#it's for my gender sexuality and disability class!

[hashtag-anthems]

alright we're doing it lads we are writing an academic paper about bg3

[echonvoid]

Bnha/rottmnt crossover

Because they’ve been sharing my hyperfixation and I’ve enjoyed figuring out how that’d work. They’re also my first two risetober pieces; a thing that I totally remembered was happening /hj

So, I don’t have a lot of concrete ideas for this au, just that I know it’s after the rise movie and some point after Eri’s rescue. I know Splinter decides to take his kids to Japan (this definitely includes April and Casey Jones Jr) so they can reconnect with their ancestral home.

While there shit goes down and they’re trapped on the same island UA is. Everyone goes onto the campus for safety (so I’m apparently going for after the first war arc Manga era) Splinter was an alumni (only barely recognizable from how much he’s changed) (Lou Jitsu looked a lot like 2012 splinter); he introduces his family to nezu who is more than happy to let them dorm and practice with 2-A, and gets them in touch with the on campus therapists.

Backstory:

Essentially it’s the same except the Yōkai are not in hiding and Splinter was actually with Draxum for 2 years while he made their sons. Of course Lou thought it was gonna be more like artificial insemination and natural shit, and less like mad scientist. Draxum made the boys to be weapons since he knew Lou was still on the run from Big Mama. And he just really wanted to do a bunch of genetic research with quirks and ancient yokai blood and shit. When Lou found out the boys were made with the soul purpose of being weapons (even with good intentions) he got pissed and after Mikey was fully formed, he took the boys and left. So him and Draxum are (almost) literally divorced dads.

They still grow up in the sewers cuz big mama ruled the surface and would chain splinter and the boys the instant she found them and use them for what they were made for: weapons.

Everything else is mostly the same, except when Leo takes Splinter to Big Mama. Cuz Splints has a panic attack as soon as he found out where they were going. Leo helped him calm down and explain; and then Leo fills Splinter in on what his plan is. It’s vague but that’s cuz they didn’t have specific details of the battle nexus and shit. Splinter disassociates whenever he’s in the room with big mama.

I don’t know about April and Casey’s quirks or anything yet, but I do know that ninpo is still very much a thing. But they register their ninpo as their quirk, along with the family quirk: Turtle Power!

Y’all if you have any ideas for this au or wanna show off your own my hero versions of the turtles feel free to @ me!

[loverboyfae]

the real most detrimental thing about not having an active hyperfixation/special interest is not having something to instantly make you feel better. i was feeling unhappy before now i’m just btr mode. the unfortunate thing about it is. i have. Essays. and i’m mainly thinking about children’s television btr

[gothhabiba]

Loving the people in your family, mind you, is not at odds with a commitment to family abolition. Quite the reverse. I will hazard a definition of love: to love a person is to struggle for their autonomy as well as for their immersion in care, insofar such abundance is possible in a world choked by capital. If this is true, then restricting the number of mothers (of whatever gender) to whom a child has access, on the basis that I am the “real” mother, is not necessarily a form of love worthy of the name. Perchance, when you were very young (assuming you grew up in a nuclear household), you quietly noticed the oppressiveness of the function assigned to whoever was the mother in your home. You sensed her loneliness. You felt a twinge of solidarity. In my experience, children often “get” this better than most: when you love someone, it simply makes no sense to endorse a social technology that isolates them, privatizes their lifeworld, arbitrarily assigns their dwelling-place, class, and very identity in law, and drastically circumscribes their sphere of intimate, interdependent ties. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Most family abolitionists love their families. It is true of course that it is usually the people who have had bad experiences within a social system, and who feel things besides love for that system, who initiate movements to overthrow it. But loving one’s family in spite of a “hard childhood” is pretty typical of the would-be family abolitionist. She may, for instance, sense in her gut that she and the members of her family simply aren’t good for each other, while also loving them, wishing them joy, and knowing full well that there are few or no available alternatives in this world when it comes to providing much-needed care for everybody in question. Frankly, loving one’s family can be a problem for anyone. It might put extra weights around the ankles of a domestic battery survivor seeking to escape (especially given the economic punishments imposed by capitalism on those who flee commodified housing). It might hinder a trans or disabled child from claiming medical care. It might dissuade someone from getting an abortion. Right now, few would deny that reproductive rights—let alone justice—are everywhere systematically denied to populations. Austerity policies purposively render proletarian baby-making crushingly unaffordable, even for two or three or four adults working together, let alone one. Housework is sexed, racialized, and (except in the houses of the rich) unwaged. It is unsurprising, in these global conditions, that large numbers of humans do not or cannot love their families. Reasons range from simple incompatibility to various phobias, ableism, sexual violence, and neglect.

