish that this had never happened to me in the first place."

I could feel new tears at the corner of my eyes, but I would not let them fall. I was tired of all this crying. I had to try and get through this.

"I know, Zuku. But the truth of the matter is that this is the right thing to do. I don't want you to go through hardship, and we both know that being a single mom in this new society is the worst-case scenario. Back before the pandemic, being a single mom was empowering, but now it just means that you were not good enough as a Uke. Society would treat you like a stain in our newfound utopia. They would see you and your kid as the scum of the Earth. We don't want that for you, honey." He says as he rubs my shoulders and released his calming scent.

"Can I look over the profile?" Tenya asked, pointing at the files that were on my lap. "Sure, they all seem like nice guys. I just wish I know why they would even want to settle with someone like me." I frown as I pass him the files.

"Don't say that, Izuku. There is nothing wrong with you. You are a wonderful person. Any of these guys would be lucky to have you as his mate." His smile was genuine and sweet.

"Well, he looks like a great guy and handsome too." He points at Todoroki's photo, and I smile. I have to admit that Todoroki was extremely handsome. His exotic features were captivating, and the fact that he was so close to his mother was a plus in my books.

"Yeah, I think he might be a nice guy too. Do you think I should tell mom to set up a meeting with him? I'm really nervous about meeting any of them." My hands were shaking, and  I'm sure that Tenya notices.

Placing my hands in his own, Tenya gave them a small squeeze to reassure me that this was the right thing to do. "I promise everything is going to be okay. If it doesn't work out with him, you still have two more guys to check out." He smiled, lifting all my doubts. "Now that that is settled, let's go and talk to mom and find out what the doctors had to say." Patting my knee, we left my room in search of our parents.

Entering the living room, we heard my dad talking very animatedly on the phone. I sat next to mom and asked who he was talking to. He informed me that my dad was on the phone with Katsuki's parents.

"Why would he do that?" I couldn't believe that he would call them. I was done with all of this bullshit. There is no point in getting them involved anymore. Katsuki has made it perfectly clear that he wants nothing to do with me. Why can't dad just let it be?

"Honey, he is only looking out for you." He pats my knee with a look of concern. "I understand, ma, but can't we just let it go. I just want to go on with my life. One of the reasons why I came downstairs was to ask you to get the matchmaker to set up a meeting with Shoto Todorokoi." I was so tired of all of this. My anxiety was through the roof.

"Sweetheart, I'm glad to hear that you have chosen to meet with him. But you have to understand that Katsuki's irresponsibility has affected this family. He needs to be made aware. We almost lost you." He hugged me, trying to calm his nerves. "I was so scared, Zuku. I truly believed that you weren't going to make it. If he would just accept the situation and stop acting like a child, we could have avoided all of this." I stayed in his warm embrace for a couple more minutes until my dad came to sit in front of us.

"Mitsuki is heartbroken. She feels so helpless in this situation. Of course, she demanded that Katsuki takes responsibility, but that boy is as stubborn as she is. He is adamant that he is not the father, and no matter what she says, he will not budge." He placed his head between his hands and sighed.

"Toshi, honey. Izuku has decided to meet with Shoto Todororoki. Why don't we just leave this situation alone with Katsuki and just move forward? Who knows, maybe one of these suitors can make our son happy. This whole situation has been such a tiring ordeal that I'm sure we all just want to leave it behind us." He says with a small smile.

"If that is the case, call Madama Midnight to set up the meeting. I hope you are considering giving each one of these gentlemen a chance to get to know you. I know that we are running out of time, and I would hate for people to start speaking unfavorably about you. But you can not take this decision lightly; the choice is essentially yours to make willingly and wisely."

"I understand, dad; I promise I will give this my all." I know that no matter what decision I make or who I choose in the end, it will be someone who will genuinely want me, and I can't ask for anything more.

A week had gone by, and things were pretty much the same. Katsuki once again had a new guy by his side, and poor Yuga was a shell of his formal self. The poor guy no longer wears his fabulous fashion nor his radiant smile. Now he just walked around like a zombie. I feel for the poor kid. He's such a nice guy to have around, and everyone in our school honestly seems to like him. It infuriates me to see him this way. Sure, we don't hang around the same friend group, but that doesn't mean that he deserved what Katsuki put him through.

My friends and Tenya have genuinely been my rock. Eijiro and Denki have been nothing but supportive and understanding. I've even have caught Eijiro giving me some extra helping of food during lunch unconsciously. I'm sure that his actions were driven by his "Seme's"  need to care for a Uke in distress, and Denki seemed to understand that it's just in his nature to help and not that Eijiro was trying to court me. As all four of us were making our way to the front gate, I happened to see a tall guy in uniform waiting by the entrance. At first, I didn't think anything of it until we came closer, and I realize that I had seen his face before.

"Oh my God, Tenya. Is that Mirio Togata? What in the world is he doing here?" I was shocked to see him here; I was not mentally prepared to meet him yet. I had every intention of meeting him, but I wasn't expecting this. After I got home from the hospital, my mom had called Madama Midnight the following morning to set up a meeting with Shoto. We were to meet in a couple of days.

"Izuku; you don't have to go, say hello. It seems as he hasn't seen you yet. We can just go back to school and wait for him to leave." I could see that Tenya was anxious, and he would prefer for us to leave.

"Listen, Zuku. Why don't Denki and I go and ask why he is here. Neither one of us knows each other, so it won't seem out of place to ask. That way, you don't have to interact with him until you are ready.”

I appreciate the concern Eijiro was showing for my situation, but I know that I couldn't keep relying on my friends to solve my problems. Besides, it's not like I wasn't curious to see what he wanted.

"I'm ok, guys. I'm just going to go and see what he wants. Besides, I would have to meet the guy eventually, and why not by saying hello." I smiled at my friends and started making my way to Mirio.

"Zuku, wait." I turned around to see Tenya running towards me. "Hey, I'm gonna stay close by just in case you need me, ok. I don't like the idea of leaving you alone with his guy." He seems determined to make sure that nothing happens to me. My brother is so caring and loving any Uke will be so lucky to have him.

"Ok, but really Ten. Don't worry so much. I'm gonna be ok."

As I made my way to the entrance, I could see that Mirio look nervous. He kept looking around as if he had lost something. I made my way to him; my anxiety was making me feel out of breath. "Um, excuse me. Is there anything I can help you with?" My voice was so small; it's a miracle that he even heard me."

He turned around, and his eyes became wild. "I can't believe that it's really you. Hi, my name is Togata Mirio. I'm sorry if I scared you by coming to your school unannounced. But I was on my way home from school, and I realized that your school was very close to mine. I know that you might not be interested in meeting me, but I just had to get to know you. Is there any way that I can walk you home?" His smile as he said his last word was so unbelievably genuine that I found my head bobbing up and down.

"Um, hi. I guess you already know my name. I'm Midoriya Izuku. I'm sorry if I gave off the impression that I was not interested in meeting you. I've just have had a couple of things pop up recently." I lowered my head and started fidgeting with the bottom of my shirt. I was so nervous. Here in front of me was one of my potential mates. Just standing next to him, smelling his intoxicating scent of morning dew and sunshine, was really doing a number on me.

"It's okay. I understand. I'm sorry I just showed up unannounced." He smiled again, and it just made me weak at the knee. Somehow this guy was doing things to me that I just couldn't understand.

"It's alright. Um, let me let my brother know that I will be walking home with you before leaving." I gave him a genuine smile and made my way to Tenya.

"Hey, he just wanted to know if he could walk me home to get to know me. I told him that I would. He seems like a nice guy. If anything happens, I will make sure to call you, ok."

Tenya looked upset, but he agreed with my decision.

"Listen, Zuku. You call me right away if you feel unsafe. You got it!" He was not taking no for an answer.

"I understand, please don't worry. I'll be ok." And with that, I started to make my way to Mirio.

Unbeknownst to me, Katsuki was watching our interaction. His white knocks were visible as he held his car door open, smoke coming out of his hands in small clouds. His eyes inflamed. He gets into his car, slamming the door, and drive away like the devil was chasing after him.

@alovelie @girl2257 @strawberry-panic @0-ddball @monkeyzz-r-ur-bff @dragon-lover-idk @iyemicomic1920 @leynly @otaku-chan-world @jawazia @im-the-villin-in-this-story @itsatomichyena @rainytears2 @nevergrowingup101 @littlelovebug98 @koyukiy @justthememes1 @koyukiy @spookygirl1994 @missbossy333 @rose-moon2002​ @lana-del-jey​ @like50breadsticks​ @creativegremlin​ @waytomanyhusbands​ @hui11282003-blog​

[lastsonlost]

These women have dedicated their lives to addressing a crisis of masculinity

Some have academic backgrounds or at first campaigned for women's rights

They believe society has developed a creeping antipathy towards all things male

So who are they — and what are the issues they are fighting on men's behalf?

The gender pay gap. The lack of women in top jobs. The #MeToo movement and the exploitation and abuse it exposed. There is a damning list of evidence that the fight for equal opportunities and rights for women is far from over.

This makes it all the more surprising that a small but increasingly vocal band of women is fighting for justice — not for women, but for men.

These women have dedicated their lives to addressing what they see as a crisis of masculinity and the unfair treatment of men by society.

They come from academic backgrounds or began campaigning for women's rights before focusing on problems of the other sex.

Of course, it is not the case that women's advancement can come only at the expense of men. And no one could deny women still face huge obstacles on the road to equality.

But the campaigners believe that in its attempts to rectify historical wrongs towards women, society has developed a creeping antipathy towards all things male, and this is knocking men's confidence at a time of intense cultural shift.

They fear that many men and boys are neglected, ignored and excluded. This, they say, is why men's mental health problems are on the rise. Suicide is now the biggest killer of UK men under 45.

Some of their views are highly controversial, and some activists have been accused of ignoring the harm done to women by men, or excusing it.

So who are these women, why on earth are they doing this — and what are the issues they are fighting on men's behalf?

COURTS PUNISH MEN – AND KIDS LOSE OUT

Alison Bushell, 57, from Suffolk, runs a social work consultancy.

Britain's family courts are engaged in practices that separate fathers from their children, knowingly or not, Alison believes. She says: 'The pressure groups springing up, some of which are advising the Ministry of Justice on domestic violence cases, have an anti-male agenda.'

In 20 years as a statutory social worker she saw a lack of effort to keep families together and an 'airbrushing out' of many dads.

'I see fathers marginalised and excluded from their kids' lives,' she says, 'while mothers are supported by out-of-date gendered views of parenting within the courts, and health and social services.'

And so, she believes, custody of children is often automatically given to women even when that isn't in a child's best interests.

'False allegations are more prevalent than people realise and supervision orders disproportionately happen to fathers.'

Every day, Alison gets calls from men who haven't seen their kids for up to five years. 'Having lost contact with their children, such men sometimes turn to alcohol or drugs out of sheer desperation.

'More become depressed. I had a client who took his own life. I believe the allegations against him were a major contributing factor.'

Alison has faced several complaints of bias while representing — largely male — clients in court, but none has been upheld.

Disillusioned and concerned to highlight these inequities, she left statutory social work ten years ago to set up consultancy, Child and Family Solutions. The agency works with families going through bitter separations, and carries out assessments for the Family Court and local authorities.

She has also worked with male domestic abuse victims. 'It has given me huge respect for those daring to speak out, because there is so little help available. It is a national scandal that so few refuge places are available for men.'

