#diary of a prosecutor

[namjhyun]

Ahn Eun Jin for W Magazine Best 10 Performances Special Issue.

[anditendshowyoudexpect]

i somehow ended up rewatching Diary of a Prosecutor and am happy to report it's still the excellent slice of life drama i remembered it to be

funny thing is, when My Dearest started i almost broke my brain trying to figure out why the female lead looked so familiar, but then there she was, Her Majesty King Camulos

[korelist]

DIARY OF A PROSECUTOR // KDRAMA DİZİ YORUMU

UYARI : Yazılar genel olarak spoiler içerebilir. İçermeyedebilir.

İmdb puanı: 8 Benim puanım: 7

Drama: Diary of a Prosecutor

Hangul: 검사내전

Director: Lee Tae-Gon

Writer: Kim Woong (novel), Lee Hyun, Lee Tae-Gon

Creator: Park Yeon-Sun

Episodes: 16

Date: 2019

Cast: Lee Sun-Kyun, Jung Ryeo-Won, Lee Sung-Jae, Kim Kwang-Kyu, Lee Sang-Hee, Jeon Sung-Woo, Baek Hyun-Joo, Ahn Chang-Hwan

Diary of a Prosecutor, yoğun temposu ve yüksek gerilimli hikayeleriyle bilinen savcılık dünyasına farklı bir bakış sunuyor. Bu dizi, daha çok karakter odaklı, gerçekçi ve zaman zaman mizahi bir şekilde savcıların günlük hayatını ele alıyor. Büyük şehirlerdeki büyük davaların aksine, taşradaki bir savcılık ofisinde yaşanan sıradan ama içten olaylar dizinin odak noktasını oluşturuyor.

Dizinin baş karakteri Lee Sun-Woong (Lee Sun-Kyun), ilk bakışta oldukça sıradan bir savcı gibi görünüyor. Büyük hırsları olmayan, görevlerini yerine getiren ve işinden keyif almayı bilen bir adam. Sun-Woong’un çalışma tarzı ve hayat görüşü, dizi boyunca izleyiciye içten bir şekilde aktarılıyor.

Karşısında ise tabiki hukuk dizilerin kadrolusu Jung Ryeo-Won, Cha Myung-Joo karakteri ile yer alıyor. Myung-Joo, kariyerinde oldukça başarılı ve hırslı bir savcı olarak biliniyor. Büyük şehirdeki prestijli bir görevden taşraya atanmasıyla birlikte, hem yeni çalışma arkadaşları hem de yeni bir hayat tarzıyla yüzleşmek zorunda kalıyor. Jung Ryeo-Won’un canlandırdığı Myung-Joo, güçlü ve bağımsız bir karakter olarak dikkat çekiyor. Onun taşradaki savcılık yaşamına uyum sağlamaya çalışırken yaşadığı zorluklar ve aynı zamanda inatçılığı, dizinin mizahına arka çıkıyor.

Dizi, yalnızca Sun-Woong ve Myung-Joo’ya odaklanmıyor; aynı zamanda savcılık ofisindeki diğer karakterlerin de günlük hayatlarını ve kişisel mücadelelerini işliyor. Oh Yoon-Jin (Lee Sang-Hee) ve Hong Jong-Hak (Kim Kwang-Gyu) gibi yan karakterler, hem ofis içindeki dinamikleri hem de taşrada savcı olmanın zorluklarını izleyiciye aktarıyor. Bu yan hikayeler, dizinin daha samimi ve çok boyutlu bir atmosfer yaratmasına yardımcı oluyor.

Diary of a Prosecutor, büyük ve çarpıcı olaylardan ziyade, küçük ama anlamlı detaylarla dikkat çeken bir yapım. Her bir bölüm, farklı bir dava üzerinden ilerlerken, aynı zamanda savcıların kişisel yaşamlarına ve içsel çatışmalarına da değiniyor. Dizinin temposu, bazen yavaş ilerlese de, bu durum hikayenin gerçekçiliğini artırıyor ve izleyicinin karakterlerle bağ kurmasını kolaylaştırıyor. Prodüksiyon kalitesi açısından, dizi oldukça başarılı. Taşra atmosferi, doğal mekan seçimleri ve karakterlerin gerçekçi diyalogları ile izleyiciye sıcak bir his veriyor.

Sonuç olarak, Diary of a Prosecutor, savcılık dünyasına farklı bir açıdan bakan, samimi ve gerçekçi bir yapım. Büyük entrikalar ya da karmaşık olaylar yerine, günlük yaşamın içindeki mizahı ve dramı keşfetmek isteyenler için ideal bir seçenek. Lee Sun-Kyun ve Jung Ryeo-Won’un etkileyici performansları, diziyi daha da izlenebilir kılıyor. Eğer yavaş tempolu ama anlamlı bir hikaye arıyorsanız, Diary of a Prosecutor tam size göre bir dizi. Birde ufak not vereyim; çok da akılda kalıcı bir dizi değildi.

OST :

Young Tak - Cafe water fog blues

Diary of a Prosecutor offers a fresh perspective on the high-stakes, fast-paced world of prosecutors—one that’s character-driven, grounded, and often unexpectedly humorous. Instead of grand urban court dramas, the series shines a light on the mundane yet heartfelt daily lives of prosecutors in a small rural office.

At its center is Lee Sun-Woong (Lee Sun-Kyun), who at first glance seems like an utterly ordinary prosecutor—unambitious, dutiful, and content with his quiet routine. Yet his work ethic and philosophy unfold with quiet authenticity, making him strangely compelling.

Opposite him stands the inevitable fixture of legal dramas: Jung Ryeo-Won as Cha Myung-Joo, a fiercely ambitious and accomplished prosecutor. After being transferred from a prestigious city post to this provincial backwater, she clashes with her new colleagues—and an entirely unfamiliar way of life. Jung’s portrayal of Myung-Joo as stubborn yet vulnerable, struggling to adapt while clinging to her ideals, becomes a subtle source of the show’s humor.

The series doesn’t limit itself to these two; it weaves in the personal struggles and office dynamics of supporting characters like Oh Yoon-Jin (Lee Sang-Hee) and Hong Jong-Hak (Kim Kwang-Gyu). Their subplots—highlighting the challenges of rural prosecution—add warmth and depth, creating a lived-in, multidimensional world.

Diary of a Prosecutor thrives on small, meaningful details rather than bombastic twists. Each episode tackles a minor case while delving into the prosecutors’ personal lives and moral dilemmas. Though the pacing leans slow, this deliberate approach enhances realism and fosters empathy. Production-wise, the show excels: the rural setting feels authentic, locations are unfussily natural, and dialogue rings true—all coalescing into a comforting, slice-of-life vibe.

In short, this is a rare legal drama that swaps spectacle for sincerity. Ideal for viewers seeking humor and drama in everyday struggles rather than convoluted plots. Lee Sun-Kyun and Jung Ryeo-Won’s nuanced performances elevate the material, though it’s worth noting the series isn’t particularly memorable. If you enjoy slow-burn storytelling with emotional weight, Diary of a Prosecutor might just be your perfect match.

Raven Melus

BAŞKA NELER VAR ?

FOTOĞRAFLAR

[mirajanefairytailmage]

Rambling About a Show (04/12/2024)

⚠️SPOILER?!⚠️

I started this on Monday(04/01/2024) and finished last night.

This show was pretty hilarious. It was also a bit heavy sometimes. So it'll either have you laughing or crying.

I liked that each episode had some narration to it. It made sense to do that seeing the title of the series. 🤣

I also loved how petty Prosecutor Lee Sun-woong was throughout the series. His competitive nature against Prosecutor Cha Myung-ju was pretty comical. The way she says she despised him for his carefree and relaxed nature in university.