— Sophie Lewis, Abolish the Family. Verso, 2022.

[qweerhet]

the other thing is like. being perceived as a failed man isn't inherently incompatible with being perceived as a failed woman; trans people of all genders are perceived as both, to varying degrees and with varying contextual intent. transmisogyny covers a whole host of intersection points of misogyny, including being seen as a failed man, yes, but also being seen as a subclass of woman (able to be categorized as a woman when convenient to deny access to something, but inherently a woman that does not have access to womanhood, a woman that is not a woman but is being maliciously categorized as a woman, in a twisted form of malicious compliance), and also being seen as a failed woman in certain contexts (this most commonly happens to trans women who have chemically and/or surgically transitioned and regularly "pass" or are read as women by systems & individuals).

failed womanhood is a particular social class; it's not "this person tried to transition to womanhood but i don't see [her] as a woman," it's a class of women who step outside of gender bounds in a mirror to the failed-man class. women who are infertile or otherwise refuse to bear children, women who are testosterone-dominant, severely disabled women, women who do not intentionally present femininely. and like--yes, trans women who are perceived as women regularly get slotted into the "failed woman" class--tma people of all genders who are perceived as women regularly get slotted into this class--which does not deny the fact that a significant portion of tma people are not perceived as women by systems or by individuals.

and like--again--it's contextual! someone can simultaneously be seen as a failed man by her parents & doctor, and be seen as a failed woman by the people she goes to school with. the same person can swap between categorizing you as a failed man and a failed woman based on what's most convenient for them to support their presupposed biases and deny you access to resources. (and quite frankly, it's difficult to tell when this is malicious compliance and the perception is entirely artificially affected vs. when it's deeply internalized bigotry and the perceptions are genuine, but both do exist and both are different manifestations of deeply-embedded societal narratives.)

"transmisogyny is solely based on the societal categorization of transfems as failed women, and transmisogyny has no links to societal perceptions of men" genuinely doesn't make much sense when considering the cis women who are categorized as failed women & how they are treated--i think of my developmentally disabled classmates in sped, who experienced degendering violence because of their status as failed women, and i see certain parallels. being seen as sexually predatory, violent, uncontrollable, angry--all an area of overlap. but there's unique factors as well; failed women are treated as childlike, as in need of condescending & coddling education on proper gender roles, as in need of deportment, they're treated with the intention of softening them & leading them to femininity. adult failed women are treated as children long, long past childhood.

and trans women who are perceived as women regularly experience those things, particularly if they're also gnc in some way, but also just by virtue of being incapable of reproducing in the cisnormative way. simultaneously, though, there's unique aspects to transmisogyny in its "failed man" state; being treated as an adult long before it's developmentally appropriate, being reprimanded with the intent to "toughen you up," being treated as in need of masculinizing, needing to learn to enact violence and repress emotion, being backed into social corners to try to get you to violently lash out as ~education~ on your role in society.

those are not things that happen because someone is being, in that moment and by the structures enacting those things, perceived as a woman! some of them are even mutually exclusive, at least simultaneously--the same action cannot both reinforce that you are a misguided child undeserving of agency who needs patriarchal agents to teach you how to live and that you are a pathetic predatory wretch who needs to buck up and live up to your role as a powerful patriarchal agent! you can swap fluidly between having these experiences in life, but they're still experiences that are dependent on you being perceived differently at different times.

[transgenderteensurvivalguide]

Is it being discriminatory or offensive to think that being mtf is always going to be harder than being ftm? (I am enby afab)

Lee says:

Your question touches on a complex and sensitive topic within the trans community, and it's important to approach this with an understanding that every individual's experience with gender identity and transition is unique, and there are various factors that can influence the challenges they face.

The concept of intersectionality is crucial here. People experience discrimination differently based on intersecting aspects of their identity like race, class, age, disability, and their socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, etc.

And even beyond that, each person's journey is shaped by a multitude of factors including their family dynamics, social environment, cultural context. These factors can make the experience of being trans vastly different for each individual.