In England there were more than 3,600 beds in safe houses for women in 2017, but just 20 for men. The charity ManKind Initiative, which Alison supports, has told her that only 36 of 163 beds now available in refuges or safe houses are earmarked for men.

'Since Office for National Statistics figures state that 40 per cent or more victims of domestic abuse are men, this is alarming.

'When will people realise that holding on to a gendered narrative in domestic abuse is harmful?'

As for gender politics, Alison admits she has performed a volte-face. 'In the 80s I spent time at Greenham Common and lived in a women-only house. I even had a badge declaring 'a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle'. How times change.

'I can now be found reading [neoconservative author] Douglas Murray or listening to a talk by [Right-wing psychologist] Jordan Peterson.'

WHY I'M FIGHTING FEMINISM

Belinda Brown, 54, is a social anthropologist and co-founder of Men For Tomorrow. A widow with two children, she lives in London.

When she met her second husband, social scientist Geoff Dench — known as the architect of the socially conservative Blue Labour movement — Belinda's activism was ignited.

Together they set up Men for Tomorrow to research male problems — and fight against what they saw as a tendency to 'neglect or ignore issues affecting men'.

Shortly after their 2009 marriage, however, Geoff was diagnosed with a rare brain disease, progressive supranuclear palsy. He died on June 24 last year, aged 77. Belinda nursed him until the end.

She plans to continue his work by exposing what she sees as a deliberate attempt by feminist activists to undermine the traditional family unit.

She writes and speaks on a range of topics concerning men for platforms such as The Conservative Woman website, and carries out research aimed at reinforcing 'traditional' values.

As an anthropologist, she learned about feminism during her studies, but disagreed with much of what she heard.

'I was always aware of my own power and the power of other women,' she says. 'While I knew there were injustices which needed rectifying, today I see more injustices afflicting men.

'Most men work extremely hard to provide for their families, often at considerable cost to themselves. For women to ignore these sacrifices and instead blame men for all the problems in the world, it's divisive and damaging to gender cohesion.'

Belinda has worked for homeless charity Shelter, where like Alison Bushell she was shocked by the high proportion of men she saw.

'Almost all the rough sleepers were men and family breakdown was the reason so many were without homes,' she says.

'During divorce settlements it was always the wives who gained ownership of the house, leaving husbands stranded.'

According to charity Homeless Link, today 84 per cent of the homeless are men, and their average age at death is just 44, half the average male lifespan. She also draws a correlation between the current epidemic of gang-related knife crime and the rise in fatherlessness. Most of the offenders, she says, come from broken homes, according to her research.

As for the future of gender relations, she has this to say: 'I hope one day soon feminism will be seen as an interesting period of history, but one which caused tremendous damage to society.'

BOYS NEED MORE EMOTIONAL SUPPORT

Sonia Shaljean, 49, founded award-winning community interest company, Lads Need Dads. Married with three teenage sons, she lives in Essex.

Sonia has observed men at their lowest ebb during her 20-plus years as a substance misuse counsellor and anger management specialist within the fields of alcohol, drugs, criminal justice and homelessness.

'I was struck by how many of those men had grown up either without a father or with an abusive or unsupportive dad,' she says. So she founded not-for-profit Lads Needs Dads in 2015, with an initial grant of just £4,000.

The organisation has a team of trained male mentors, who encourage emotional intelligence in boys aged 11-15 with absent fathers. It also provides opportunities for youngsters to take part in outdoor activities, learn practical life skills and volunteer in the community.

She believes it helps to have a woman at the helm. 'If it were a man leading an all-male organisation, it could possibly be disregarded by some women.

'Our aim at Lads Need Dads is to provide support, guidance and encouragement — and a much-needed male voice to enable boys to open up.

'It's so rewarding to watch boys' self-esteem, emotional stability and motivation grow. They perform much better at school, too, as well as having improved relationships at home.'

According to the Centre for Social Justice, 1.1 million young people have little or no contact with their fathers, while 2.7 million live in lone parent families.

In his book The Boy Crisis, Dr Warren Farrell explains how fatherless boys, and to a lesser extent girls, tend to have less empathy and are more likely to break the law. According to a Unicef report on the wellbeing of children in economically advanced nations, including the UK, 85 per cent of youths in prison have an absent father.

Sonia was keenly interested in the link between fatherlessness and offending, in part because she started her career in a civilian role at the Metropolitan Police, where she managed a Community Safety Unit and helped refer victims and perpetrators to the right services.

Later she worked for the charity Refuge, setting up two women's refuges in South East London alongside volunteering on a national helpline for a men's charity that provided therapeutic programmes for men wanting to change their behaviour.

Sonia is keen to point out that not all boys growing up without a father end up as a statistic, saying: 'Other protective factors come into play, such as encouraging boys to join clubs and take part in sports, where they can find positive male role models.

'We aren't here to replace fathers. In fact our programmes have reunited many boys with their dads after years of absence.'

FATHERS PAY THE PRICE IN DIVORCE

Stacey Camille Alexander-Harriss, 41, a family support worker and children's novelist, moved to the UK from America ten years ago after meeting her English husband online. He's a City finance director and they live in Ilford with their two dogs.

A former Art and French teacher, Stacey now works supervising contact between fathers and their children after family breakdown, at Alison Bushell's agency.

'We tend to work more with dads than mums, as they seem to be the ones who have difficulty retaining a relationship with children after divorce and frequently become depressed in the custody battle.'

She believes this is the result of systemic inequalities and a bias towards mothers. 'Women hold all the power, especially when it comes to custody.

'It's unfair that dads have to pay for all the legal costs, paying people like Alison to advocate.

'Often men with good jobs from affluent backgrounds end up taking out loans. Even if you win you spend so much on this insane game.

'When mothers notice there is a maternal bias they realise they can say whatever they like about their ex. I've heard accusations of terrorism just to get custody. It's so ugly. And when mothers refuse to seek help for their emotional problems they tend to place the blame on men.'

Her books deal with troubled families — Myrtle Takes Tea, published under the pseudonym Alexander Stacey, is about a lonely nine year old with mean teachers and parents with money problems. All that matters to her is her prized toy rabbit Earl Grey.

Stacey thinks setting an example is a way to heal these injuries and help families.

'All the tools I use in my work are drawn from examples set by my own parents who were loving, strong and wise. My father was an orthopaedic surgeon and he and my mother were married for 40 patient years until they both passed away. I try to teach fathers about the importance of discipline, responsibility, self-reliance and confidence.'

I HAD DEATH THREATS - AND A BOMB SCARE

Erin Pizzey, 80, founded women's charity Refuge. She is now a patron of the charity Families Need Fathers. She lives in South London and is divorced with two children.

'I'm all for equality of the sexes,' Erin Pizzey says.

'But equality isn't the endgame for those feminists who believe women would be far better off without men.'

This may sound odd coming from the founder of the first women's refuge.

It's nearly 50 years since, aged 32 and with two young children, she set up The Chiswick Women's Refuge as a place 'where women could meet and use our talents'.

'Both my parents were violent and my mother beat me,' she says. 'So when the first battered woman came through the door and said 'no one will help me', I knew what she meant.'

The London house became women's charity Refuge — and led to the creation of hundreds more women's refuges. And yet Erin became a pariah, as she insisted many female victims were also violent.

'Of the first 100 women who came into my refuge, 62 were as violent or more violent than the men they had left,' she says.

'Therefore, domestic violence can't be a gender issue, it can't be just men, because we girls are just as badly affected.'

She became a hate figure for saying so. 'They branded me a 'victim blamer'. 'After a bomb scare, the police suggested my post be sent to them for inspection.'

In the Seventies, she tried to set up a refuge for men, with little success. 'The rich men who were willing to fund my projects for women refused to give any money to male victims.' Now she works with Families Need Fathers and is a patron of The ManKind Initiative, a charity which supports male domestic violence victims.

The subject may be becoming less taboo. Police in England and Wales recorded nearly 150,000 instances of domestic violence to men in 2017, more than double those in 2012 — which in part reflects a greater willingness to report problems.

The 2018 Crime Survey for England and Wales recorded that 7.9 per cent of women (1.3 million) and 4.2 per cent of men (695,000) have suffered domestic abuse.

It is women who are far more likely to be victims of extreme violence. Government figures show, for example, that 73 per cent of victims of domestic homicides from 2014 to 2017 were women, while most killers were male.

This leaves male victims in a difficult situation, which Erin is working to address. She says: 'I am fighting for my son, my grandsons and my great grandsons, so that they might have a future where men are no longer demonised.'

The War On Masculinity by James Innes-Smith will be published by Little Brown in spring 2020.

[cassolotl]

Just submitted my response to the Trans Inquiry 2 (England and Wales)

You can see the call for evidence from the W&EC here on Twitter, and submit your evidence here. It requires a Word, ODT or RTF file to be uploaded. You can write as much or as little as you like.

The deadline is tomorrow, Friday 27th November 2020.

My response is below the cut, because it’s over 3,000 words long...! But please, be aware that you can write 20 words if you need to. You can just say “I’m trans and the reforms still don’t allow me to have a gender recognition certificate. They don’t go far enough, because the process is unnecessarily medicalised and still doesn’t accommodate nonbinary people.”

~

ABOUT ME

I am 34 years old. I live in Powys, Wales. I am nonbinary - specifically, I feel like I have no gender at all. My pronouns are singular they (they/them/their/theirs/themself, plural verbs). I learned what nonbinary was when I was 24, and immediately came out and began my transition. I have been attending the NHS gender identity clinic (GIC) in London since April 2012, about 8.5 years. Throughout that time I have presented as openly nonbinary, and have had surgeries and hormone treatments from the NHS to aid in an androgynous presentation. I have all the records and paperwork that I would need to receive a gender recognition certificate (GRC), if one were available to nonbinary people. I am openly nonbinary with everyone I see and interact with on a regular basis (social workers, support workers, landlords, friends and family, etc).

~

SUMMARY

The Government’s proposed reforms are positive but only a fraction of the changes needed to ensure trans people have equal rights and sufficient trans-specific medical care.

In particular, three additional gender clinics in the NHS are horrifically insufficient, especially for children and adolescents facing the body-horror and permanence of the wrong puberty, resulting in preventable major surgeries. Requirements for obtaining a gender recognition certificate remain excessive, demoralising and unnecessary. The financial cost currently involved is much greater than the £140 fee, making a fee reduction seem like lip service.

The gender recognition process remains needlessly and discriminatorially medicalised, unacceptably has higher standards for gender recognition than the NHS has for medical transition, and allows for stalling and abuse by spouses because UK marriage laws are needlessly gendered. It also does not account for Gillick competence in the case of legal gender recognition for children.

There is a complete lack of provision for nonbinary people, which is unacceptable, especially now that the courts have found that nonbinary people are protected under the transition characteristic of the Equality Act 2010. This means that nonbinary people are unable to marry or parent children while being authentic in their genders, and are unable to receive a correct pension.

These barriers presented to trans people mean that still only a minority of trans people will access gender recognition certificates, which results in unnecessary and preventable problems for trans people, but also for the systems that have to accommodate them in accordance with the Equality Act 2010.

~

RESPONSES TO PROMPTS

The Government’s response to the GRA consultation:

Will the Government’s proposed changes meet its aim of making the process “kinder and more straight forward”?

Yes, but only marginally.

Three new GICs: Each month the NHS makes several months’ worth of referrals to GICs. Nowhere in the UK is it possible to access a GIC within the 18-week NHS-set timeline; the average wait is 18 months, which is horrific for transgender adults, and devastating and traumatic for transgender adolescents who are forced to go through the body-horror of the wrong puberty while waiting for two appointments to be prescribed puberty blockers. [1] It follows that in order to bring this waiting list down to lawful amount of time we need to increase the number of NHS GICs not by 40% but by 400%.