I seriously loved every minute of this show. Even if it was an emotional roller coaster for me. 😅

[helianthus21]

i think im changing my mind. Han-seok would win against In-woo. he might rely too much on his money and power to clean things up while In-woo plans his kills more meticulously but he only goes after the weak while Han-seok doesnt mind getting his hands dirty, so 1-on-1 Han-seok could win. he'd still lose against Dong-sik tho bc of cartoon logic

[down-the-river-styx]

I want to apologise for my moment of weakness yesterday. The arts are cruel and horrid and yet I have no choice but to wish that I was blessed with a natural talent. I am unloved by my secondary craft, and yet that will not stop me from attempting to thrive despite everything against me. His Lordship and Prosecutor Asogi are still out, the holidays are coming up, and I need to get them a sort of gift that I know they'd enjoy. Sometimes I cannot believe how difficult it is to come up with ideas for two of the individuals I surround myself with the most.

[thepastisalreadywritten]

Diary of a Prosecutor (2019)

[jukers]

Some impressions from the Luigi Mangione court hearing today

Judge did not like him at all. Threatened to send him to Rikers over nothing

His lawyer claims she hasn’t received evidence from the NY prosecutors, including the alleged diary that was recently read on an HBO documentary

They aren’t letting cameras into the courtroom

His next appearance is on the 26th of June

Very loud cheering for him outside the courtroom

Someone rented a couple of trucks with “free Luigi” propaganda to circle around the building

[dolphin-diaries]

Detrans Women v. Trans Men, Or: The Sanity Of Sex Change

Originally published on the Dolphin Diaries substack.

Be advised: this essay contains misogynistic, transphobic, and ableist language, especially as it pertains to pregnancy, trans men, and mental disability.

Today the court presides over a very special case, poised to answer a question that has plagued the nation since the dreaded sex wars. Several questions, actually. What are transsexuals? Do they deserve to exist? What about women? If a woman could become a man, why wouldn’t she? Do real women like being women? And when all the real women are gone—who, pray tell, will bear our children for us?

The plaintiff is a sight to behold. She is stern and clearly distressed, because she’s not smiling. She’s dressed with a presentable degree of femininity, not like a whore or anything. But there is a certain mannishness about her. Her jaw and her shoulders—must’ve been a surgery. When she speaks, you can hear she’s not really a woman anymore. Well, no, she is, but—you know. You can just tell by looking at her, she is barren inside.

The defendant is… charming. S—I mean, he, of course he looks like a ‘he,’ but of course he’s also short. Kind of too well-dressed. He has small wrists and his cranium is pronouncedly feminine. If the court looks away for a moment, the court will forget his face, but the court will certainly remember the wrists and the height and the cranium. Can you imagine, that thing can get pregnant? That was an aside, don’t record that.

When the plaintiff speaks, it is with great pain. She bears the scars of her transition with tremulous distress and speaks of tragic self-harm in a futile attempt to escape the patriarchy. She’d been hoodwinked by the trans cult and doctors—they sold her an illusion of a cure. Now she has seen there’s no such thing. The woman-ness has awoken within her and cried for the de-mammaried chest and all the babies she will never gestate. Her question is simple: why was she forced to do this; why was she lied to? Why has no one ever stopped her? Why have her doctors and friends entertained her delusion that she could somehow be a man? It is nothing short of a grave injustice that her woman-ness was allowed to be undermined. That it is now broken and impossible to heal.

When the defendant speaks, he too overflows with suffering. He was—in his soul, his mind—a man, but yet his body was not. His distress over this mismatch was profound and incurable; transition alone managed to mercifully relieve it. And he is dearly sorry for the plaintiff’s pain, but—well, it’s hardly his fault she tried to fool the system, isn’t it? Why must the one truly suffering be held accountable for the delusions of liars? Why must he be punished for the deranged ravings of belligerent, hysterical cunts?

Gender Madness

Now that the jury is well and properly annoyed with me for my inflammatory phrasing—we all have our defects; mine is that I’m a rhetorician—I shall transform from a bigoted judge into a two-headed creature, prosecutor and attorney both. A little unorthodox, you might say? But this isn’t really a courtroom. No, this argument only occasionally makes it that far; we stand most often in the court of private and public opinion.

With that in mind, let us go over the details of the case. We shall start from afar, but do stay with me; the context is vital.

Our crime(s) take place in a very particular world, one in which life is earned with labour. A citizen must perform and provide labour up to a somewhat arbitrary standard, for which they are rewarded with normal treatment. Human treatment, not-Other treatment. What exactly that constitutes depends on time, place, circumstance, and other extenuating traits the citizen holds. How that is phrased also depends, but it’s usually something to the tune of an adequate contribution for the good of something greater and more abstract. In a late-capitalist society, for instance, money is a measure of labour and a vehicle for greater social contribution, and it thus reflects the measure of allowed humanity. Even when that money is inherited, and its holder has not worked for a damn penny of it, it must reflect some great labour done in the past, by themself or an ancestor. They must’ve deserved it, because money is a measure of labour, and labour is a measure of deserving.

Capitalist profit-meritocratic logics are only one of many ways earning life with labour manifests. But this is a court case, not a lesson in history or politics or economics, so never mind that.

What happens when one cannot meet the standard of labour? What is someone who cannot contribute enough to be normal? Every human’s capacity is limited, but some limits lie at or above the arbitrary standard of labour—and some below. Failure to meet standard capacity is, quite plainly, disability. I speak specifically—now and henceforth—of the social construct of disability. Just as sex/gender, it encompasses human features which may exist regardless of social order; just as sex/gender, it constructs archetypes and social scripts that serve a purpose.

What is the social purpose of disability? Of the infirm, the crippled, the wretched? Sometimes it is to make a large performance of helping them—only those that truly deserve it, of course; never forget truly deserving, being truly in pain—but much more importantly, across history disability existed to move the disabled to the margins of society, render them vulnerable and reliant on goodwill when they cannot be cured of being insufficient. They cannot adequately contribute, which makes them dead weights on the finite resources earned by other people’s labour. That’s why deserving is so important, you see. Because, you know, all people are constantly trying to shirk their fair share of labour, don’t they? Wouldn’t we all not work if we could choose not-working? If we granted this sort of charity to just anybody; if we kept encouraging this sort of behaviour—think of the finite resources! You and I—real, honest, hard-working people—will be the last Atlas shouldering humanity! Oh, it’s unthinkable. No-no, we have to ensure the disabled demonstrate real, provable pain that renders them utterly and definitely incapable of working as much as we do. Otherwise the world will end.

The function of the social construct of disability is to draw a line as to how much labour must be performed, and how much accommodation a normal citizen requires to do it. Disability then makes it hell to seek more accommodation for less labour—in broad strokes.

But you might say, prosecutor/attorney ma’am, what does this have to do with being trans? Or with women? Or with gender, or sex, or whatever you kids call it these days?

Well, dear jury, I know it is uncouth and uncommon to call it labour, but—by which process do we create new labourers? By what mechanism do we ensure the production of citizens? How do we ascertain that the working bodies are taken care of; that workers’ homes are clean and tended to; that workers are rewarded with something to fuck? Just for now, allow that feminised labour is labour.

Entertain the notion that the organising principle of patriarchy is distribution of feminised labour. Sexing/gendering is then a social mechanism by which labour roles are assigned and maintained—and, within the current and millenia-standing incarnation of the patriarchy, these roles are assigned at birth based on the external appearance of infant genitalia, and therefore expectation of the baby’s future gestational or inseminatory capacity. From there an entire hierarchy blossoms, in which those deemed Men are called to compete for the finite resource of Women—and to split the women among themselves, deciding which women are and are not permissible to possess by which kinds of men—and all those deemed Women are called to negotiate their commodity. If a woman is capable of producing a citizen—because she can bear children, and she is of the right nation and ethnicity and race, and has no defect she can pass down—she may be a wife. A prized personal possession, like a pet that sometimes talks too much. If she cannot produce a citizen, she’s still good for some things. After all, Men are allegedly born lascivious and violent—and also enlightened and important at the same time. So their violent excesses must be tolerated, but if we force the wives to be their drywall and their fuckdoll, it may prove too much for the gentle soul. She may get damaged, and then who’ll bear the children? Naturally, women that cannot adequately contribute to society with their wombs (either because they lack the organ altogether, or for whatever other reason) must provide for men where wives cannot. Their fault, anyway. They’re not sufficiently contributing.