You can't compare two people based on a single identity and say "ah this person must have had it worse because they are [X identity]!" because people aren't just one single identity, they're whole people.

Certain things can affect one part of the trans community more than another, like hypervisibility vs invisibility/erasure for example, or the rhetoric supporting laws that prevent trans people from competing on teams that match their identified gender. It's true that trans woman are often dehumanized and seen as either sexual predators, as sexual objects, or as a joke, and as a result are often the targets of a lot of transphobic rhetoric.

Minority stress is real, and it can affect people's physical and mental health even if they are not personally facing a current physical threat to their safety.

While trans people who were AMAB may be more affected by some of that stress, that doesn't mean it exclusively affects them-- often the whole community ends up feeling the effects.

Even if trans women are often targeted in bathroom bills, for example, the end result is no trans person can use the bathroom that aligns with their gender. And being discriminated against for being transgender and seeing others face discrimination for a shared identity can create distress and that should be acknowledged.

Comparing the struggles between segments of the trans community can inadvertently create a hierarchy of suffering, which is not constructive. It's more helpful to acknowledge that while experiences can be different, each individual's challenges are valid and deserving of support and understanding.

We get variations on this discourse pretty frequently and I used to answer this question when it was asked. But recently I started to wonder what good my answer will do-- If I tell you "x group is Most Oppressed tm" how does that change anyone's lives for the better?

If you're interested in this type of thing from an academic perspective then you can study the issue more, and make up all the "What if" scenarios you want. A trans woman who grows up in a supportive white liberal NYC family, starts puberty blockers at age 12, starts estrogen and legally changes her name and gender marker at age 15, has bottom surgery at 18 and goes off to college having been "passing" as female since childhood is going to have a vastly different experience than a Black transmasculine person who grew up in poverty in the South, doesn't have a supportive family, came out at 16 and was kicked out and then never finished high school, manages to start testosterone at 23 but isn't able to afford top surgery until they 34 and is often misgendered as a result of not being able to bind in their physical job. They will have completely different backgrounds, experiences, and privileges even if they both started to transition before middle age. And of course "passing privilege" is another can of worms that I'm not going to open here.

Instead of focusing on which group has it harder, it's beneficial to recognize that yes, there are some differences in our experiences, when viewed on average, but that should be used as motivation to help people who genuinely need it instead of just being divisive.

When you notice someone using transphobic arguments or targeting any trans people, you should obviously speak up and fight back on their behalf if you're comfortable-- we have to support each other, but we're all part of the same community and everyone's safety is important. Don't put yourself in danger.

So yeah, I'm tired of rehashing the Discourse and won't be answering questions about that type of topic. Good vibes only lol. In general, we all need to work to foster a sense of solidarity and support within the trans community and be open to listening to the experiences of all trans individuals. Understanding the diverse perspectives within the transgender community can lead to greater empathy and support, and mutual support can be a powerful tool in navigating the challenges of living in a transphobic culture.

[thagomizersshow]

Content warning: blood, gore, sexual content, sexual assault, parasites and body horror

This is a heavily modified version of an essay I originally wrote for a literary theory class and then turned into a script for a video essay that I never finished. 

Enjoy :)

One of the things that really bothers me about the critical conversation around Alien (1979) is the long-running idea that the alien and its various forms are so enduringly horrifying because they break the sexual/gender binary.

The worst example I can find is this excerpt, from Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ripley, by Ximena Gallardo and C. & C. Jason Smith:

The Alien species disregards the sexual difference that is so essential to our definition of what it is to be human. The male body is repositioned to correspond to the female body: the male mouth becomes the vagina, the chest the womb. The dichotomy male/female is broken down, as all humanity is female (a womb) in the face of the alien.

I get that this was published in 2004, but Gender Trouble had already been around for over a decade, so that’s not much of an excuse for weird ass gender essentialism in academia.

Art by AlexanDraxleean ↑

The idea that the xenomorph and its various stages are scary because the gender binary is being broken down is comically disregarded by the simple fact that trans people (like myself) ALSO find the damn thing scary. We are living embodiments of a shattered binary, but we aren’t shitting ourselves over our own existence (usually). I contend that the alien is scary not because of a violation of gender or sexual norms, but because it utilizes a much more widespread and visceral kind of horror: that of the parasite.