Fee reduction to “nominal amount”: I have still seen no reason to delay making this process a demedicalised case of submitting a form declaring a change of legal gender, much like changing one’s name by deed poll. We are not charged to update our details with HMRC, so we need not be charged for updating our details at a General Register Office.

Placing the procedure online: This is something that should have been done decades ago, but better late than never. It is also an attempt to repair the Titanic with superglue as it sinks. The system is difficult to access for all trans people, but not because of the method of application. The problem is that we are required to apply to the gender recognition panel at all.

Should a fee for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate be removed or retained? 

It should be removed. It is arbitrary, and other administrative changes of a similar nature and risk level do not have fees associated.

Are there other financial burdens on applicants that could be removed or retained?

The requirement to provide medical evidence for change of gender is unnecessary and costs money. For example, living in rural West Wales means that for the 8 years I’ve been attending the London GIC I have been paying for accommodation in London, because it is not physically possible to travel to London by public transport and back in one day when attending a GIC appointment. Each trip costs me at least £80 or so out of pocket, because I have to find accommodation close to the GIC for me and a PA (I am disabled and receive direct payments). I am entitled to have my travel costs refunded by the NHS but others are not, so attending GIC appointments will cost them money even if they don’t have to stay overnight.

At the moment the wait of in some cases several years for a first appointment followed by 1.5 years waiting for the second appointment means patients being referred today will be waiting 4-5 years for their first hormone prescription or surgery referral, so a significant number of people who would like a GRC have to pay for private treatment to get the proof they need within a reasonable timeframe.

Should the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be removed?

Yes. Legal gender need not be a medical issue. As when changing one’s name, legal gender need only be a case of signing a document with witnesses. The two reasons I’ve heard cited against demedicalising the gender recognition process are (1) fraud prevention and (2) protection of vulnerable women in single-sex spaces.

(1) We already have laws against fraud, and it is very easy and cheap to legally change one’s name in the UK. When you consider how “identifying” something like a gender is when compared to other identity metrics such as photographs, dates of birth, names, etc. (i.e. not very), it seems absurd that gender is so difficult to change. Existing fraud laws would allow for prosecution as easily if changing one’s legal gender were a matter of a statutory declaration only.

(2) We already have laws against abuse of women, women’s spaces are already protected even taking into account the Equality Act 2010, and in general the women responsible for protecting those women-only spaces currently accommodate and welcome trans women and have done for a long time. [2] Birth certificates are not required for accessing women-only spaces such as shelters, toilets and changing rooms. Other ID that might be required in a less free version of our current society, such as driver’s licences or passports, do not require a gender recognition certificate to have the gender marker changed, so demedicalising the gender recognition process has no effect on provision of necessary gender-exclusive services.

Anyone wishing to use an alternative gender presentation for fraudulent or abusive purposes does not have a more difficult time in the crimes that they are attempting to commit thanks to the Gender Recognition Act. The fact that currently only 1 in 10 transgender people have a GRC suggests that the system can currently accommodate people whose genders don’t match their birth certificates or tax records, so presumably making it much easier for people to make all of their IDs match will make no difference to fraud and abuse incidence, and may make it easier by removing discrepancies.

I would also argue that the current “gender dysphoria diagnosis —> correct ID” situation is back-to-front. Wanting ID that reflects a gender that is different from the one you were assigned at birth is evidence of gender dysphoria, and so applying for a birth certificate that shows a different gender to the one you were assigned at birth should be considered evidence of gender dysphoria for a diagnosis. It doesn’t need to go through a doctor; wanting to change the ID should be enough on its own.

Should there be changes to the requirement for individuals to have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years?

Yes. Being transgender isn’t something that comes on suddenly later in life. It is a neurodevelopmental issue, considered by some medical professionals to begin in the womb. Having to wait two more years to have that gender recognised in law seems arbitrary and unnecessary.

Most transgender people have known that their gender was different to the one they were assigned at birth for years before they begin their transition. I would say that making it very difficult to change one’s legal gender is, among other factors, something that contributes to this unfortunate tendency.

I understand that living in a new gender role for two years is considered proof of commitment to that gender role by the state. Proof of this nature is not required for other administrative matters such as change of name or title. Let’s imagine the same situation for something that might be considered harder to change because it is by its nature decided by biology: date of birth. If one’s date of birth had been entered incorrectly on a birth certificate and the individual or their parents noticed some years later, the birth certificate could be corrected with, at most, medical records showing that the baby was born on a different day. Likewise, to change a gender marker on a birth certificate should require, at most, medical records showing that the individual’s gender was assigned incorrectly at birth. This would be a copy of a letter from a doctor diagnosing gender dysphoria, which requires only 6 months of a specific type of discomfort. The legal system therefore is four times more strict about changing legal gender than the NHS is about referring for permanent gender-affirming surgery or prescribing hormones that cause permanent physical change. This is unnecessarily stringent. It could be considered discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010: trans people are less able to change incorrect records relating to their gender, in accordance with GDPR, because of the additional barriers.

If the gender recognition process was easy and cheap, and for some reason a person changed their gender marker on a whim and then wanted to change it back, it would be very easy for them to do so - but as you learned in the first Trans Inquiry some years ago, countries such as Ireland, where it is easy and cheap to change your legal gender, have not seen this happen. In general, we know that when it is easy and cheap to change your one’s legal gender, people tend to do it once and then never again.

What is your view of the statutory declaration and should any changes have been made to it?

I have no problem with the statutory declaration aspect of the gender recognition process. It seems acceptable that a change intended to be permanent should require the signing of a binding legal document, and that people who do so for fraudulent or otherwise harmful reasons be subject to criminal proceedings.

I am opposed to a spouse’s consent being required for married/civil-partnered people, as it gives another person unnecessary and potentially harmful control over their spouse’s transition.

Does the spousal consent provision in the Act need reforming? If so, how? If it needs reforming or removal, is anything else needed to protect any rights of the spouse or civil partner?

I understand that when one person in a marriage is changing their gender that changes the legal status of the marriage from a different-gender marriage to a same-gender marriage, or vice versa, and I agree that a spouse must consent to that change as an equal participant.

In order to resolve this issue, I would suggest making marriage law gender-neutral. There is no reason to have a same-gender marriage be any different than a different-gender marriage in law. It need not be “men can marry women, men can marry men, women can marry men, women can marry women” - it can simply be that an adult can marry another adult. That way, if one of the spouses changes their gender, the marriage is unchanged.

This would also prepare marriage law for legal recognition of nonbinary genders.

Should the age limit at which people can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) be lowered?

I am not aware of any reason why it would not be appropriate. In the UK, the NHS has a policy of assuming that children are capable of understanding and consenting (or not consenting) to medical treatment. It should be assumed that a child can also consent (or not) to having the gender marker on their birth certificate changed.

What impact will these proposed changes have on those people applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate, and on trans people more generally?

Moving the process online will allow people to apply electronically, which would likely have a positive impact on the environment due to being less CO2-intensive. It may also make the process faster, which would be positive.

Making the process cheaper will allow poorer people to apply for a GRC, which is positive.

The NHS providing 3 more GICs will allow some patients to travel a shorter distance to access care, which is positive.

However, I don’t think these changes will have a significant impact on the most serious issues affecting transgender people. I consider these to be: excessive waiting times for transition-related treatments, difficulty of access to change of legal gender, the demoralising and humiliating nature of the gender recognition process, and the complete lack of legal recognition of nonbinary genders in UK law.

What else should the Government have included in its proposals, if anything?

Legal recognition of nonbinary genders (including availability of gender recognition certificates and X gender markers on state-issued ID), legal gender recognition by statutory declaration, 400% increase in the number of gender identity clinics in the UK, and no cost for GRC application.

Does the Scottish Government’s proposed Bill offer a more suitable alternative to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004?

Yes.

Living in the “new” gender role is required for only 6 months, in line with diagnosis of gender dysphoria. A diagnosis of gender dysphoria is not required, as living in the “new” gender role would suggest that the person has gender dysphoria to the extent that they wish to live in the “new” role and the official diagnosis would be superfluous. A statutory declaration is required, which seems acceptable. All of this seems positive to me.

Requiring applicants to wait for three months to consider their application seems unnecessarily patronising and patriarchal, but the proposed Scottish Bill is still much more fit for purpose than the current and proposed England-and-Wales model.

~

Wider issues concerning transgender equality and current legislation:

Why is the number of people applying for GRCs so low compared to the number of people identifying as transgender?

I am not sure. I imagine there are several complex and intersecting reasons.

I think cost is probably an issue. I think that the amount and type of evidence currently required by the gender recognition panel is not very easy to obtain, and the applicant is unable to sit before the panel in person with or without a legal representative, and so there is a high risk that applicants will not meet the panel’s obscure criteria or be able to persuade them or answer their concerns/questions in person. If the application fails the money is lost, and the (significant) effort involved in application is wasted. The latter is offputting for everyone who might consider applying, and the former is a bonus barrier for poorer people.

I would speculate that it might also be because because living as a different gender than the one you were assigned at birth and getting medical treatment are easier and more medically urgent than changing one’s birth certificate, especially when compared to the frequency with which one has to show one’s birth certificate (and therefore “out” oneself, if one does not already have a GRC).

I think there is a tendency for people to think, “well, how often do I have to show my birth certificate or my tax records to people I have direct contact with? And how often are they going to be indiscreet and transphobic about it? Hardly ever, right?” But by the time they find out that transphobic people do exist and do make an issue about it, or by the time they have to show their birth certificate to someone they’d rather not come out to, it is too late and they are not able to apply for a GRC and get their records updated in time. Not having a GRC is therefore always a problem in the past, which removes urgency.

By comparison, gender dysphoria is a chronic and acute daily psychological discomfort, which is much harder to ignore.

Are there challenges in the way the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 interact? For example, in terms of the different language and terminology used across both pieces of legislation.

I understand that the Equality Act 2010 has now been tested in court by a nonbinary person in an employment tribunal and found to protect nonbinary people under the characteristic of gender transition “beyond any doubt”. The Gender Recognition Act doesn’t accommodate or provide for nonbinary people, and is therefore in breach of the Equality Act 2010. [3]

Are the provisions in the Equality Act for the provision of single-sex and separate-sex spaces and facilities in some circumstances clear and useable for service providers and service users? If not, is reform or further guidance needed?

I think the guidance for the Equality Act should explicitly state that nonbinary people are protected under the characteristic of gender transition. I do not feel that I am knowledgeable enough to comment on any other issues.

Does the Equality Act adequately protect trans people? If not, what reforms, if any, are needed

Now that the Equality Act 2010 has been shown in court to protect nonbinary people under the protected characteristic of gender transition I have no complaints.

What issues do trans people have in accessing support services, including health and social care services, domestic violence and sexual violence services?

A lot of trans people just don’t report hate crimes to the police because the police often don’t do anything about it. [4]

Because trans people face extra barriers in matters such as housing, employment, and primary and secondary medical care, they need additional support from e.g. Social Services. This means they have the barrier of having to ask for more than other people do, and for that request to be considered by individuals in the system who may also be transphobic, before being granted.