On that note arises a question: what if one fails to meet their birth-destined standard of labour? What if they cannot perform their proper gender adequately? Well, a wife that fails to sufficiently provide for her man is, of course, lazy. And when women utterly refuse to behave as women should, bitches be…

For brevity, let us call that queerness. I will use the word in the broadest of strokes: it is failure or refusal or both to meet the standard of assigned sex; so then, even cishetero women that disobey their husbands are, for the purposes of this courtroom, queer. One way society has tried to grapple with queerness was to seek basis in a physical abnormality, which may then provide justification for the queers’ less-than-human status as well as avenues for cures. Perhaps the foetus was exposed to an excess of the wrong kind of sex hormone in-utero. Perhaps women harbouring lesbian desire hide a secret false penis within. Perhaps it’s the humours. Often though, because queer behaviours do not really have a direct relationship to physical attributes, they are consigned to the realm of mental disability. Of madness.

While it is a kind of disability, it is a peculiar one—so, in terms of social construct, what is the nature and purpose of madness? Dear jury, you likely know the answer, intuitively if not in words. It is to regulate the behaviours and thoughts of normal citizens. When those things breach the line of madness, one is made mad, and to be mad is to be rendered unreliable, unpredictable, and incapable of adequate agency. Once one becomes mad, the sane and the normal are relieved of trying to understand one’s thoughts and needs and desires, for those are made inherently incomprehensible. Once one becomes mad, it is assumed one cannot be trusted to make decisions which the sane make all the time, because the mad are considered consummately and totally incapable of perceiving reality or of making choices that do not harm the self or others. In short, they are a danger to all, including themselves.

What is to be done with the mad? First, they must be removed from society, lest they cause harm. Then we must attempt to make them sane—that is, behaving and thinking in ways that are normal. If that is impossible, we must make them seem as sane as possible, so that their madness is confined to their own head and does not spill over. If even that is impossible, they must be removed from society permanently. Otherwise they will disquiet and disturb the sane, or worse, infect them with madness.

Notably, madness was not made to help those that may suffer from, say, psychoses or hallucinations. The history of psychiatry—and yours truly’s personal experience with it as a transsexual forced to self-inter to access transition—makes it quite clear that its primary purpose is the segregation and normalisation of the mad. At times it happens to address the needs of the mad, but generally only insofar as it can bring about their sanity and make them fit for labour production. If one’s need is irrelevant to that, it is usually neglected. At times doctors are genuinely invested in the well-being of their mad patients, and even respect them as humans—but those doctors are merely individuals acting on compassion. The system itself facilitates the opposite.

So then it becomes abundantly obvious why disobedient women, runaway slaves, homosexuals, and transsexuals either were or are psychiatric diagnoses. Indeed, to return to the court case at hand, in a patriarchal world which constructs sex/gender to be an immutable, unchangeable birth-destiny, to think that it can be changed or that you are not what was destined to you—that is madness. It must be. If it is not, then the entire sex-caste order is thrown into total instability. What if everyone decides they’re trans?! What if the men stop competing to assert manhood; what if the women refuse to be commodity?! Who can we then extract sex from? Who will be forced to take care of our homes? Who will work themselves to the bone and who will serve the nation if we cannot promise they will be rewarded with housemaids and offspring and whores? WHO WILL MAKE THE BABIES?!?!

As you can see, dear jury, obviously all of humanity will die and the world will end. Which is why, although I’m sure not everyone enjoys the patriarchy, we must tolerate it. Just like we tolerate our jobs to survive. At least, like, the core idea. We can jiggle some things around to avoid torches and pitchforks, but the sex-castes must stay. You don’t want to be the last Atlas suffering gender-work while all the kids get surgeries and hormones and don’t want to produce gender anymore, do you? We simply can’t encourage this kind of behaviour.

Within the patriarchal resource distribution system, the trans are sex/gender-disabled, and transition is then akin to an accommodation. Just like any disabled accommodation, it is seen as a resource drain that either must be thoroughly justified—for resources are always limited—or else be deemed a frivolous waste. In an attempt to incorporate trans-ness into the resource distribution system and justify the accommodation, trans-pathology emerges. The key to trans-pathology—whether it is called transsexualism or gender dysphoria or gender incongruence; whether it is considered a matter of biology, psychiatry, or soul—is that transition is justified due to a psychological/psychiatric wound. “I deserve to transition because it is the only thing making me hurt less.” Transition, then, is continuous relief to de facto gender-madness.

But I mean, within such a worldview, wouldn’t a cure always be better than just relief?

Anyway, that is why my defendant has had to prove he really deserves transition. He has suffered greatly for his defect, and although he cannot be made completely normal—that isn’t possible; we’ve tried—he is as normal as he can be. My defendant has managed to prove to the systems built within the patriarchy, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, that he is gender-disabled, gender-mad; that he is wholly incapable of producing sufficient feminised labour due to his condition. He is too pathologically miserable—suicidal, even. But now that he has transitioned, he is happy; he has demonstrated he can participate in the production of the family. Kinda-sorta. Close enough; it looks normal enough. Again: we’ll keep trying, but for now, this is the best we got.

Here’s the problem with my defendant’s case, though. The needs of the sane supersede the needs of the mad. After all, the sane are the ones really working and producing the resources which may then be charitably allotted to take care of the mad. The sane deserve the humanity that the mad can only temporarily, fractionally rent with their pain and the compassion that affords them.

Dear jury, have you ever wondered why it has been so pervasive for trans advocacy to state over and over again the in-born-ness of it, the low numbers of it? Only 1%, no, 5%, no, I don’t know—how are we counting? Who are we counting? Regardless, we must insist it cannot spread; that you the sane will not catch trans cooties. But what if that number rises—why, we must find a justification for why it’s actually not and it’s been counted wrong, or maybe, maybe those people would’ve been trans all along, only now they have the opportunity to pursue their trans-ness, or maybe—

Why is the argument for trans existence so entwined with asserting its rarity?

As we’ve already established, dear jury, if all the world went trans, it would end, and we would all die in a horrible extinction event. We must face the truth of sex/gender austerity. So, if trans people are to be permitted to exist more-or-less normally within a patriarchal society, they must prove beyond the shadow of a doubt: they are not contagious. Relief for the mad may only be entertained if it does not impede the sane from performing their labours.

But here stands my plaintiff. A woman, born rightfully a woman, a healthy woman, that caught the madness. She’d been contaminated by the delusion of the sex change, despite constant assurance that sex cannot be changed, and despite all the ways which we’ve devised to make transsexuals prove they aren’t lying about their stupid, ridiculous disability. And so when presented with proof of the transgender contagion, we must ask ourselves a world-endingly important question:

What If All the Bitches Went Crazy?

I mean, we all don’t want to do what needs to be done. The good of the nation—or our feudal lord, or the communist party, or Amazon Stonks Exchange—asks much of us. Some more than others, but it is what it is. Right?

The place of the woman is not terribly enviable. Sometimes we tell them of the joys of being the hand that rocks the cradle, or how much better it is to be a well-kept pet that has no worries nor responsibilities, or how empowered they are in being actually more capable then the men they must tend to—but at the end of the day, no rational individual would enjoy being treated as less-than-human, as commodity, as property. Luckily for all of us, sex is immutable and natural and we’re all just born this way, pre-destined for certain roles and behaviours. Even if we don’t want to do what needs to be done, there’s not much choice in the matter.

Except, ever-awkwardly, there stands my defendant. Very clearly a man. Very verifiably assigned female at birth.

Um.