Most other animalistic horror monsters rely on the fear of the predator: monster wanna eat you → you run away → get caught → get eated. This is an oversimplification, obviously, and if you want a really good exploration of how the fear of predators effects us, read Val Plumwood’s Eye of the Crocodile. For real, my fav ecophilosophy book.

No, instead of the more straightforward horror presented by the predator, the alien uses the inescapable, cloying, and violating horror of parasites and parasitoids. Where the predator hunts, kills and eats, the parasite clings, defiles and tortures. When the predator catches you, you’re dead. When the parasite catches you, you don’t know what is going to happen. Is it going to bury inside you? Is it going to feed on your body? Is it going to lay eggs in you? You literally don’t know, and that’s what makes them so scary. Hell, they could get inside you without you even knowing. It isn’t just the fear of death, it’s the paranoia of violation AND the fear of the unknown. This makes Alien akin to a Lovecraftian horror in many ways, but instead of the fear of race-mixing or disabled people, it is the fear that whatever you do, wherever you go, there are beings that can enter your body and use it against your will.

Hell, the whole premise of the movie, at least according to the screenwriter, came from the thought “what if ichneumon wasps laid eggs in us instead of in worms?” That basic idea is glossed over constantly in analysis of Alien in favour of more Freudian explanations that rely heavily on antiquated notions of gender essentialism. When early screening audiences were throwing up in their seats in 1979, were they thinking about how “this monster really transgresses gender norms :/” or were they thinking “fuck what if that thing was growing inside me?!?!”

The only time I agree with these old school interpretations is when they view Alien through the lens of sexual assault. The fear of sexual assault and the fear of parasites are fucked up sisters in a way. They are both fears of bodily violation that induce a strong paranoia, and their symbologies easily feed off one another. Sexual imagery (e.g. a penis shaped head with a mouth on the end) combined with parasitic imagery (e.g. a creature grabbing a hold of you and doing unknown things to your body) are both niggling at the part of your brain that is repulsed by internal invasion.

However, I’ve seen arguments that Alien specifically targets fears for cis men being sexually assaulted, and I think that’s a very limited approach to the movie. The idea of a creature latching onto you, ignoring your autonomy, and using you as an incubator is pretty universally scary if you ask me, and I think for most people, that idea connects to a primal and often unaddressed fear of parasites far more than sexual violation. Just look at videos of botfly maggot removals and tell me you don’t get the same yucky feeling as when you watch Alien.

Even for people like me who find these creatures fascinating, I still get that skin crawly feeling when I look at images of them for too long. And it isn’t just a short-lived disgust reaction happening, it’s also that feeling of paranoia that it could be happening to you right this minute. This is all a part of what is called the behavioural immune system, which is the brain’s first line of defense against infection and why most people are grossed out by signs of disease on the body (pus, rashes, body odours, etc.).

We really don’t like thinking about parasites, and it shows across our culture. Deadly predators of all kinds have been worshiped all over the world, but is there anyone in history who paid fealty to the tick? Who invoked the name of the roundworm for strength? Are there cartoons about anthropomorphic scabies and their kingdom of flesh? (If any of these exist and I just don’t know it, please tell me.)

I’m not saying that this is an innate feeling in all of us (the human experience is about as diverse as it gets, and I’m sure some people just don’t have this reaction and never have) but I do think it’s widespread enough and so infrequently felt that when this parasite repulsion is triggered it makes for a horror that is far harder to shake than any socialized fear of gender violation. Far more than any Freudian psychosexual imagery, the horror of the parasite is what I believe has made the xenomorph such an enduring cinematic monster.

I wanna leave this post off with one of my favourite quotes about parasites from Annie Dilliard’s book, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek:

It is the thorn in the flesh of the world, another sign, if any be needed, that the world is actual and fringed, pierced here and there, and through and through, with the toothed conditions of time and the mysterious, coiled spring of death.

[worldofmorbidities]

My lame ass intro, ig

Credit for my pfp to @h3ad-like-a-h0l3

Check out the "#our lord and savior tmc" tag for all my Thomas Matthew Crooks related posts (Which there is a fuckton of lol) Check out "#shoot (me)!" for asks

I am a 15 year old autistic girl (she/her, but idc if you use anything else). If you must refer to me by name, you may use Alex. I'm not using my real name for obvious reasons. I am from Norway.

Shit and stuff I like:

Class of '09 (Mainly, my longest and biggest hyperfix)

Zero Day (Another little hyperfix)

Yandere Simulator (Also a big on-and-off hyperfix)

Danganronpa (Eh, not as much)

True Crime Community (I do NOT condone)

SMG4 (YouTube). That channel was my childhood.