There was a women’s shelter in a city I used to live in, which said on a sign at the door “no men allowed!”, but then on their website it said “women only”. I emailed to ask for clarification, because I am nonbinary and it was unclear whether I would be allowed on the premises. They said that if I identified as a woman I was welcome to enter. As I don’t identify as a woman I didn’t enter. I would presumably also be barred from entering a shelter for abused men. The difficulty for nonbinary people is that there are no provisions for us whatsoever, whether provided or funded by the government/local authorities or otherwise.

Are legal reforms needed to better support the rights of gender-fluid and non-binary people? If so, how?

Yes. We need to be explicitly written into laws and guidance relating to the following:

- Marriage

- Passports

- Driving licenses

- Adoption

- Sexual violence (as victims and as perpetrators, in matters such as disclosure of transgender identity and medical history, definition of rape, etc.)

- Birth certificates (as parents, e.g. language relating to mother/father, birth parent)

- Pensions

- Hate crime

- Provision of public services and facilities (public toilets, changing rooms)

- Any law that has gender-specific statements or provisions

… and probably more.

~

[1] https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/08/13/nhs-trans-patients-laurels-gender-identity-clinic-south-west-waiting-list-yeovil-pride/

[2] https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/08/03/domestic-violence-shelters-transgender-no-impact-on-services/

[3] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gender-is-a-spectrum-landmark-uk-ruling-61650/

[4] Not a reputable third-party source, but a well-described and typical anecdotal example. https://twitter.com/JayHulmePoet/status/1328995596670267392 “Once I reported a hate crime to the police. They dropped the case without telling me, and then when a hate crime advocate called them out on it they took no action AND blamed it on me being open about being trans. I've not reported a hate crime since. The irony of the police telling me not to tell people that I'm trans so I [don’t] get hate crimed (again, not how hate crime law works) is that there's precedent for trans people to be charged with sexual offences if they have sex with someone without disclosing that we're trans.”

[autumn-foxfire]

I might be wrong 🤔 but I've seen a few people talk about mental health issues and how people get completely free from their crimes because of them... I don't personally agree or prefer not to involucrate myself with mental health having such a big influence on these discussions about the LOV charges, because... First, I know nothing about that, and second, doesn't that depends of what you were experiencing and your country? Not that I don't think it shouldn't be taken into account because that wouldn't be true, but it isn't an instant fix to your crimes, imo. From what I know... it happens when the person who commit that crime wasn't in the best place mentally, like if you had a schizophrenic attack or you had a severe panic attack at the moment. But people like Toga, Spinner, Shigaraki... they would probably be charged either way, I think? Along with Dabi and Compress. Yeah, sure, right now Dabi isn't in the best place and Shigaraki was manipulated, but what about past crimes? Because... Those were actual, personal decisions that were technically planned. The only thing is that their decisions came from a warped version of the world and I don't think that counts as much. It is my belief that usually, people that commit these crimes aren't in the best place, mentally.

I mean, in therapy, when a client confess to murder, the psychologist (depending of the country) usually can't say this kind of information, but if you are someone who is in danger, you have a reason to believe that your client is planning something or your client is probably going to hurt themselves, the first one doesn't really matter and you should call the police. And during Law, I think it also doesn't necessarily eliminate your responsabilities, it only changes the way you are prosecuted-- Like, instead of going to jail, they sent you to a hospital. Something quite similar? Doesn't it depends heavily of those factors?

In Argentina, just like almost every other country from America, I think the Law is or used to be terrible about this and you can walk free out of a lot of crimes, but jus because these things happens it doesn't means that it should 👀 I'm asking since you are a Law student dkdkjd my guess is that there must be a general idea of how the Law works in that area or a common response, even if every country applies it differently-- but I don't really know

Hmmm, in a probable attempt of putting my foot in my mouth and prove I have clue what I’m talking about when it comes to law (...I may be a law student but I never said I was a good one), I always find the discussion of mental health defences for the league to be interesting because while we in the UK have them, it’s not exactly as clear cut as one might think.

Who’s ready for a shoddy UK (EDIT: It’s actually only England and Wales these defences apply to and being a good student I completely forgot this :D) Criminal Law lesson!! (Please note that these defences are for the UK and UK alone and so would probably not apply in any other country, I just think the knowledge might give people a clearer look at how the law handles mental health when it comes to murder).

As you’re probably aware or can guess, murder is the most (or one of the most? I really need to go back over my criminal law stuff T-T) serious charge in criminal law. To be charged with murder in the UK you must have both high actus and mens rea (want to commit the act and having attempted to done so). However, in some cases, you can apply partial defences to the act of murder that mitigate the sentance.

There are two know partial defences in the UK:

- Diminished Responsibility

- Loss of Control

Loss of Control despite what it may sound like doesn’t just include mental health, in fact is has a rather objective element that a reasonable person would have done the same thing in the same circumstances. This usually covers qualifying triggers or fear of violence.

Diminished Responsibility as you can tell by it’s name covers mental health. This defense is entirely subjective as it assumes that the person with the defence has a mental condition that explains why they did what they did. As such, it doesn’t need to the same requirements that Loss of Control needs to be met. In recent years, the scope of Diminished responsibility has been tightened with new laws requesting that their needs to be medical evidence of the mental illness for this defence to be used.

Now... To get to the point. In the case of the League, the defence used for them would be diminished responsibility (because loss of control would probably be shot down in a matter of minutes due to the fact that most of their plans are premeditated) however the issue sadly would be trying to prove to the Judge and Jury that the League have official medical diagnosis that would apply in order to use this defence.

Really, it sounds horrible when you think about it because these defences don’t really seem to cover enough or extreme circumstances (like say those raised in cults or the way Shigaraki was raised?).

My point being that even though the League’s circumstances would surely be considering, because of the extremity of their actions, I actually don’t think any of the applicable murder defences would do them any good.

I think one of the biggest debates brought up when it comes to criminal law is the subjective meaning of “reasonable person”, especially because when murder usually happens, people who commit those murders usually aren’t in the best places mentally to begin with. What’s the cut off? How can we decided that? These are all argument brought up when discussing the issues of our current laws and it’s certainly interesting to think about.

The League’s cases are really interesting because they seem to fall into that grey area of law that doesn’t really have much coverage because to try and cover it could cause floodgates to open that would cause more issues for the courts in the long run.

Truthfully, I don’t think the League have the best bet when it comes to murder defences though there might be certain case law out there that I can’t remember that could help them (at least in the UK justice system.)

Of course, this is just for the UK. BNHA takes place in Japan and their murder defences are probably a lot different.

[isitgintimeyet]

Road To The Aisles

AO3

Previous

I hope you have all had a great Christmas and wishing you a Happy New Year. After a short hiatus last weekend, this story is now back, picking up where we left them

Hope you enjoy. Thanks for all the feedback on this story. I do appreciate it.

Thanks as always to @mo-nighean-rouge, @happytoobserve, @wickedgoodbooks for all their support.

16. A Considered Countermeasure

‘It wasn’t until ten years ago that they replaced trial by ordeal with trial by lawyer, and that was only because they found that lawyers were nastier.'

Terry Pratchett - The Fifth Elephant

It was a bleary-eyed Jamie who made his way downstairs the next morning. The night had been a mixed bag as far as he was concerned. The good points were obvious -- naked Claire in the shower, quickly followed by naked Claire on the… well, not quite on the bed. They hadn’t managed to get that far, more like naked Claire on the patch of carpet just inside their bedroom.

Totally spent, Jamie had crawled into bed and succumbed to a deep, almost comatose slumber, only to be woken by Claire’s elbow nudging him in the ribs and mumbling in a sleep-filled voice that his son was awake and needed tending.

William’s demands had disturbed Jamie’s sleep twice more. With a clean nappy and a full belly, he had seemed to be looking for physical comfort from his father. Sitting on the rocking chair, Jamie had cuddled the baby against the bare skin of his chest until William’s whimpering ceased and his eyelids closed before gingerly placing him back in his cot, handling him as carefully as an unexploded bomb and tiptoeing back to his bedroom to spoon Claire once more.

Jamie couldn’t help but smile at the memory of his and Claire’s shower damp bodies joining together. Their passion so great that even the two yards to their bed had been too long a distance to bridge. He rubbed his hip through the thin fabric of his sleep shorts, wincing slightly. Carpet burns were an occupational hazard with ‘al fresco’ passion, but well worth it. He wondered if Claire’s knees had suffered the same fate.

He could hear Claire pottering about in the kitchen over the sound of the radio playing a Spice Girls’ track. She was oblivious as he opened the door and stood there watching her gyrate her hips in time to ‘Wannabe’ as she stared into the fridge. William studied his father over her shoulder, a slightly furrowed brow denoting, in Jamie’s mind, the baby’s bemusement at their Sassenach’s antics.

Having clearly found what she was looking for, she shut the fridge and spun around.

“Zigazig ah -- oh, Jamie, you startled me. How long have you been standing there?” She handed a chilled toy to William who immediately put it in his mouth and began to gnaw ferociously on it.

“No’ long, Sassenach, jes’ enough tae enjoy the cabaret with ye shaking yer booty.” He yawned and stretched. “Why did ye no’ wake me up?”

“We thought we’d let you sleep in. It must have been quite a tiring night for you, what with William and everything…”

“Aye… everything…”

Jamie took William from her. “And ye’ve changed him too.”

“Yes, all fed and watered. I think he’s teething. That's why he wasn’t too good in the night. Look how red his cheek is… and the dribble. That teething ring’s been in the fridge so it’s nice and cool on his gums.”

“Plenty of dribble, right enough.”

Jamie glanced at his bare shoulder, now sprayed with a layer of William’s drool. He lifted the baby above his head and stared him in the eye. “Ye’re a wee tyke, are ye no?”

William took the ring from his mouth, smiled and watched as a line of drool slowly descended onto his father’s face.  

Claire laughed. “Go and take a shower. Then you can go and get those croissants that John likes so much. We may well be owing him big time.”

“Geneva’s still not rung. She kens the bairn is fine. She kens exactly what I want to talk to her about. Christ, I’m going tae try her again.”

Jamie handed the baby back to Claire and stalked out of the kitchen.

************

William, safe in his father’s lap, stared solemnly across the table at John. No amount of face pulling could induce a smile as he chewed his teething ring.

“Have ye no’ a smile fer yer Uncle John, William?” Jamie asked as he wiped the baby’s chin. “Ye ken him well.”

John grinned and waggled his fingers, with no acknowledgement from the baby.

“Claire reckons he’s teething.” Jamie spoke apologetically to his friend.

“No ‘reckon’ about it, he is teething. Trust me, I’m a doctor.” Claire playfully punched Jamie’s arm.

John laughed. “Don’t worry, Jamie. William’s wise to be suspicious when there’s lawyers about. So, tell me again, what did Geneva say when you spoke to her?”

Jamie sighed. “Weel, she wouldna confirm or deny anything about moving. She did say that there were changes with the PR company she works fer and that she would let us know as soon as there was anything to tell. But if she thinks I’m going tae sit back and let her take ma son away without a fight, she is sorely mistaken.”

Instinctively, Jamie pulled William closer to him and kissed the soft red down on his head. The baby squirmed against his father’s arms, trying to break free from the tight embrace. Jamie relaxed his hold and William immediately stilled once more, now content in his father’s lap, let his teething ring drop to the floor and began to try to fit his fist into his mouth.

John studied their interaction over the rim of his coffee mug. An unknown feeling crept over him, settling in his stomach. Mixed in with his usual, deeply hidden lust and longing for Jamie came a sense of… John struggled to identify it… of yearning and even broodiness. That image across the table from him -- the familiar muscled body and strong features of the man John had known, and longed for, for years but now in a different, and possibly even more attractive role, as a father.