Well, no, you see, it’s not like you can really change sex. You can just—approximate it. It’s like a costume. It’s not real, it’s ersatz, and we can always tell.

Except, no we can’t. If you saw my defendant in the streets, would you be able to tell? Would you really? What about the fact that trans men’s health concerns largely mirror those of cis men, such as risks of certain cancers and diseases, so long as those trans men are on HRT? What about the fact that they seem to live as men in society just fine?

Uhhhh.

Any attempt at normalisation of female-to-male transition arrives at two core issues at the heart of the patriarchy. Firstly, the limited resource of Woman: woman who can birth a proper citizen; woman who will clean your room and soothe your tears; woman who can be used and fucked. Secondly: who deserves to be Man? If patriarchal relation is instantiated at birth; if sex is immutable and fundamental to human character, then those born as women must be too categorically different from men to ever even slightly approximate them.

Therefore, in order to be normalised—made less-mad, shifted into the liminal space of not-quite-sane—the trans man must demonstrate and acquiesce to two things. One: he will never be a real man. Indeed, the world will not allow him to be totally interchangeable from cis men; no matter how much he looks and acts the part, at some point something will remind him he is less deserving. He cannot perform all the labour of Man, and he owes society the labour of Woman by dint of birth. To be normalised, he must acquiesce firstly to the caste system itself, and then to his precarious place within it.

But here’s the second thing—for this court case, it is more relevant. He must demonstrate the sorts of women that will become him were never good Woman material anyway. They would not birth a proper citizen anyway. They would not make good housemaids anyway. They would be too ugly to deserve getting fucked anyway. And—crucially—that these reject-women are few and marginal. Because even bad material can be utilised by men who aren’t good enough to deserve the wifely and hot ones, or else used and disposed of by men who just feel like it. Any and all waste of a limited resource must be thoroughly justified.

Unfortunately for the trans man, normalising his existence is incompatible with these dogmas in practice. Normalisation means better access to HRT and masculinising surgeries; it also means being able to exist in public as a man. A lesser man, sure—but many men are lesser men. Such is the nature of an austerity-based resource hierarchy; the place of the beneficiary is competitive.

Scandalously, I myself had a stint in trans manhood, in a place more patriarchal and trans-unaware than most Western countries. Like many trans men, I have found that if you look like a man, talk like a man, act like a man, people can’t help but treat you like a man. Even career transphobes seem to force themselves to misgender trans people at times. Modern medicine enables passing as another sex even for people completely un-androgynous by nature—and historically, even before transition was available, some managed to live as a different sex anyway, discovered only upon burial or autopsy.

And then, when the trans man is normalised, it necessarily entails that female-to-male transition becomes—little by little, however fractionally—less dangerous to access. Less unknown. Which means more people will try to access it.

But listen, my defendant says—look at this graph of left-handed people, at how the number increased once we stopped forcing them to learn writing right-handed! And the patriarchy does not care, because unlike the left-handed, he has stolen a resource owed to its men. It does not matter why the number has increased, only that it did. The trans man’s extreme rarity was part of the deal struck with trans-pathology.

But listen, my defendant says, women don’t want to be men. Women are essentially, fundamentally women. No matter how badly they do or don’t have it, they would never attempt to rid themselves of womanhood—it’s just not their nature. And that means anyone attempting to avail of female-to-male transition was never a woman by dint of trying at all.

Here we arrive at a contradiction. If trans-pathology justifies transition via an incurable ill or an innate quality, then transition cannot be justified by itself. Transition is the action in need of justification; it is not itself proof of anything. Moreover it makes all my defendant’s attempts to argue for either gender-expansiveness or feminism rather laughable. In order to assert that no True Woman would ever attempt to transition to a man, he must either claim that women aren’t really suffering due to their gender all that much, or else that they are too fundamentally different from men to even consider the option. Too incapable of shifting their self-perception of gender, and altogether too committed to having boobs.

Sooner or later in the process of trans-normalisation, no matter how pathologic its framing, it arrives at the simple truth that those born as women can live as men. And the fact women are a patriarchal commodity is hardly news or a secret. Therefore it is possible that someone—arguably—‘gender-sane,’ and thus perfectly suitable for feminised exploitation, would attempt to avail of transition. It only makes rational sense.

And after all, what about my plaintiff? Is she not a woman?

Ah, argues my defendant, but exactly. She’s a woman, and for whatever reason she decided to dabble in real disorders. And now she’s crying about the consequences. Boo-fucking-hoo. She stands here lying she was forced to do it, but he knows better—he knows how difficult transition is to access, how gatekept it is. No one is scouting vulnerable young women to pump them full of testosterone. With that I could only agree—the patriarchy does not simply let go of its resource. My defendant is none too pleased with me, though, perhaps because I have alluded his transition constitutes a kind of ‘escape plan’ for women. But: clearly fucking not. She’s here, isn’t she? Not too escaped, is she? She wasn’t really trans! And anyway, what does that highfalutin stuff matter. She’s brought us all here today because she regrets a choice she made. If she supposedly ‘escaped’ misogyny with transition, why isn’t she still a man? What kind of woman would choose to become a man, only to come crawling back?

A crazy one.

Competitive Sanity

Dear jury, I do confess: my plaintiff is, some might say, full of shit. We all are in this courtroom, but she’s directly lying more than most. Demonstrably, factually, ideologically, there simply isn’t great social incentive to force women to transition to men. On the contrary, there is great incentive to stop them from doing it. In most countries you need permission to legally transition, and that permission is secured with going through a lot of motions to ensure you really really need it. If you’re transitioning outside the legal procedure, it is even harder to argue you were forced to transition or never prevented from doing it. No, there would’ve been a lot of forces hindering the detrans woman’s alleged self-mutilation. This whole story is incredibly easy to poke holes in—and she would know that.

So why is she saying it anyway? What is she trying to get, and why does she think this is how she gets it?

Her plea, as stated, is for cessation of trans accommodation—medical transition firstly, but eventually all of it. Why? Because she bears a psychological wound. She suffers dysphoria from the results of her transition—she’s been rendered sex/gender-disabled by it. So the request is in essence a request for accommodation. Indeed, due to a total lack of detransition procedures and thus state or insurance coverage, the courts are some of the only avenues through which costs of sex-altering detransition procedures may be covered. It is not an unreasonable question: if I received a double mastectomy on insurance/government funding, so why can’t I receive breast reconstruction in the same manner?

And the answer is: because that’s not how trans-pathology works, sweetie. This isn’t a fair exchange sex/gender marketplace. Transition is a barely-granted accommodation—and a crazy thing to do.

Voluntary detransition necessarily arrives at a different issue at the heart of patriarchy: that sex/gender are supposed to be immutable and eternal, and that natural sex is inherently preferable and superior to artificially modified sex. Trans-pathology seeks to frame trans-ness as an essential attribute which causes a psychological wound that must be relieved, thereby violating the immutability dogma as little as possible and assenting to the superiority of natural sex. But to detransition is, truthfully, to transition again at least once; multiple sex changes cannot be justified within this paradigm. And, the nature of transition access ensures that in the overwhelming majority of cases, going through it is a choice made on purpose. Therefore, desiring detransition under the framework of immutable sex/gender means you transitioned by frivolity, delusion—mistake. And not just any mistake; a mistake in which you pilfered a limited-resource accommodation. Willingly destroyed your ability to adequately perform feminised labour. And, according to the naturalistic fallacy, wasted a superior version of your sex for no justifiable reason.

Just like it is insanity to think you can or should change your sex, it is madness to imagine you can just walk back and forth willy-nilly.

So if that’s the case, how does one normalise detransition? What framing is needed? How does my plaintiff place it in the realm of sanity?