DNI if you are:

- Bigoted (Ableist, LGBT-phobic, racist ect)

- Pro-Trump (y'all can GTFO) , a Nazi or a religious extremist

- Anti - TCC (Y'all need to chill 💀)

- Over 20 (In private chat. This is in order to avoid creeps/weirdos. You may comment on posts or reblog them)

If my blog offends you, womp womp idgaf💀 I do not intend to do so, but if I do block me and DNI. Don't report. I will return...

Idgaf (I will still aknowledge it) about your age, gender, race, skin color political beliefs, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, disability, or mental ilnesses. You are welcome to follow me. Just don't be a total asshole or on my DNI list and we're good :D

I don't mind receiving asks or messages :) Just don't be too weird

[burningtheroots]

💜🤍💚 Introduction Post & Guide/Masterpost 💜🤍💚

IMPORTANT

After three months, I think it‘s time to introduce myself and clear this mess of a blog a bit 💀

So, I‘m 20 years old and have been learning about radical feminism for quite a while before joining in myself, and I‘m really grateful to be part of this community and even be mutuals with some of my favorite women on here. <3

I joined Tumblr (and Instagram) to share information, my own opinions and to connect with like-minded women. Before discovering radical feminism, I always felt left out from the discussions and didn’t know that there would be anyone who‘d understand me and accept me. I tried to fit in somewhere where I didn’t belong, and whilst it‘s not always easy to be here, I‘m happy that this community exists. :‘)

DMs & anons are always open, and I‘m always interested in having discussions and meeting new people.

I‘m rather shy and struggle a bit with my social skills, but it gets better eventually.

The only people who aren’t welcome on my blog are p0rn obsessed men and generally anyone who only wants to harass me or spread misogyny. I‘m all for respectful discussions and willing to share my viewpoints, but I‘m not a punching bag.

As there‘s a lot going on here, I collected the most important posts and reblogs (quite many, to be honest) and decided to link them here. Some are simply informative, some are very subjective and some are a mixture of both. The list will be updated over time.

Here you go:

(I‘d also heavily recommend to check out @/radfemfox5, @/woman-for-women, @/butch-reidentified, @/radsplain, @/meanevilandcruel … and many more — not actually tagging them because this post is long & I don’t want to annoy them) 💜🤍💚

if a link doesn’t work, please let me know

Sex-based violence 🔗 links

‼️ Self-protection in emergency situations

Pornography 🔗 links

Prostitution 🔗 links

Gender Critical 🔗 links

Surrogacy 🔗 links

Sexual assault 🔗 links

LGB & Pride 🔗 links

Women‘s health 🔗 links

Pro-choice 🔗 links

Questionable men 🔗 links

Women‘s rights movement // General stuff continued 🔗 links

Women‘s movement // General stuff

Donation Megathread

Stop the infighting

"Not like other girls"

"Not All Men" is a war propaganda tactic

Age and attraction

Key elements

Andrea Dworkin works

Why feminism should center women and women only

Statement

How men see us

Prioritize women

Radical feminism is intersectional

Radical feminism definition

Double standards in terms of "unconditional love"

Favorite quote

We‘re not Nazis

We don’t support Nazis & vice versa

Misogyny vs. misandry

Why I‘m a radfem

Actual radfeminism

No good men

Feminist book list

Libfem hypocrisy

Andrew Tate fans

"Withholding sex" is a misconception

Sexism against women in sports

Choice feminism

Men ☕️

Sex-based violence

Radfeminism is superior

On motherhood

On motherhood 2

Workplace sexism

Motivation

Men‘s mental health month

eXtRiMiSm

Women are not protected 1

Women are not protected 2

Oversexualization

Oppressor classes

Men who want children

Bodyshaming

Misandry

Men‘s sexual entitlement

Beauty Myth

A man‘s world

It‘s all men

Double standards

Women in fiction

No conservatism

Lies about emotions

The system isn’t broken

Resist, don‘t comply

Male hypocrisy

Woman arrested in Saudi Arabia

"Unconditional love"