John was momentarily overwhelmed by the depth of this emotion. He wanted to be part of this picture, to be part of this family. Not to replace Claire, he liked and respected Claire and realised she was a worthy partner for Jamie. It was just sometimes so hard… he wanted what Claire had got. Perhaps it was time he reevaluated his life style, looked for something more substantial that his meaningless flings, found a partner, a home, maybe even a baby.

John blushed as he realised how intent his stare had been. He shrugged and tried to make light of it. “Poor little chap, being told to smile at a strange lawyer when you’re in pain. I certainly wouldn’t want to.”

John paused and pulled a small notepad from his leather messenger bag. He flicked over a few pages before finding what he was looking for.

“Right, so, I had a quick chat with Ned Gowan after you rang last night. He said to tell you that even though he was giving advice to you through me, he, most generously, wouldn’t be billing you for it. And that he hoped that he won’t be seeing you in his office any time soon.”

Jamie grimaced. “Me neither, John. So, what’s the score?”

“Well, it’s not the simplest, but, if Geneva does decide to move away and take William, there are things you can do. If she wants to move abroad she definitely does need your consent.”

Jamie gave a slight sigh of relief.

“Wait,” John continued. “That’s for outside the UK. She can move away in this country without your consent-“

“That’s no’ right. I am his father. I should have some rights.”

Jamie passed the baby to Claire. He leant forward in his chair and ran his fingers through his ginger curls. He screwed his mouth up in disgust at his perceived view of the legal system.

“And you do. In this case, Ned would apply to the courts for an emergency Prohibited Steps Order to stop the move or delay it significantly. What Geneva would probably do then would be to apply for a Specific Issues Order to allow the move.”

“And the courts would have tae decide?”

“Yes.” John nodded.

“Weel, I’m sure they’d be in favour of the mother.” Jamie’s shoulders fell perceptibly.

“Not necessarily. They would be considering William’s best interests with any move, not any career advancement of Geneva’s. And the fact that you have joint custody and…”

John looked across at the baby on Claire’s lap. William was watching his father intently.

“... and are a hands-on and fully involved father would certainly be included in their decisions.”

“So, what do we do now?” Claire spoke quietly, placing a reassuring hand on Jamie’s knee.

“Now,” John replied. “We wait. We can’t do anything until Geneva says something. And remember, it’s not even definite yet.”

Jamie wiped his hand across his face. “Ye ken she’ll be willing tae take this all the way, to the courts if need be.”

“She didn’t go to court before.” Claire reminded him.

“Aye, But that was different. She kent she would have tae lie on oath then. There’d be no lying involved this time… jes’ Geneva going all out tae get what she wants, as per usual. And with her mother backing her up all the way.”

John glanced at his watch. “You don’t know that yet. Look, don’t worry about it yet. We have plans in place. And now, I’m sorry, I have to go.”

“Hot date, is it, John?”

John reddened slightly. “Yes, actually. Well, just a date, nothing serious.”

He thought about his earlier feelings of yearning and broodiness. Time, perhaps, for a change.

***************

Jamie tried to push any thoughts of Geneva from his mind and enjoy his weekend with William.

The parent and baby swimming session was a real success as far as Jamie was concerned. Initially a bit grumpy as his father got him ready, William gradually relaxed once in the water, enjoying the freedom of movement and not even minding as the water splashed around his face.

At first, Jamie had felt a bit out of place in the predominantly female group but quickly forgot that awkwardness as he focussed on his son. He was occasionally aware of female eyes on him, their gaze raking over his body. But this was generally fleeting as the mothers quickly turned their attention back to the babies.

Driving home with a sleeping William in the back of the car, Jamie reflected on the success of the swimming lesson. He hoped this would become a regular activity, one that Claire could share, perhaps every fortnight when they had William on a Sunday — Jamie’s stomach suddenly turned over unpleasantly.For how long, though? What if Geneva…? He couldn’t bear to think of that possibility.

It was ironic, he told himself. When Geneva first told him that she was pregnant, it was almost the worst news he had ever received. Only the death of his mother had been a bigger blow. He had never asked, or even contemplating asking, Geneva about an abortion, but just wished, with all his heart, that the situation would somehow magically disappear. It was only when he heard the foetal heartbeat for the first time that he felt a warmth towards this new life. A warmth which increased and expanded into this deep, deep love.

And now… now, the thought of William not being part of his life was almost more than he could bear.

He didn’t mention these worries to Claire. It was as if, by saying them out loud, he was making them a reality.

***********

On Monday evening, Jamie had just put William -- freshly bathed and clad in a Winnie the Pooh sleepsuit -- in his cot for the night, when his phone rang. Jamie stepped into his bedroom to answer it.

Geneva’s voice was crisp and business-like.

“Hello. Is William doing ok?”

“Aye, he’s champion. Jes’ gone tae sleep now. Nae problem. Why are ye ringing?” Jamie asked nervously.

Geneva hesitated for a moment. “I thought I should tell you straight away. I’ve been offered a promotion at work… it’s in Manchester.”

[princessmadafu]

Summary of Warby’s Judgment, 5th August 2020

For those of you who don’t have time to read all 65 paragraphs in full:

Introduction

(1) MM's "Five Friends" only spoke to People if they could remain anonymous.

(2) The 5F are not sources for anything published by DM/ANL, just the People article of 18th Feb 2019.

(3) Warby grants MM protection of the 5F, "which at this stage is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice. This is an interim  decision." In other words, witness protection; it will prevent the tabloids hounding the 5F and publishing things that may prejudice the case. He also notes that the case has been going on 10 months, is going slowly, and is still far from trial, and his judgment may change with circumstances, "if and when there is a trial at which one or more of the sources gives evidence." (I like the "if and when" here!)

(4) Warby tells MM's team to get a move on. He wants witness statements and a Costs and Case Management Conference so further pre-trial steps can be taken.

The Procedural Background

(5) MM is suing ANL over The Letter on the grounds of "misuse of private information, breach of duty under the GDPR [General Data Protection Regulation], and copyright infringement." Further details as per his judgment on 1st May 2020, the Strike-Out Judgment.

The relevant issues:

(6) In the S-OJ, ANL says the contents of The Letter were not private or confidential, MM had no resonable expectation that they would be, and their publication was a defence of the right of freedom of expression of ANL, readers and Thomas Markle.

(7) ANL claims MM's own conduct forfeited or weakened any expectation of privacy, and she had knowingly allowed The Letter and contents to enter the public domain.

(8) Six pages of details submitted by ANL; the publication of the People article was "sought and intended", "caused or permitted" and "acquiesced in" by MM. This is inferred because (i) the article contained detailed personal information that could only have come from MM herself (ii) the silence of Kensington Palace and MM on whether MM had consented to the 5F talking to People (iii) MM has not complained to People about publishing the article.

(9) This is the bit where MM claims she didn't authorise the article, didn't know what the 5F were doing, only later discovered it, didn't know they'd talk about The Letter or its contents, only 1F made a passing reference to The Letter and that the summary of the contents of The Letter was wrong anyway.

(10) Since the S-OJ, MM's case has been amended, and more information has been provided by her team. More relevantly, ANL has requested further information:

(11) ANL requested that MM identify the 1F who made the passing reference to the Letter and the other 4F who spoke to People.

The Response and attendant publicity:

(12) "The Response": MM's lawyers responded in a Confidential Schedule, and the 1F is now Friend A, and the others are Friends B to E. The 5F "deliberately chose to speak anonymously."

(13) The bit where she claims her wedding generated £1billion, which far outweighed the public funds spent on security.

(14) At one minute to midnight on 30th June 2020 MM's lawyers emailed a letter and attached documents to ANL's lawyers, received at midnight, claiming the docs had been filed at court. They had not. These docs were The Response, an Appendix of press articles, and the Confidential Schedule.

(15) ANL's solicitors immediately forwarded the email to ANL.

(16) At 4.58pm UK time 1st July 2020, the Mail Online published an article headed "Meghan Markle names the five friends behind People article". Brief description of the article, and we first hear of the "long-time friend, former co-star, a friend from LA, a one-time colleague and a close confidante."

(17) At 5.09pm 1st July, Mail Online publishes another article about the £1billion tourism windfall, according to "documents released as part of her High Court battle against the Mail on Sunday".

(18) Around 11pm 1st July, there followed another article about how MM was left "unprotected" by the monarchy, according to "leaked court documents". It also referred to docs seen by the Press Association news agency about the identification of the 5F.

(19) On 2nd July 2020, the paper-version DM ran with "Meghan: The Palace Hung Me Out To Dry" on the front page, plus pp 2-3; MM says she did discuss The Letter with close friends but never authorised them to talk, and more on the £1billion.

(20) All these articles were clearly based on The Response, but not on copies obtained from the court. A non-party can obtain copies, but only after the docs have been submitted, processed and accepted for filing. Which these weren't. They weren't accepted for filing until 11am on 2nd July 2020.

(21) The docs were submitted for filing as confidential and not for third parties without permission of the court, as they contained private information. They were accepted for filing on this basis. Only The Response is available to third parties, but it wasn't available until 11am on 2nd July, after the articles had already been published.

(22) Widespread international coverage before 11am on 2nd July. ANL's suggested third party seems improbable, whereas MM suggests all third party reporting comes from ANL. Warby did a little digging himself, eg Newsweek, and concludes that all third party reporting came from ANL.

(23) MM says ANL "had been astute to publicise its own case" even before this; cites article from 16th Jan 2020 about MM's private texts with the now ex-BFF JM.

(24) On 6th July 2020, ANL lawyers assert that using a Confidential Schedule as part of The Response is illegitimate, and the Schedule should be fully reportable. If no application for an injunction was made by 9th July, they would presume that MM accepted that the Schedule was not confidential.

The Application and attendant publicity:

(25) On 9th July, MM's lawyers made the application now being ruled on about the confidential nature of the Schedule and the privacy of the 5F: no publishing, communicating or disclosing anything in the Schedule or anything that might identify the 5F; no third party applications without permission of the court; and MM must be allowed in proceedings to refer to the 5F as ABCDE, not by their names.

(26) The application comes with two witness statements, one from MM's solicitor containing evidence about Friend C, the other from MM herself containing the bit about each of these women being a private citizen, young mother, etc blah blah clickbait, emotional and mental well-being...

(27) ANL lawyers suggest MM briefed the press about this application before they had received their own copy. Application filed at 8.32am, served on ANL at 8.30am; 8.45am Sky News already asking ANL for a comment; 9.30am title page of MM's witness statement "posted on the Twitter feed of someone called Omid Scobie" who quoted a "close source"... (I love the "someone called Omid Scobie"!) and the quote about the five innocent women, young mother blah blah... (I can imagine the pages of word salad poor Warby had to go through to condense all this politely; the blah blahs are purely my own.)

(28) Evidence supports ANL that MM's team "have been energetically briefing the media about these proceedings from the outset." Warby quotes emails to media representatives from James Holt, Sussex Royal's Head of Engagement and Communication, including a confidential summary note and a "crib sheet".

Relevant Procedural Law

(29) This is mostly technical stuff that Legal Anons will explain much better, but very basically, it starts with a list of who is allowed to see what, who needs the court's permission to see it, and who can be prevented from seeing it.

(30) "The records of the court": The Court has broad powers beyond those noted under (29) supra, and can provide access to the records of the court under the common law principle of open justice. (This is Warby telling MM that he's in charge, not her!)

(31) Parties may request further information, the Court may order information to be handed over; provision is made whereby information may not be used for any other purpose than court proceedings.