Just like the trans man acquiesces to some of the patriarchal claims about him in order to shift others, so does the detrans woman. She agrees that yes, her natural sex is superior and unrecoverable. Yes, it was a mistake. What she can’t acquiesce to is the idea that she transitioned on purpose, willingly. Because if that is so, she violated the caste system in the most grievous of ways, and she stole labour and accommodation. If you know anything about the treatment of the disabled—or the homeless, or any vulnerable category that requires more accommodation than average—you would know that to admit such a thing is to cut yourself off from any further help. If the detrans woman agrees she was a rational agent when she transitioned, she agrees she is a parasite and a resource-eater. Within the patriarchal framework, she cannot argue for the right to change sex again.

If she does not present her transition as an insanity and her detransition as a cure, then that means she is mad and has been the whole time. Mad: meaning, unworthy of autonomy. She must self-denigrate and totally disavow her past self—or else be denied autonomy not only then, but also now.

She makes the claim she was mad. She finds every way in which her agency could’ve been compromised and exaggerates them until her past self appears completely incapable of making choices. All our agencies are always at least somewhat compromised, of course, for we are not totally rational agents and we are not omniscient—but that doesn’t matter, because mad choices will always be simple to present as delusions, and the sane ones will always be assumed perfectly-agented by default. And so, for instance, it may be true that the detrans woman’s doctor had a poor grasp on the mental health of women while knowing how to follow basic transition guidelines. But this is not presented as one of many circumstances which enabled the detrans woman to rethink her gender and consider transition—rather, it becomes a total superimposition of the doctor’s will upon the detrans woman’s, erasing her own decision-making capacity entirely. It becomes brainwashing.

Or let us return to my favourite topic: the patriarchy. While it is absurd to suggest the commodification and dehumanisation inherent to being a woman under patriarchy could never cause anyone to alienate from ‘woman’ altogether, it is likewise absurd to present transition as an ‘escape’ from patriarchy. The only escape there is from an all-encompassing regime is leaving for the woods. Moreover, the sex-essentialism of its caste system ensures trans men’s lives are made especially precarious, their trans status impossible to totally conceal, and any and all reveal of it threatening dehumanisation and womanisation. You can become a man—but only a queer one, and queerness is automatically degendering and unstable.

(Recall our bigoted judge. He is merely a distilled substrate of my own experiences with how trans-ness undoes humanity, disassembles one’s body into parts to be undressed and examined in the town square, and assiduously regendered.)

As is abundantly clear to anyone that’s ever transitioned, transition results in a re-negotiation of one’s status within the patriarchal caste system—with a heavy penalty. It is as silly to say ‘man’ confers no immense advantages over ‘woman’ as it is to say ‘cis’ confers no immense advantages over ‘trans.’ Both claims are brazenly, demonstrably absurd—mad, even.

So why is the trans man stating the former while the detrans woman states the latter? Why are they making absurd claims while poking at the absurdity of the other’s claim?

The fact of the matter is, both transition and detransition are fundamentally incompatible with patriarchal logics. Bioessentialist sex-destiny at birth and the naturalistic fallacy of sex are its foundational building blocks. Ability to perform sex/gender up to an arbitrary labour standard is the measure of one’s place in the hierarchy, and that hierarchy is supposed to have no mobility. Therefore patriarchy is incompatible with providing accommodation for changing sex, at all, ever. Desire for this accommodation is madness, undergoing it is disabling, and both madness and disability are utterly undesirable within resource austerity.

Then it follows that attempting to justify either transition or detransition care within a patriarchal system generates fallacies, omissions, distortions, and outright lies, because true justification—true equity with those that do not change sex/gender—is impossible. Moreover, sex/gender austerity forces accommodation requests of the trans and the detrans to become antagonistic. If the trans deserve accommodation, that makes the detrans lying and crazy resource-eaters. If the detrans deserve accommodation, that makes the trans crazy mutilators of the sane. Therefore the trans and the detrans must compete for the title of least-mad to be granted anything at all. The needs of the more-sane supersede the needs of the less-sane, because the saner you are, the more likely you are to almost-meet the arbitrary standard of labour. You are more worthy of having a finite resource spent on you.

So: poke holes in the inevitable flaws in each other’s reasoning, and whoever pokes best, wins.

And The Winner Is…

In the realm of pure logic, obviously no one. We’re all mad here. But this isn’t pure logic—this is the court of patriarchy, and the logics we’re operating under are patriarchal. Primacy in a hierarchy is won with obedience.

And in that sense, the case was rigged from the start.

You see, dear jury, you were never needed here, and your votes will not be counted. Of our plaintiff and our defendant, there is a self-evident winner in the ‘most obedient to patriarchal logics’ competition. Look how she cries for her lost womb. She’s obviously very sorry for betraying her labour function, and she says she’s been disabled—mutilated!—by those pesky resource-eaters, those burdens. Well, we certainly don’t need to be asked twice to care less! Reduced accommodation approved!

Ah, but what she really wanted was accommodation for her gender and sex. To be a woman again.

Too bad.

It is curious, isn’t it, how rarely you see allegedly pro-detrans conservative pundits advocate for detrans healthcare. No fundraisers for breast reconstruction, no calls to include voice training in subsidised procedures, no requests to incorporate legal detransition into gender marker change pathways. You’d be forgiven for thinking no such thing as ‘detrans healthcare’ even exists. Yes, yes, they’re campaigning for the benevolent extermination of detrans people as a category via extermination of transition—but what of the ones currently living? Even if they’re supposedly irreversibly damaged, don’t they deserve at least relief?

Seems like the only thing detrans women deserve is pity—not accommodation. All their pain buys them is a lack of direct violence. But in order to have that non-violence bought with pain, they must continue to be in pain; they must remain destitute. We can’t keep encouraging this sex-changing behaviour, after all. If detrans women aren’t destitute, who knows what kind of ideas the gender-obedient will get in their as-yet sane heads.

That is, in the end, the issue with trying to earn humane treatment with pain against a system that claims you have not contributed enough to deserve humane treatment in the first place. It is a continuously defensive position, with shifting boundaries you do not get to set or control—because you’re defensive. You don’t get to decide how much pain constitutes enough payment, nor how much your pain is worth.

Consider trans-pathology. Whether we call it transsexualism or gender dysphoria or gender incongruence, transition is presented as a form of relief to a psychiatric or psychological ill—that is, it is an accommodation bought with pain. Then remains a thorny question: what if the source of pain could be eliminated? Conversion therapy is deemed in poor taste chiefly because it does not work. But a total cure is always preferable to a relief. Therefore, under this logic, it must be pursued. So long as gender is what it is, and so long as madness is what it is, the search for working conversion therapy cannot cease. You can spend countless hours proving the ‘true cure’ to trans-ness is impossible, but with enough push, some hack will publish something credible-looking and science-seeming that asserts otherwise—and they’ll be more useful to the system than you.

Just look at the Cass Review.

When Abigail Thorn in her Why I Don’t Like The Word ‘Dysphoria’ essay suggested the basis for the right to transition ought to be her will—that the only justification sex-changing and gender-shifting needs is “because I want to”—she received quite some pushback on the idea. It is a common critique, one I received myself over many years, and it comes in two forms. One is an accusation of pain-ignoring. That we do not recognise the suffering of trans people, perhaps even attempt to override their stories. It’s valid that you’re not hurting, but you have to recognise that I do!

And I ask: why should the freedoms permitted to you depend on how much pain you’re in? Does this not entail that, once you’re not hurting anymore, you no longer deserve them—meaning, your destitution must in some way remain eternal?

The second critique is pragmatic: if we push this weird frivolous agency line, we won’t get what we want fast enough. We’ll die on this hill arguing we deserve autonomy while getting no help at all, when we could have at least some benefit now.

But neither Thorn nor I argue against pragmatism. I lied my way through the masturbation quizzes in the psych ward just fine. The argument made in both this essay and hers is not, as the critique fears, for the rapid dissolution of current trans healthcare and for dying on the vanguard of pipe dreams, but rather for a gradual shift of the patriarchal sex-caste construction—for rethinking sex. And there are pragmatic reasons to argue this; we can observe them right now, as fascism builds its momentum around restricting whatever trans freedoms were won with trans-pathology.