Beauty ideals

Again, men ☕️

Parental alienation ‼️

Men & gossip

Men dislike their own daughters

Women aren’t objects

On religion

Sexism at school

Women‘s labor

Men‘s victim mentality

Arranged marriage

Women are an afterthought

Oppression in the US

Purity culture

American women & maternity leave

Body neutrality

Dangerous men are around us

Anti-natalism

Men don‘t actually "love" women

Socialization

Stereotyping men

Neha Wadekar in Baringo county, Kenya

Tomiekia Johnson

Child marriage in the US

Workplace sexism

UN report (alarming)

"You are a man-hater"

People with disabilities matter

Disability Pride Month

Girls‘ clothing

So you‘re partnered with a male

[aroaceconfessions]

In a similar vein to the one from May 13th about how alienating it is to grow up aspec regardless of your environment:

I also grew up in a very open and affirming environment. My parents were very open to us about things like gender, sexuality, and disabilities. When my mom was pregnant with my sister I learned the actual biological way having children worked- the watered down version for a young child of course. Still threw the doctor for a loop when a four year-old he was trying to explain it to corrected him that the embryo was in the uterus, not tummy.

This has always extended to sexuality and gender too. They never minded my sister and I exploring our gender, and have repeatedly affirmed that they will still love us if we like the same sex. Hell, even the church we attended gave sex-ed to the 6-8th graders where we learned about different sexualities, genders, and they were very blunt. We discussed abortion and how to apply a condum at 11-14 years old.

But even in this environment where it was absolutely okay to love who you love and be who you are- that didn't apply to an aspec kid. You can love who you love, but you have to love someone. I have a crystal clear memory of being 11 years old, questioning aroace, and submitting a question to our anonymous question box. The question basically asked, "I know you can be asexual but not aromantic or aromantic and asexual, but can you be aromantic but not asexual?" This was before I had learned about being aroallo. The teachers answered that yes, you could be aroallo, as being aro and ace are two separate identities. It was very validating, even thought I am not aroallo, because they mentioned that aro and ace people exist!! They even defined the terms for kids who didn't know what they are!

...

I should've known it's never that simple.

This same class states less than an hour later that "all of you are sexual beings, whether you feel that way now or not."

It's not easy to grow up aspec no matter the environment. It took me 3 months to work up the courage to come out to my mom, and while she was supportive she immediately jumped into a speech about how it's okay if I change my mind later and that I'm still a minor and nobody expects me to have it all figured out yet. I didn't ask if you thought I was too young, or for reassurance that I can change my identity. I asked for your support, and to please not question my identity. God knows I do it enough for everyone on Earth and then some. Just let me live, and please stop pressuring me about when I'm going to get a partner

Submitted May 22, 2023

[thatonebirdwrites]

Accessibility and the Rise of Ableism as a buzz word

I really get so angry at people using ableism as a buzz word to ignore the actual needs of my community.

Instead of, maybe asking us, people assert a claim about what they think we need.

The current debate on NaNoWriMo is a good example of that. Their assertion about LLM/Generative AI discussion having ableist undertones is an example of someone using ableism as a buzz word without a proper examination of the actual issues that impact a community.

It makes assumptions about what people with specific disabilities are able and aren't able to do, which is ableist in of itself. It's not meant to actually be helpful for disabled people, but to silence our worries by claiming that a "tool exists already" as if this tool can replace our need for human community and support.

This digs into the much LARGER debate about how tech companies and so-called "innovators" will not listen to the communities they claim to be "innovating for." Thus, they end up making items that don't solve my community's needs. Instead, these devices often cause more harm, are taking funding away from products (or designs we may make ourselves) that actually help us thus causing more harm, and overall makes it more difficult to push for equitable and accessible revamping of ableist systems.

Disabled people are a diverse bunch for sure as anyone can be disabled for any reason and at any time in their life. Disabled people come in all ethnicities, races, classes, genders, sexual orientations, etc.

But there are still some commonalities when it comes to which illnesses and/or disabilities we may be discussing for a specific need.

For example, those of us who use wheelchairs need the environment itself to be built in a more accommodating way. We need more ramps, we need more easily opened doors, we need less hostile architecture.

We Do Not Need A Wheelchair That Can Climb Stairs. Often those things are deathtraps to start, and very rarely include us in the design process. It also disguises the very real problem of hostile architecture by slapping a mediocre and badly designed "tech solution" as a band-aid, as if that will actually solve all our problems. (Spoiler, it won't.) It takes funding away from redesigning architecture in a less hostile way, and it hijacks the discussion away from our needs and toward the so-called tech solution.