The evidence

(32) On 23rd July 2020, a third witness statement was submitted by MM's lawyers, this from Friend B. Three statements from ANL lawyers were followed on 27th July by a further statement from Friend B in reply.

(33) MM's evidence:

(1) B says she and the other 4F spoke on condition of anonymity, and it was B who organised the interviews after speaking with Jess Cagle (editor of People). She gave two reasons for anonymity (i) to avoid media intrusion into their privacy and (ii) to avoid the appearance of seeking publicity for themselves. MM played no part in this, wasn't aware of it and didn't know until after publication. B and the other 4F want to remain anonymous and refer to how media intrusion will impact on their kids.

(2) MM's lawyers say evidence and hearsay evidence from Friend C (as per (26) supra)

(3) MM's statement is short on facts and gives no good reason why her 5F's anonymity should be preserved.

(4) MM's lawyers give four reasons for anonymity: (i) to protect MM's privacy (ii) to protect the 5F's reasonable expectation of confidentiality (iii) none of 5F have been identified or confirmed as talking to People (iv) none of 5F is a party to the action and none is a witness. They are concerned 5F will be intimidated by the publicity and will not agree to be witnesses in support of MM at trial.

(5) MM's lawyers say ANL is exploiting its position as a major media presence, running MM articles to whip up interest in the case, boost revenue and gain litigation advantage.

(34) ANL's evidence:

(1) MM did not impose restrictions on what could be done with The Response, there was no commercial advantage, publishers are allowed to publish stories about any litigation they're involved in, there is no litigation advantage, and no need for ANL to whip up interest in the case as MM is doing it already, all by herself.

(2) MM's concerns and criticisms have no evidential support, there is "scant evidence" for her privacy concerns for the 5F, the 5F were always going to be drawn into the court case, and there's no justification for giving evidence anonymously.

(3) Press cuttings show that Friend B has previously publicised her friendship with MM, the inference being it was to raise her public profile.

(35) Friend B's second witness statement in response to the press cuttings, puts the cuttings in context and denies that it undermines her first statement.

Some matters that are not in dispute

(36) Three matters:

(1) The importance of the common law principle of open justice. Anonymity must only be granted if justified and necessary for the administration of justice.

(2) 5F only gave interviews on the promise of confidentiality from People.

(3) None of 5F has yet been publicly named, and it is not part of ANL's case that knowledge of their identities is already in the public domain.

(37) ANL has not put forward any justification of it being in the public interest to know who 5F are at this stage.

The rival contentions

(38) MM claims the Confidential Schedule is justified to protect 5F anonymity.

(39) Legalese paragraph citing previous cases where breach of confidence has occurred.

(40) More legalese about who should be allowed use of disclosed documents, ANL are trying to maximise publicity and make money from revealing 5F, and the Schedule is part of the statement of case and therefore only available to MM, ANL and their legal teams.

(41) ANL says in this particular case, anonymity is "a derogation from the open justice principle", and the need for anonymity has not been established by "clear and cogent evidence".

(42) Legalese from ANL lawyers about hearings held in private and the  limited circumstances that this is allowed; three paragraphs citing previous cases.

(43) Legalese about when a private individual can expect privacy, even if the private individual at the same time has a public persona.

(44) ANL's lawyers insist that the Schedule is part of the Response, not part of the statement of case, and should therefore be available to anyone, without the need to request permission from the court.

Assessment

CPR 5.4C

(45) (I'm presuming this means rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules.) Warby questions why 5.4C distinguishes between a "statement of case" and "documents filed with or attached to the statement of case". He says the "procedural archeology has not been carried out", meaning that it's a bit in the rules that no-one knows why it's there.

(46) Not persuaded that the issue of anonymity is decided by the definition of "statement of case", and Warby sides with MM lawyers that the rule was probably there to exclude from automatic inspection any documents that didn't form part of the body of the case.

(47) "The definition seems to me designed simply to make clear for the avoidance of doubt that "statement of case" does not just cover the main pleadings (particulars of Claim, Defence and Reply) but also Further Information about any of those documents." So in other words, MM technically can separate from the main body of the statement of case anything, Appendix, Schedule or other doc, that she doesn't want a third party to see; an application by a third party will have to have a valid reason before the court will give permission to make it available.

(48) "It is true that a party might abuse the process by placing information in a Schedule or Appendix without any justification for doing so. But such abuse is open to scrutiny and could quite easily be controlled and put right by the Court." In other words, Warby is warning MM - if she's abusing the process, he'll put his foot down and squash her hard. Cites a previous case where the judge decided to "revisit the appropriateness of maintaining confidentiality."

(49) The Schedule, by virtue of it being a "document filed with or attached to the statement of case" was already inaccessible to a third party without permission, and there was no need to make it a Confidential Schedule. It remains closed to public inspection without permission.

(50) This case has two other Confidential Schedules attached, to which no objection has been made so far.

(51) Is the factual and legal status of the Schedule justified? Warby thinks so, and approaches it "through the prism of confidentiality":

(1) ANL does not dispute that the information is confidential in nature, just that MM cannot rely on privacy rights, given her public behaviour. ANL is aware of the need to preserve the confidentiality of sources.

(2) ANL has information that requires an obligation of confidence, "subject only to any public interest that overrides that obligation."

(3) The information is not in the public domain, therefore the obligation remains.

(4) "It is clear enough that ANL is threatening to disclose the information, unless restrained. It invited this application, making it plain that it would consider itself free to publish the names if no application was made." (This strikes me as ANL covering its own back, forcing the principle of confidentiality so that they can't be accused of witness intimidation of 5F. ANL's lawyers have thought this through very carefully.)

(52) This is a procedural application for the protection of witnesses, not an injunction. Cites other similar legal cases.

(53) ANL criticises the lack of evidence that 5F need anonymity. Warby disagrees, as B and C have both made statements; B that she coordinated interviews subject to confidentiality, and C that she would suffer if the evidence and hearsay were to be made public. Warby states that the evidence supplied by and about MM and 5F is "credible and persuasive".

(54) How to reconcile anonymity with open justice.

(55) Open justice has two strands: (i) Human Rights Act`confers the right to a "fair and public hearing". This is concerned with trials at which final decisions are made, not interim or pre-trial processes. ANL has not invoked this. Rather ANL lawyers have chosen (ii) the established common law principle of open justice, which goes beyond the Human Rights Act, in that it does apply to interim processes. Cites other previous cases.

(56) "Open justice tends to foster public confidence in the impartial and fair administration of justice, to deter inappropriate behaviour by the Court, to ensure that evidence becomes available, and to limit the risk of ininformed and inaccurate comment about the proceedings." Not all these factors apply here. Cites similar cases.

(57) Open justice exists to "allow the public to scutinise the workings of the Law." However the Court needs to scrutinise applications for the disclosure of information and weed out anything that does not advance public understanding of the legal process.

(58) Warby slates both parties. In full:

"It is in this context that the parties’ tit-for-tat criticisms of one another for publicising details of this case in and through the media are of some relevance. Each side has overstated its case about the conduct of the other. The defendant has not made good, for present purposes, Mr Mathieson’s contention that the “real motivation” of the claimant and her husband is “to afford them an opportunity to wage their own campaign against the press rather than to obtain the remedies at which the proceedings are ostensibly directed”. Nor does the evidence persuade me that the similarly hyperbolic assertions in the claimant’s witness statement are soundly based. It is however tolerably clear that neither side has, so far, been willing to confine the presentation of its case to the courtroom. Both sides have demonstrated an eagerness to play out the merits of their dispute in public, outside the courtroom, and primarily in media reports."

(59) Ditto:

"This approach to litigation has little to do with enabling public scrutiny of the legal process, or enhancing the due administration of justice. Indeed, in some respects it tends to impede both fairness and transparency. This will be a judge-alone trial, not a trial by jury. But to fight proceedings in court and through litigation PR or sensational reporting at one and the same time is not designed to enhance understanding of the legal process. For a party to file and immediately publicise prejudicial and partisan characterisations of the other’s litigation conduct in the media before a hearing certainly does not assist. Equally, the defendant’s coverage of this litigation has provided readers with a good deal of information about the claimant, her views and her attitudes towards the Royal family, which is no doubt interesting to the public, but it has done relatively little to provide insight into the “workings of the law”.  The coverage has selectively highlighted aspects of the defendant’s case and features of the claimant’s case that are novel and interesting to the public. The focus is on sensational reporting of information that happens to be contained in the claimant’s statements of case. There are references to to the proceedings, but some of these involve speculation about what disclosure might be given, and who might or might not be a witness."

(60) ANL haven't explained convincingly why it is necessary to name 5F. In Warby's judgment "at this stage", public disclosure would have little value as there is no guarantee that any of 5F will be winesses.

(61) Confidentiality can enhance freedom of expression or protect a whistle-blower from attack. In this case 5F sought to defend MM from hostile media coverage, and their anonymity not only protected them from adverse consequences but also increased the information available to the public about MM. (LOL, try disinformation! It was mostly lies and we all knew it!)

(62) "At this stage", continued anonymity is fine by Warby, as it upholds the agreement made with People and shields 5F from the "glare of publicity". However, "at trial, that is a price that may have to be paid in the interests of transparency." Disclosure could "undermine fairness and due process". Press articles can be misleading and inaccurate, citing a press article about JM and whether a "named individual" will still back MM in court after their recent falling out; this is the sort of pressure 5F would be under were their identities revealed.

(63) For these reasons Warby grants the application.

(64) Other things Warby is not prepared to address at this time.

The form of order

(65) These orders will remain in place until trial or further order. They will be kept under review, and re-considered at the Pre-Trial Review. Changes will be made as required in the light of changing circumstances.

[script-a-world]

Google Form Ask: I'm working on a fantasy set in kind of an alternate earth that has various nation-states representing various cultures, so I have an idea for one to be a Chinese representation, North African/Middle Eastern pre-Islamic rep, Mediterranean (likely Greek) rep, and various European areas. The nation-states are all under the overarching rule of a monarch in the head nation state. Most of the language for the nation-states in my early draft was based on color names in AngloSaxon (which relates to the colors of their standards, etc), but if they're based on these other nations/cultures, would it be appropriate to come up with names for them in the language in which they're based? (ie a Chinese name, an Arabic name, etc) but having all political language be in that AngloSaxon name they were originally given? (i am white so that's really why i want to be sure i'm giving accurate rep here)

Constablewrites: When languages intersect, the powerful set the standards and the powerless adopt and adapt. It’s such an inherently political process that it can provide some valuable insight into the history of your setting.

The origins of English as a bastard language come from the Norman Conquest, when the French ruled England, and their language was the language of court. But the peasants had no reason to learn that language and continued speaking English. It was the noble class (who had to operate in both worlds) and the merchant class (who wanted to live like nobles) who drove the hybridization and the development of Middle English, and the choices of which language to use for what reflected their class concerns.

For instance, the dirty, farty animal tended by the peasants remained a Saxon cow. But slaughtering it and serving it at table was reserved for the gentry, and accordingly at that point it became boeuf (beef).

One language can be imposed on another people from above, like how the ruling class uses their own words for the mechanisms of government. It can also come from below as people aspire to the ruling class. (Think of the dude who uses overly long Latinate words for everything, even when they’re not really accurate, just to show how educated he is.)