Because, I repeat: transition is fundamentally incompatible with patriarchal logics. It cannot be assimilated. Its normalisation jeopardises the basis on which it is allowed a sliver of assimilation. Thus trans-pathology is locked in a cycle whose only variable is the intensity of its eugenic extermination.

It is also a cycle in which I cannot exist with dignity (not that anyone does.) At the height of trans-pathology, I am a crazy resource-thief; at its nadir, I am a mutilated and fallen woman. So I reject this samsara, not just as an ideological dead end, but also a practical one. I reject the austerity of feminised labour; I reject that a hierarchy of resource-consumption is necessary and that no better world can exist. I reject pathetic flailing in front of impassive juries and judges, trying to prove I’m not really crippled or mad—that I don’t deserve to be treated like them. I reject that some people deserve living more than others, or deserve participation in society more than others. I reject being taxed with pain for failing to be a good-enough resource site. I reject the need for performance of justification.

And I hope you do, too.

Recommended Reading

On mad justice: Micha Frazer-Carroll, Mad World: The Politics of Mental Health.

On the treatment of the disabled as an economic and eugenic burden: Beatrice Adler-Bolton and Artie Verkant, Health Communism: A Surplus Manifesto.

[f1ghtsoftly]

AllThe Women’s News You Missed This Week

4/28/25-5/5/25

The future of the Women’s Health Initiative remains uncertain. Gaga has a record-breaking concert in Brazil. Activists and survivors question the legacy of the late Pope Francis. Jill Soboule dies in a mysterious house fire. Thousands of Islamists organized in Bangladesh against women’s rights. Indigenous women mark 5/5 as a day of remembrance for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women around the US. 

Want this in your inbox instead? Subscribe here

Top Stories For The Week: 

Kamala Harris hits out at Trump in first major speech since losing election 

Indigenous people raise awareness about their missing and murdered 

How many more women and girls have to be attacked before we class misogyny as terrorism?

Emel Mathlouthi: From revolution to global stages, this Tunisian icon is creating feminist anthems that inspire change  

A CASE OF CONSCIENCE: THE CHRISTIAN FEMINISTS FIGHTING BRAZIL'S ANTI-ABORTION LAWS

Midwifery Is as Old as Birth Itself. Why Are We Still Fighting for It?

Financing the fight: Why redistribution, not charity, matters for feminism  

A Deeper Look: 

Inside the Gen Z housewife wars: can you ever be a feminist and house proud?

Why ‘Girl’s Girl’ Culture Still Centers Around Male Approval 

The Avenging Woman: The Politics and Aesthetics of Female Rage in Rape-Revenge Cinema 

Financing the fight: Why redistribution, not charity, matters for feminism  

Book Review: Sophie Gilbert, “Girl On Girl: How Pop Culture Turned A Generation Of Women Against Themselves” 

Tooling Up Against Misogyny in Schools Is More Important Than Ever  

Updates on the Trump Administration: 

The Women’s Health Initiative has shaped women’s health for over 30 years, but its future is uncertain 

Key reports addressing violence against Indigenous women are gone from federal sites 

Women’s Rights: 

'Unacceptable' to question Supreme Court gender ruling, says minister 

Bring a mahram or die: The Taliban threat to expectant mothers

UNAMA: Taliban systemically erasing women’s public life and freedom of movement

Towards an Inclusive Gender Just Code in India: Women’s Rights are Non-Negotiable 

Women in the News: 

What to know about Karen Read's second murder trial 

Kamala Harris hits out at Trump in first major speech since losing election 

Lydia Mugambe: UN judge who forced woman to work as slave jailed for more than six years

Michigan's governor gambles on Trump - and her chances at a presidential run 

Reproductive Rights: 

Olivia Rodrigo Wins Planned Parenthood Award for Repro Rights Activism

Midwifery Is as Old as Birth Itself. Why Are We Still Fighting for It?

A CASE OF CONSCIENCE: THE CHRISTIAN FEMINISTS FIGHTING BRAZIL'S ANTI-ABORTION LAWS

From Montana to Florida—How Past Pro-Abortion Ballot Measures Are Helping Fuel a Movement 

Josh Hawley Calls on FDA to Restrict Abortion Pill Based on Bogus ‘Study’ from Right-Wing Org

Women resist: 

Profiles in Courage: Michelle King Refused to Hand Over Your Data to DOGE. Then She Lost Her Job. 

Why the Khachaturyan Sisters' Case Fired Up Russian Feminists

Ugandan women unveil 2026–2030 manifesto, demand action on rights 

Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply condemns Trump’s attacks on judges 

Profiles in Courage: Danielle Sassoon, a Prosecutor of Principle, Quits After Rejecting Trump-Appointed AG’s Order to Shield Eric Adams

Mexico’s president says she rejected Trump’s plan to send US troops across the border

Diary of a Feminist: Dr. Amal Al-Malki’s Journey from Academia to Activism 

Abuse victims question if Pope Francis did enough to stop predators 

Men Retaliate: 

Thousands of Islamists rally in Bangladesh against proposed changes to women’s rights

Women Getting Justice? 

Iranian Father Who Killed Daughter Released After Three Months  

Excavation at former mother-and-baby institution to begin this year 

Women’s Legacy and History: 

‘Unwavering friendship’: The true story of nine women who escaped a Nazi death march 

‘I Kissed A Girl’ Singer Jill Sobule’s Body Found After Mysterious House Fire 

‘She changed the face of London’: statue to be unveiled of suffragist gardener 

Uplifting News: 

First Jewish woman minister in German cabinet since Holocaust 

90-year-old Who Has Saved Over 10,000 Animals at Sanctuary Has No Plans to Retire 

‘I do what I like’: British woman, 115, claims world’s oldest living person title 

Uncategorized: 

How the IMF can help increase women’s labour force participation in Egypt 

Violence Against Women: 

South African woman guilty of kidnapping and trafficking daughter aged 6 

Woman killed in France was lovely person, says husband 

Rape 'accepted way of life' say ex-forces women

Syria’s stolen daughters: The HTS campaign to enslave Alawite women 

Gender Trolling: Digital Manosphere and Misogyny in China 

Women on Vinted are being sexually exploited and no one is stopping it

An Israeli woman taken hostage by Hamas on October 7 has alleged she was drugged and raped by a well-known personal trainer after returning to Israel.  

Sexually harassed while job hunting in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan  

Young woman's strip search at festival akin to 'sexual assault', court told

Arts and Culture: 

Two million people attend free Lady Gaga concert in Brazil 

How Katy Perry became the Hot and Cold popstar 

Book of the Week: Ani O’Brien on Ali Mau 

Flick’s Rough and Tough Feminism Fits Pittsburgh 

Far East Film Festival: Yihui Shao’s Feminist Drama ‘Her Story’ Wins Top Prize 

‘Wolf Siren’ by Beth O’Brien: Feminist retelling of a classic children’s tale 

Iris Knobloch, Cannes Film Festival president: 'For most of my career, I was the only woman at the table'

These Mormon wives are TV’s Most Unlikely Feminists 

Emel Mathlouthi: From revolution to global stages, this Tunisian icon is creating feminist anthems that inspire change  

As always, this is global and domestic news from a US perspective, covering feminist issues and women in the news more generally. As of right now, I do not cover Women’s Sports. Published each Tuesday.