The setup you’ve described is inherently colonial: your Anglo-Saxons conquered everyone else, and hung onto that land for long enough that their language took root. (Note that it doesn’t have to be like that in the present. See Spanish in Latin/South America, or English and French in Africa.) Place names would largely still be in the native language, since those don’t naturally evolve in the way that names for people, things, and actions do. How much else survives of the native language depends on your history and politics: if the lower classes had no need to learn the language of the elite and the upper classes didn’t really care how the peasants spoke, that implies the sort of conquest whose attitude was “your taxes go to us now, otherwise just keep doing what you’re doing and try not to riot k thx” and you’d see that in their other policies. If the ruling classes were actively trying to spread their own culture, that would require stamping out the existing way of life and having a much lower tolerance for the native language. Historically, the latter has been much more common. In those sorts of scenarios, perpetuating the native language, even just in personal names, becomes an act of resistance. If you want to see how this plays out, look at the history of indigenous languages--well, basically anywhere, but especially in North America, and also the evolving debate in immigrant communities about given names and what language is spoken in the home.

There’s nothing wrong with creating this kind of setting, but be aware that presenting it in a neutral or positive light makes just as much of a statement as digging into its flaws. If you don’t want to take that on, or if this doesn’t sound like at all what you were going for, you might need to adjust the approach to language accordingly. A creole or pidgin language ([this Quora article] elaborates on the difference) implies two cultures coming together on a more equal footing. You can also rely on the [translation convention], which says that everything is in English except the names not because the world’s English-equivalent is that dominant, but because you’re writing for readers who speak English and you want them to understand. In that case, you’d use other cues to establish how the cultures manifest and interact with each other.

Feral: If I may, I would like to interpret this question as, “I think my story has elements that are problematic, can you help me identify them?” Because the potential issues I see in the small amount of information given in this ask are much more far reaching than “can I use a real life language as the basis for a fantasy language/naming-system?”

Constable has already pointed out various scenarios throughout real history, so I won’t repeat all of that. But I do need to emphasize one thing:

What you’re describing is colonialism. And it is bad. It is, in fact, evil (if evil exists). We shouldn’t have to say this in 2019. It is completely okay to have colonialism in your worldbuilding; it’s a thing that exists in the real world so it can exist in fiction. But here’s the thing: once more, it’s evil. The Anglo-Saxon imperial power you are describing is evil. They have done an evil thing that the real world analogous cultures actually did do and the effects of which are still very very real and felt by the real world cultures you're having your fictional versions subjugate. Which means they can’t be the good guy. If they are, in the context that you are writing in, your worldbuilding is fundamentally racist. And I know from the very fact that you are asking for help that this is the farthest thing from what you want for your world and your story. But if this is the case, then the only thing you can do is raze the world and start again.

Another thing in your ask that jumped out at me is the phrase “pre-Islamic Middle Eastern/North African rep.” I assume you’re going with pre-Islam for one or both of two reasons. 1) This is a “sandals and sorcery” setting that would take place in an analogous time period to pre-Christian and pre-Islam; your reference to Greece being the inspiration for the “Mediterranean” culture makes me think that pretty much all cultures are being referenced in the BCE (which would be between 500 and a thousand years before the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England, so keep that in mind). 2) You’re concerned about representing an Islamic culture sensitively.

Here’s the thing: there’s no such culture as the Middle East, and definitely not Middle East/North Africa, pre-Islam (one can argue that there’s no such thing as the Middle East pre-WW2, but I do not have time for that argument). The spread of Islam is responsible for whatever homogeny there is between the cultures, and even today, there is not one single culture in the Middle East (a political designation, hence the post-WW2) or in North Africa. There are many cultures between the different countries and between the different ethnic groups within the same countries. Arabic would only be an appropriate reference language if your reference is pre-Islam Arabia, not the whole Middle East, because again Arabic spread through Islam – different places have different native languages which are still the common use languages.

It may just be in the limited space you had for the ask, but the way you’ve represented your worldbuilding makes it seem like your inclusion of these other cultures is more of a check-list style, no-can-call-me-racist-because-I-mention-other-cultures-that-are-different-from-mine attempt than an actual desire to have representation.

Moving onto what is not really problematic in your ask but is confusing… I just don’t understand what the whole color thing is about. That’s not how countries are named. Where do these standards come from? Did all the cultures just happen to have single colored standards that they used to identify themselves pre-invasion/colonization? Or did the Anglo-Saxon culture literally conquer the world through the cunning use of flags [video]?

I would check out this Wiki article on the etymology of country names in English. A good example of how English names for countries do come about is in the name for Japan. Japan is the Anglicization of Marco Polo’s Italianicization of the Shanghai accented pronunciation of 日本, “jitpun,” which has been Japan’s name for itself since the end of the 7th century, is pronounced “nippon” or “nihon” there, and means “land of the rising sun.”

Hello Future Me has a fantastic video on how to go about replicating both native placenames and colonial placenames in your worldbuilding.

Finally, as far as your actual question goes, can you use a real language from a culture not your own to name places in your world? I think you need to do a lot of researching and a lot of revisiting your worldbuilding before you can make that call.

Tex: You have an... interesting collage of places listed. Some of them go into more detail than others - I'm curious why you've picked what you did, and to the depth that you've chosen. Given the Ango-Saxon bias I'm picking up on, can I assume that you're basing the head of this government in England/the UK? If so, I'm also curious to know whether this alternate world is the consequence of a diversion point in our own history (e.g. someone lost a war that let the UK steamroller everyone into the Commonwealth), or if previous other world powers are for some reason less effective at consolidating their powers and conquering their neighbors than the UK (I'm going to keep assuming UK for simplicity's sake in my answer, but feel free to plug in whatever works for you).

There is a bit of an issue with your current set-up, assuming real-world, real-history parallels. The most immediate of which is that humans are quite simply very good at organizing themselves into societies as soon as they've got that sedentary lifestyle (i.e. agriculture) down pat, and this can and has happened in every found and currently living human settlement, with rare exceptions. Statistically speaking, empires are an eventuality, especially given the right combination of genetics (De Neve et al, 2013; Li et al., 2012) and circumstances (The Creativity Post; Zhang et al, 2009; Halverston et al., 2004; Hunt et al., 1999) to launch a would-be leader into capably instituting a strict hierarchy with a penchant toward warfare. Please let it be known that expanding borders is typically a bloody process, because other people get upset if you take their things without permission - namely, their land, food, and women.

(I name "land, food, and women" because 1.) land is a place to grow food, bury your dead, and obtain water, 2.) food is necessary to not die, and 3.) women ensure the existence of the next generation and thus perpetuity of your society/ethnicity. These are integral, and missing even one of them can immediately - or very, very quickly - lead to the downfall of your civilization. The rest are frills that build upon these three components.)

The reason why I'm curious as to the places you've picked is because every single one of them has at least established a kingdom, if not an empire of their own. For the practical reasons of warfare, these are difficult governments to topple and replace with your own (particularly if you're culturally distinct from them, but that's a slightly different topic). Wikipedia has multiple lists about empires across the world: List of largest empires, Colonial empire § List of colonial empires, and List of empires. I’m going to toss in List of people known as “the Great”, to round things out.

The issue, from a would-be conqueror's perspective, in attaining governance of these places is their armies and ability to call upon allies due to their accompanying diplomatic prowess. In order to be formidable, you need an army of your own that's capable of overcoming such an obstacle. If you're canny, you can trade some brute strength for things like economic manipulation and various degrees of diplomacy that probably delve into things like assassination (China and Rome were big fans of these methods to one degree or another).

Pick a region and an era, and you'll find someone that's done exactly that in varying ratios at least once. Sun Tzu's The Art of War comments about warfare to degrees of honorability and the effectiveness of the different grades depending on the situation; familiarizing yourself on that book will help you greatly in laying the foundation of how your world came to be, if you haven't already done so. The history of your world will most definitely set the stage for any era coming after it, particularly if you're writing for a post-"unification" era.

Now, nation-states are a relatively new concept, particularly because they're a combination of two distinct ideas - the nation and the state (this might appear a bit obvious, but please bear with me). Nations have existed for ages because they're defined by a homogenous ethnic group congregated in the same general area - they are typically grouped by a shared bloodline and culture.

States are different in that their primary association is in an organized government that may or may not be constrained to a single ethnicity - borders exist here, whereas in nations borders hold a more ephemeral placement (the people are the border, rather than geographical markers or lines on a paper).

As such, states are a newer concept than nations, and tying the two together generally leads to a majority ethnicity that is frequently enforced by genocide in order to maintain status quo (Wikipedia); this is, incidentally, where laws protecting minorities originate from, a subject of which can and often is used as political leverage for a variety of motivations.

I will also note that nations, being ethnically-oriented, have their people as their borders. As you can imagine, history in a few continents has proven that "rights" to land have been attempted by spreading out an ethnic group via practices such as immigration, inter-marriage with other nations, and purchase of land. You can see inhibitory reactions in legislation via things like restrictions on religions (forbidding the practice of certain religions), clothing (forbidding or dictating types of clothing - frequently on both class and gender lines), marriage (enforcement of social classes), and language (forbidding of languages and dictation of a national standard).

What you’re describing is colonialism, and with a check-listing tilt that comes across as disrespectful to the cultures you’ve picked out, but I hesitate to call it “evil” because that ascribes a morality that’s inherently tied to particular cultures. Homogenization has certainly displayed benefits in the form of accessibility:

Ancient Egypt, while not strictly speaking an empire, has a mostly continuous lineage with flourishing arts, social development, and many cities were considered cosmopolitan because of contemporary tourism

The Persian empire had a fantastic postal system because of their extensive network of paved roads

Imperial China saw not only the development of a new language, but also the advancement of literature, philosophy, and physical arts such as architecture, pottery, and painting

The Huns developed trade routes across multiple continents which benefited not only goods but intellectual progress

Alexander the Great brought along an entourage of intellectuals and artisans to assemble a compendium of knowledge across his empire that was disseminated as far as possible

The Romans achieved many things - not least their advances in architecture and literature

The Mughal Empire in India was a world leader in manufacturing during its time, and many artworks during its time are considered cultural classics

The Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires both unified large swathes of Europe and other regions of the world

So while colonialism in its many forms does function as an eradication of culture, it also has a tendency to promote stability, relative peace due to a common background, and a marked increase in literacy and the arts - culture, in other words, becomes more intricate because there’s now an opportunity to do so.

Unfortunately for many would-be colonizers, this works best with respect toward the original inhabitants of a land, because otherwise it just devolves into more war. These wars, because they’re culturally- and ethnically-based, are often bloodier than ones fought specifically over resources, because trade negotiations cannot be offered as a common ground where lasting peace can be found.

In order to not have a dissolution of empire like was found when Alexander the Great died, common ground must be found as a unifying factor - genocide doesn’t endear you to anyone, and fosters resentment that’s taken advantage of whenever bureaucracy at the top of the chain fractures. For your instance, the colour names likely won’t work, because it’s imposing a cultural norm that might not match up with the sub-administrations, and it comes across as a patronizing pacification to suggest merely translating it.

“i am white so that's really why i want to be sure i'm giving accurate rep here” - This, combined with your broad strokes of stereotyping, is the checklisting that Feral mentioned. Checklisting is inherently disrespectful to the source cultures, and you would be better off removing them entirely if you find yourself struggling too much with including them as equal in terms of cultural richness and longevity of existence (and for the most part, the ones you’ve skimmed over in your list are older than the UK, so it currently says unkind things of your perception).