[prozd]

my favorite things this year

Best Games I Played in 2024

Balatro

2. Super Mario Bros. Wonder

3. Ace Attorney Investigations 2: Prosecutor's Gambit

4. Final Fantasy VI

5. The Walking Dead: The Final Season

6. Celeste

7. Portal 2

8. Yakuza 4

9. Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia

10. Yohane the Parhelion: Numazu in the Mirage

Best Shows I Watched in 2024

Delicious in Dungeon

2. Pluto

3. Game Changer

4. Sound! Euphonium 3

5. Pokemon Concierge

6. The Apothecary Diaries

7. Shouwa Genroku Rakugo Shinjuu

8. Vinland Saga 2

9. Cyberpunk: Edgerunners

10. Skip and Loafer

Best Movies I Watched in 2024

Blue Giant

2. The Bad Guys

3. Klaus

4. Lu Over the Wall

5. Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero

6. Wolfwalkers

7. Sound! Euphonium: Ensemble Contest

8. Ringing Bell

9. Wicked

10. Suzume

Best Board Games I Played in 2024

1. Ticket to Ride Legacy: Legends of the West

2. Charterstone

3. Slay the Spire: The Board Game

4. The King's Dilemma

5. Dune Imperium: Uprising

6. Thunder Road: Vendetta

7. Bullet <3

8. Clever 4Ever

9. Ubongo 3D

10. Loopin' Louie

[hyperfixatinator]

Regarding the mystery behind Kristoph's black psyche-locks, there's one possibility I'm a little surprised I hadn't seen mentioned yet.

What if Kristoph killed Zak Gramarye because he blamed Zak for Klavier leaving?

Hear me out. Kristoph is a major control freak, that much is certain. We also know he commissioned a piece of forged evidence worth $200,000 before he got replaced by Phoenix. That would mean Kristoph was planning to use that forgery against Klavier once they faced each other in court.

Now, that's a LOT of money to dump on a forged diary page for one court case. I don't know exactly how rich Kristoph was, but that seems excessive even by Edgeworth levels of wealth. I can only assume this one forgery for this one trial was a special occasion, reserved only for his novice little brother. Why? To beat him, of course, but it could be more than that.

It could be that Kristoph wanted to beat Klavier in his first ever trial to lower his self confidence. If Klavier stopped trusting his own judgement, Kristoph could've used this to make Klavier dependent on his judgement instead. Then Kristoph would have a prosecutor to take advantage of for free wins every trial they shared.

But here's the thing, Kristoph's goal wouldn't have changed after Phoenix replaced him. It's just the method that was altered. The plan was no longer to ensure Klavier lost to prove he's inferior to Kristoph. It turned into ensuring Klavier won all thanks to Kristoph.

The goal was the same. Kristoph could've used both of those outcomes to condition Klavier to become dependent on Kristoph's mentorship. But neither of those happened that day, did they? The trial never reached a verdict because of Zak Gramarye's disappearing act. This was something that was out of both the brothers' control, so Klavier couldn't blame himself for losing or give credit to Kristoph for winning.

Instead, Klavier left the court to go on tour with his band, and he didn't come back for seven years. In Kristoph's mind, his little brother left him for seven years, all because that magician ruined everything.

If this was indeed Kristoph's motive, then I can see two reasons why his psyche-locks would be black:

Kristoph can't accept that he's the one who drove Klavier away.

Kristoph can't accept that Klavier leaving had affected him to this extent.

[croquis-el]

Let's talk about how similar Naruhodō and Mitsurugi are in terms of morality and high responsibility in relation to their work.

And how determined they are to put themselves at risk, knowing full well that it could end badly for themselves.

I will talk about how they both share the same moral principles and how they do not allow others to lead them astray from their intended goal.

So, illegal evidence

Now you may be thinking - what the hell, this has nothing to do with the topic

And I will say that everything is just the opposite

I will discuss the use of fake evidence, its creation and responsibility for it, backed up with evidence

Let's start, as they say, from the beginning and pose the following question:

Does Naruhodō believe that Mitsurugi made shady deals, and will he protect him from these rumors?

In the first game of Trilogy, we are introduced to Naruhodō, shocked that his righteous friend is surrounded by rumors of evidence tampering, and how he desperately tries to understand whether it is true (he does not deny the fact of the shady dealings, does not vehemently defend Mitsurugi, saying “no, he couldn’t do that” and is fully aware that this could really happen).

And at first everything seems open and understandable - yes, perhaps it was so, and now Naruhodō's anger about this is clear to us

But then 1-5 happens, which closes a huge plot hole and gives answers to many questions. Mitsurugi has never falsified evidence in his life, which he honestly states to Naruhodō and which is later confirmed in court (he was caught colluding with witnesses and hiding evidence, but not falsifying it).

Now let's get back to Naruhodō and his attitude towards this. Having learned that Mitsurugi did not fabricate evidence on his own (other people above him in position did this), Naruhodō does not rush to defend him, saying “This is a forgery,” but literally says the following: “So it's true. Even though he may not have known it... He really was involved in falsifying evidence” .

In response to the above question: Naruhodō believes that a lawyer is responsible for the validity of evidence in the courtroom, regardless of who provided it to him previously, and will not even try to deny this.

And he’s not the only one who holds this opinion.

Mitsurugi himself also believes that "The police department's error is my error. I am a prosecutor, and I am responsible for it."

Considering Mitsurugi's resignation letter, Akane Hozuki (Ema Skye) doesn't understand why such serious measures need to be taken, even when such serious accusations have surfaced, but without decisive action on the part of superiors. Naruhodou answers her with the following: “Someone has to held responsible. That's how it is in the grown-up world.”

Naruhodō understands Mitsurugi's emotional state and accepts his willingness to resign from the prosecutor's office, knowing that this is not happening in a vacuum. If you used fabricated evidence (not even by yourself) - bear responsibility for your recklessness.

When Naruhodō used the fabricated page from the diary, he understood that no arguments would be heard by the court and took full responsibility for providing the fake evidence (but not for fabricating it). Naruhodou acted according to his own words from 1-4 and 1-5 - he doubted the legality of this evidence, but still used it and took the weight of the punishment upon himself.

We don't know how he felt or what he was thinking in the days after his license was revoked (except he felt "lost" and because someone is too good at hiding his emotions), but even in the thick of the situation, he remained collected and calm, and two weeks later he began investigation to find the person who framed him.

And now to the main thing.

Both Mitsurugi (in the SL-9 case and possibly other unknowns) and Naruhodō (the falsified diary page) unknowingly (but not freed from doubt) used false evidence provided to them by other people

And both blamed themselves for their inattention, recklessness, naivety.

And now a new question - was it that they voluntarily used obviously illegal evidence?

Yes

Mitsurugi, being an acting prosecutor, deliberately used 10-year-old evidence in the investigation, for which, according to the law, it was impossible to prosecute the guilty party. He was well aware that he was taking a big risk and that the balance was between “truth and illegal evidence” and “justice and the loss of truth,” but he still took the opportunity to bring to justice someone who was above the law.

Naruhodō deliberately fabricated evidence as a suspect in the Trump Turnabout case and a disbarred former lawyer. And he didn’t even deny it while in the courtroom. Naruhodō did not claim that the bloody ace was real. He only pointed out the possibility of why this card had to be taken from the crime scene. He used a trick! And he also did it in order to trap the criminal who framed him (more than once). And we know that Naruhodō doesn't forgive two offenses - betrayal and poisoning. He wouldn't have tolerated such an attitude towards himself after the case in which he found himself involved in his 3rd year at university.

Naruhodō would never take another person's guilt after that incident (neither in case 1-2 about the murder of a mentor, nor here in 4-1). Therefore, he could not afford to be convicted and led the trial as an eminence grise. He had to go over heads to get rid of false accusations and he wisely used his knowledge of the law, strictly controlled his testimony, smoothly leading the court to the correct decision, gave his lawyer only the information that was relevant to the case, preventing unnecessary facts from slipping off the tongue .

Now let's move on to the most controversial issue: would Mitsurugi condemn Naruhodō for fabricating a bloody ace? (to prove his own innocence)?

I think not

Mitsurugi in AAI 2 talked about the flexibility of the law, that only a person sets the limits of his own capabilities, that the law grows and develops as a living being, as a person. If the law tries to hide the truth, then it is mistaken.

The truth is Naruhodō's innocence.

If you listen to the law, then the defendants turned out to be the innocent party.