Citations

De Neve, Jan-Emmanuel et al. “Born to Lead? A Twin Design and Genetic Association Study of Leadership Role Occupancy.” The leadership quarterly vol. 24,1 (2013): 45-60. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.001

PDF - Halverson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., & Riggio, R. E. (2004). Charismatic Leadership in Crisis Situations: A Laboratory Investigation of Stress and Crisis. Small Group Research, 35(5), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404264178

PDF - Hunt, James G., Kimberly B. Boal, and George E. Dodge. "The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers: An experimental examination of two kinds of charismatic leadership." The Leadership Quarterly 10.3 (1999): 423-448.

Li, Wen-Dong, et al. "Do leadership role occupancy and transformational leadership share the same genetic and environmental influences?." The Leadership Quarterly 23.2 (2012): 233-243.

Zhang, Z., Ilies, R., & Arvey, R. D. Beyond genetic explanations for leadership: The moderating role of the social environment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(2), (2009): 118-128.

[lawyerracing53]

Utilizing A Solicitor To Write Your Will

What An Executor Can & Can'T Do

Content

If You Don'T Wish To Utilize A Lawyer

Indication Your Will Before Witnesses.

To Determine That Will Look After Your Minor Kid

Key Records To Have Alongside Your Last Will And Testament.

When Should You Get Lawful Suggestions To Prepare Your Will?

Total An Inheritance Tax Type.

Using A Lawyer To Compose Your Will

But if your events are in any way complex you might desire a solicitor-- e.g, if you have stepchildren or very own residential or commercial property abroad. Inheritance tax is charged at 40 percent over a person's allowance of ₤ 325,000 for their estate (officially called the nil-rate band).

Antiques can be just as dispersed in addition to money, furnishings in addition to savings and financial investments when you have a will. Writing a will is something that practically every person should have.

If You Don'T Wish To Use A Solicitor

How much does it cost to remove an executor UK?

The costs of an application to remove an Executor can amount to as much as £15,000, sometimes more, so this often brings even the most stubborn executor to their senses. When an executor is unwilling to be reasonable an application can be made to the Court to remove them.

You can simply most likely to our Will service and also create your Will in around 20 minutes for $39.95 from the convenience of your own home. BC has the "Wills Variant Act" that unlocks for a grown-up child who really feels that they have been dealt with unjustly to make an insurance claim versus an estate. There is an outstanding introduction of the Wills Variant Act on the "Disinherited" blog. But BC is one-of-a-kind in permitting a grown-up child who has been dealt with "unfairly" to challenge a Will.

Indicator Your Will In Front Of Witnesses.

You probably think about a Will as a file that explains the circulation of your possessions after you have actually died. This is, of course, a significant component of a Will, as well as among the most essential factors for preparing one. This short article offers an overview of why a Will is essential, what you can do within a Will, especially if you have children, and how you can prepare a Will in an economical as well as convenient way. We additionally go over why as well as how you can update a Will if circumstances change.

To get more information regarding living depends on, see the Living Trust funds area of Nolo.com. A person whom you designate to accomplish the terms of your will. You can likewise include your want your funeral arrangements and your remains in your will.

Though many people are aware of what a will is, they aren't 100% certain what they should be taking into their will. If you have actually made the above decisions ahead of time, you can easily make your will in less than a hr with Nolo's Quicken WillMaker software program. Although making will is extremely possible to arrange such unique requirements for a disabled person, a will is not the place in which to do it. There are specific sorts of trusts, such as a special requirements trust, that especially address the management of the details unique requirements of an impaired individual. This is yet one more type of home that immediately goes to your called recipient.

Who should keep the original Will UK?

1. Leave it with a solicitor. If a solicitor writes your will, they will usually store the original free of charge and give you a copy – but ask them to make sure. Most solicitors will also store a will they didn't write, but there will probably be a fee.

Claimants can consist of a defacto companion, any various other dependants or a previous spouse. A Will must comply with rigorous legal requirements or else the Courts might choose it is not legitimate. If this holds true your properties will be distributed according to a pre-determined formula as well as not as you meant. Specialist Will-makers such as NSW Trustee & Guardian or your regional solicitor will make sure areas covering testamentary capability are addressed in the procedure of composing a Will as well as will give unbiased witnesses. NSW Trustee & Guardian are additionally able to provide suggestions in relation to estate planning and also who may contest your Will.

This is a solitary file that serves the demands of 2 individuals. This is two separate records, each of which normally names the partner as the primary beneficiary, with a strategy in case both are involved in a common mishap. There is no limitation on your selected guardian working as a witness. You might have a good friend or relative who is perfectly qualified to serve in both functions, and also merely being selected to one setting does not prevent them from offering in the various other setting. Your consultation of guardian is not limited to people living in Canada.

To Identify That Will Care For Your Minor Children

Trick Papers To Have Along With Your Last Will And Testimony.

You are able to specify that parts of the count on are launched prior to the trust fund runs out. As an example, you might decide that 1/3 of the overall worth of the trust is launched when the child is 21. You can then have a second milestone, and define a portion of the staying trust that will be launched to the minor. Your Last Will and Testimony is a legal record that explains crucial visits as well as the circulation of your estate.

It assists immensely if both parents have called the exact same guardian. If you do not name the same guardian as well as you are both associated with an usual crash, you are possibly developing a safekeeping battle in between family and friends participants.

When Should You Obtain Legal Suggestions To Prepare Your Will?

Certainly, situations can transform between the writing of the Will as well as the guardianship visit being made. For example, your guardian might have individual struggles of their very own as well as are no more be fit to take care of your youngsters. This is why your guardianship consultation in your Will is not a lawfully binding visit.

Making https://ascot.trusted-willwriting.co.uk/ .

A seasoned courtroom supporter, Scott has actually gotten mixed judgments and decisions over of twenty-five million bucks for his customers. Scott has actually acted as a participant of the Los Angeles Superior Court Probate Volunteer Panel, Probate Settlement Panel and also a Judge Pro Tempore.

Sadly, this can be time consuming and as costly as preparing the original Will ($ 400-$ 800). As a matter of fact, if there is a modification of scenario to anyone named in your Will, you should evaluate your document to see if it still reflects your desires. For instance, your Guardian might have relocated to the opposite side of the Globe, or had triplets of their own.

If Tom had actually possessed the flat in his name alone, his estate would certainly have been worth ₤ 350,000.

Children of the intestate individual will acquire if there is no surviving wedded or civil companion.

If one dies, the other partner will instantly inherit the whole of the cash.

However, if the companions are renters in common, the enduring partner does not instantly inherit the other individual's share.

Heather would certainly get ₤ 40,000 as well as Selma would get the remaining ₤ 40,000.

It would certainly be shared out according to the guidelines of intestacy, that is, Heather would get the initial ₤ 270,000.

Pairs may also have joint bank or building culture accounts.

If there is an enduring partner, they will inherit only if the estate deserves greater than a specific amount.

the entire of the estate with interest from the date of death.

You can choose a Professional Executor but check their prices beforehand as well as read the small print. We require to update our Living Count on as well as attended Schomer Law Group's seminar. Afterwards we made an appointment and also were excited by the interest Scott Schomer and Liran Aliav offered to our instance answering all questions and making ideas exactly how to decrease the estate tax. All the workplace personnel is really friendly and also we extremely recommend Schomer Law Group. A grad of Boston University Institution of Legislation, Scott P. Schomer is a regular lecturer on estate planning and also elder law concerns, having actually discussed these important issues on local and also nationwide television.

Complete An Inheritance Tax Type.

It tends to be a little bit more affordable than making use of a lawyer, for instance, The Co-operative Legal Services bills ₤ 150 for a single will, while mirror wills are ₤ 234. As well as don't neglect future updates-- anticipate to pay ₤ 75 to ₤ 100 for little modifications, more for anything significant. Michele Todd, partner at hlw Keeble Hawson lawyers, that is experts in wills and also probate, claims it's likewise very crucial that unmarried pairs make a will since they don't have the same legal civil liberties as married couples.

Making Use Of A Solicitor To Write Your Will

It would be up to the courts to determine if the case has benefit. Across Canada there is no legal obligation to consist of an adult youngster in your Will unless they are a dependent that is either still living with you, or depending on money from you.

If you have certain parenting ideologies to pass on, or instructions for managing certain behaviors, and even messages of assistance, these can be consisted of in a letter to come with the Will. Keep in mind, a court is going to assign the guardian based on any type of assistance made in a parent's Will.

this website explains ">

Which charities do free wills?

Among the charities signed up and offering free simple wills prepared by a solicitor are: Amnesty International, Alzheimer's Research UK, British Academy, Children with Cancer, Compassion In World Farming, Dignity in Dying, Guide Dogs, Independent Age, Liberty, Oxfam, Shelter and the Soil Association.

Extra allocations can be passed in between couples and also civil partners, properly doubling the allocation to ₤ 650,000. Responsible for handling as well as providing your estate, including taking care of tax return.

What Is Probate?

Scott's know-how has been recognized by his peers with such awards as a life-time membership in the Multi-Million Buck Advocates Online Forum, the 5 Star Riches Supervisor designation, and duplicated nominations as The golden state Super Lawyer. If your kids are under 18, you ought to use your Will to assign a guardian for them in case of your death. Writing a Will entails more than just picking who to give your cash to. A professional Will maker has the ability to encourage individuals making Wills on just how to resolve feasible obstacles.

However, it is suggested that you provide a duplicate of those dreams to a participant of your family members as well, simply in situation it isn't check out till after your funeral. A will is the easiest as well as most convenient method for you to distribute what your very own as soon as you have actually died. This can be anything from the components of a small savings account, to a collection of accessories, or the games and DVDs you have accumulated. If you want your vehicle to be delegated a friend who can not pay for to acquire one however requires one if they are going to get promoted at the office, after that this can be detailed in your will. If you desire a fellow collection agency of specific items to acquire your collection as opposed to it being broken up and offered, you can place this in your will.

What should you never put in your will?

Here are five of the most common things you shouldn't include in your will:Funeral Plans. Your 'Digital Estate. ' Jointly Held Property. Life Insurance and Retirement Funds. Illegal Gifts and Requests.

Then an expert called and chatted me though these, writing my dreams and allowing plenty of time for inquiries. I would certainly been suggesting to make a will given that my boy Harry was born yet I 'd place it off as a result of lack of time, power and financial resources. It additionally provides help with Lasting Power of Lawyer - an essential security that permits your enjoyed ones to take control of your affairs if you are disarmed. A full defense bundle of a will, home LPA and also health LPA, currently sets you back ₤ 489. Key Retired life Solutions, one of This is Cash's thoroughly selected partners, has a team of Society of Will Writers-trained experts that offer an over the phone company and also specialist advice.

How much does an attorney charge to draw up a will?

Flat Fees. It's very common for a lawyer to charge a flat fee to write a will and other basic estate planning documents. The low end for a simple lawyer-drafted will is around $300. A price of closer to $1,000 is more common, and it's not unusual to find a $1,200 price tag.

Your Trustee might have been taken ill, it would as a result be very important to assign a new trustee, even if briefly. Your child ending up being an adult ought to likewise cause a review of your Will. If you get stuck on your guardianship consultation, or philanthropic bequests, or family pet trusts, merely conserve your job, and return at a later day. A growing variety of individuals are relocating to on-line Will writing solutions like the one at LegalWills.ca because of the comfort and also affordability.

To get more information about these building ownership approaches, most of which are designed to avoid probate court procedures, see the Ways to Avoid Probate area of Nolo.com. Home kept in recipient (transfer-on-death or TOD) form. This might consist of stocks, bonds and also-- in a handful of states-- property or cars. To transform the beneficiary, you'll need to make a brand-new recipient form, action, or title document. If you intend to change the recipient, call the financial institution.