If you push the rigid boundaries, it becomes possible to find the true criminal.

Officially, we don't know what happened in those missing scenes, but I believe that Naruhodō wouldn't have received an ounce of judgment from his best friend, and given the circumstances, he could even help from the shadows (just remember AAI, where he is still at the investigation stage proved the innocence of his friends and colleagues - it is enough that he unconditionally believed Yahari (Larry), Mikumo (Key), detective Gumshoe (detective Itonoko), so Naruhodō cannot be an exception, but more about their mutual trust later). Didn't it seem strange to you that the judge calmly agreed to Naruhodō's request for an additional search of the crime scene, and allowed him to practically carry out his defense on his own, guiding his lawyer in the right direction? Here's a new rhetorical question.

Also with the presentation of the fabricated page - Mitsurugi expresses out loud that he regrets that he wasn't able to help Naruhodō earlier (he probably tried), to which Naruhodō replies that there is no need to blame himself and that it was solely his decision to give up badge, admit the charges and his future without a lawyer's license. Naruhodō believed that he did not deserve pity specifically in this matter, but Mitsurugi proved him the opposite - everyone gets what they deserve, but what Naruhodō deserved was the return of his license and the reliable shoulder of a friend and ally, who strives to do only the best for his friends (and not set them up by trying to ruin their lives because of your own pride).

As the result: both Mitsurugi and Naruhodō strive for the development and evolution of the law, for change the judicial system, for search for truth and justice using all methods available to them. And they are ready to bear responsibility for the course of the trial, for the evidence they provide, for their own words, even if their actions don't meet the standards of the laws adopted in their realities and will lead to terrible consequences for themselves.

P.S. please remember that this happens in their realities, which do not pretend to be reality. Comparing our world and law and their world and law is wrong.

[rockgodklav]

(17 y/o Klavier)

*a small hoard of journalists run up to Klavier*

-There recently has been rumors about your brother Kristoph Gavin forging evidence! what do you have to say about the matter Mr. Gavin?!

-Mr. Gavin how did you know that the diary page was forged?!

-Did you know Mr. Wright personally before his disbarment??!

-Would you say you're one of the prosecutors who seek the truth Mr. Gavin?!

-Is your brother actually connected to the true reason behind Mr. Wright's disbarment??!!

*and the questions keep on piling...*

Klavier stumbles briefly, if only in shock.

“A- Ah!.. Well.. ahem…”

It doesn’t take long for him to recollect himself.

“Achtung! Forgive me, forgive me, but, ach. Nein. I’m not taking questions at this time! Ja, I know, a pity, richtig? My heart bleeds for you!”

( @firstclassattorney & @ask-the-turnabout-terror mentions )

[down-the-river-styx]

As I wind down my day, I recall what I did. I went to my favourite café, had a good cuppa coffee, ate breakfast, forgot to pack lunch, and had to forgo lunch due to me spending most of my daily allowance on breakfast. The world is cruel and unfair, and yet I adore it so. Anyway, I go to the office and greet the other few members who work there. Prosecutor Asogi is quite a smart man, and I admire his work ethic. His lordship was rather busy today, so it was basically me and The Apprentice. Not that I don’t mind, he’s quite the joy to be around. Sometime around lunch he left after giving me some work to do, and oh how I enjoyed it!! Anyway, perhaps now is time for me to dream a dream of good tasting drinks and a restful night of sleep.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Robert Reich:

Friends, Did anyone else see the horrific display in the Oval Office last Friday as a ritual exercise in male domination? I don’t want to insult great apes, but I’ve seen similar performances at the zoo. Trump and Vance sought to humiliate Zelensky, treating him with the same disrespect they treat … well, women. Trump, Vance, and Musk inhabit what’s been termed the “manosphere” — a place where the main events are dominance and submission. The whole point is to humiliate weaker men — and to subjugate women. Women — especially women of color — have distinguished themselves in standing up to Trump, maybe because they’re less intimidated by him than are many men, and because Trump has shown himself particularly fearful of strong women. Which if any Republicans have been strong opponents of Trump. Answer: In the Senate, Republicans Lisa Murkowski and (barely) Susan Collins. In the House, the prize still goes to Liz Cheney. Who has looked Trump in the eye and told him to show mercy for LGBTQ+ and undocumented people in America? Mariann Edgar Budde, the Bishop of Washington, at the National Prayer Service in January. Who repeatedly took Trump to court on defamation charges, and repeatedly won? E. Jean Carroll. Which prosecutors and judges were toughest in trying to hold Trump legally accountable? New York Attorney General Letitia James, Atlanta-based District Attorney Fani Willis, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, and U.S. District Judge Lauren King. Who most successfully pummeled Trump in a presidential debate? Kamala Harris. Which journalists have been most aggressive in questioning Trump? Megyn Kelly, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, PBS’s Yamiche Alcindor, CNN’s Abby Phillip, The Grio’s April Ryan, NBC’s Savannah Guthrie, The New York Times’s Maggie Haberman, CBS’s Weijia Jiang, and New York Magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi. I could go on, but you get the point.

If there was ever a president who represented unfettered male domination, it’s Trump. An implicit promise of the 2024 Trump campaign was to restore patriarchy to America. Trump voters were overwhelmingly male. As you recall, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse; he famously told “Access Hollywood” that if you’re a famous man “you can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy”; he asserted during the recent campaign that he’d “protect” women “whether the women like it or not”; and he was instrumental in ending abortion rights nationwide. After Trump’s reelection, sexist and abusive attacks on women — such as “your body, my choice” and “get back to the kitchen” — surged across social media, according to an analysis from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.

A remarkable number of Trump’s cronies are sexual harassers and predators. Trump was introduced at the Republican National Convention by Dana White, chief executive of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, who was once caught on tape slapping his wife in a nightclub. Trump’s pick for vice president, JD Vance, has said professional women “choose a path to misery” when they prioritize careers over having children. He has claimed men in America were “suppressed” in their masculinity. Vance has characterized Democratic leaders as “childless cat ladies.” At a gathering of conservatives last month, Vance told young men: ��Don’t allow this broken culture to send you a message that you’re a bad person because you’re a man, because you like to tell a joke, because you like to have a beer with your friends or because you’re competitive.” Trump’s pick for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, paid off a woman who accused him of sexual assault (Hegseth’s own mother accused him of abusing women, though she later disavowed her words).

Trump’s HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was accused of sexually harassing his family’s nanny and at one point kept a diary of his conquests, which his wife at the time found. Elon Musk’s “bros” are notoriously misogynistic, as is Musk. One of Musk’s companies, SpaceX, reportedly paid $250,000 to a flight attendant who said Musk exposed himself to her. In a lawsuit filed last year, former employees accused him of “treating women as sexual objects to be evaluated on their bra size.” One of the most pathetic symbols of the new manosphere is Mark Zuckerberg. After kissing Trump’s derriere, the third-richest man in America called for more “masculine energy” because the corporate world was becoming “culturally neutered.” He told Joe Rogan that “having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive.”

Last Thursday, the Trump regime celebrated toxic masculinity by smoothing the way for Andrew and Tristan Tate to be extradited from Romania to the United States. The Tate bros had been accused of luring women to Romania and then forcing them to work as pornographic webcam performers. Britain is also investigating the Tate brothers for rape and human trafficking in Britain.

I relate all this to you because it’s important to understand the centrality of male dominance and misogyny to Trump’s world — and to connect this to what other authoritarians and neofascists are doing around the globe. The authoritarian manosphere is organized around a hierarchy topped by heroic male warriors. Winning is all about getting other males to submit to the dominant male. Women are relegated to subservient roles. Anything that challenges the traditional heroic male roles of protector, provider, and controller of the family is considered a threat to the social order. LGBTQ+ people are believed to weaken the heroic male.

The Trump-Musk-Vance agenda's key characteristic is male privilege and male entitlement, as Robert Reich explains in his Substack post.