Technology can be helpful for us, yes, but what we need requires our input in order to produce a design that can actually assist the majority of us that has that particular disability.

This is where using ableism as a buzz word becomes such a major problem. In order to determine whether a person has engaged in good faith about the claim of ableism, we need to examine the underlying assumptions about that claim and see if they utilize an ableist framework.

To aid us, here's some definitions.

Abled-bodied person is a person who is not disabled. As in they have no physical or mental disabilities. Or they are someone who does not identify as disabled because any mental illness or physical illness they have does not negatively impact their life enough for them to notice (this person may have unresolved internalized ableism).

Disabled person is a person with a physical or mental (or learning) disability. People often identify as disabled. Please do not use “differently abled” as that was a term introduced by abled-bodied people and most disabled people in our community dislike the term as it others us.

Ableism is discrimination, bigotry, infantalism, and prejudice against disabled people.

Ableist framework is a narrative that demeans disabled people and puts them in a lower caste than the rest of society. This is common in a capitalist lifestyle, which is the idea that we can all make it if we work hard regardless of our health or mental wellness. Many a problematic narrative is rooted in this idea of productivity being the sole value of human worth, which is an ableist framing. Some disabled people cannot fit the parameters of what qualifies as “work” in a capitalist society, and thus they are deemed “unproductive” by society. This “unproductive” status puts them in a lower tier, where they are assumed to have no quality of life. Again, this is the root of Ableist Framing.

Now to expand on my examples.

For the wheelchair that can climb chairs, the innovator may claim criticism of the wheelchair has ableist undertones.

However, if we look more closely at the actual discussion about the wheelchair; we'll see very real concerns about how top heavy it is and prone to tipping over, how the mechanical parts can trap limbs and crush them, and other problems that can cause bodily harm to the disabled person using said item. In this instance, we see the criticisms are indeed valid, and that 'ableist undertone' was used as a buzz word to avoid the harm of the "innovation" and to avoid a discussion about what it is that wheelchair-users actually need.

In the case of NaNoWriMo, instead of actually engaging in people's very real concerns about the unethical nature of LLM/generative AI and its impact on the writing community; they used ableism as a buzz word to silence that criticism.

In the case of NaNoWriMo, instead of actually engaging in people's very real concerns about the unethical nature of LLM/generative AI and its impact on the writing community; they used ableism as a buzz word to silence that criticism. In their own words, they call the discussion of "artificial intelligence has undertones of ableism and classicism." When we dig deeper, NaNoWriMo uses ableist claims about disabled and lower income folks to try to defend their generative AI nonsense. The example I'll speak to is one that impacts me, that of people, who are either neurodivergent and/or with brain injuries and/or illnesses that impact the brain.

However, this is rooted in several harmful assumptions about what people with those illnesses and injuries can or cannot do. Thus, in an attempt to stop criticism of their actions, they engage in an ableist framework that presents specific disabled people as being unable to do the act of writing ourselves and thus requiring a novel tech solution to solve our issues.

People with these injuries and illnesses can and often do write, but what they truly need isn't some novel tech solution like ChatGPT.

As a side note, I won't go into the major problems with LLM/generative AI such as their unethical datasets; burying human authors and making it harder to discover us; harmful environmental impact where billions of gallons of water is used yearly and harms watersheds and water access; difficulty in phrasing prompts to get an output that is coherent; hallucinations (as in unreliable output data); misinformation; stealing our works to fuel the unethical datasets; etc. Others articulate that well; I just want to speak to the use of ableism in their statements. (To see a good analysis of NaNoWriMo, see this video by D'Angelo.)

What we need is the support of a human community. Better access to resources in general (such as Internet and/or data plans, which are expensive and a lot of low-income people do not have access to reliable services) or devices that fit our needs. For example, for myself, I often have friends who will help with editing for free or a fee I can afford. I also always use dark mode and text-to-speech software. Others may need software or devices that has dsylexic fonts, high or low contrasts, little to no blue light, dark modes, dictation programs, tablets like Remarkable or Kobo where you handwrite and it transforms it into text, etc.

Instead of discussing it with people within that community, they used ableism as a buzzword to silence their critics and then justify their harmful actions without any real regard for the actual impact to my community.

That is the problem with these people who do not engage in discussions with the communities they claim they are "helping" or "supporting." They instead speak for us as if they know us better than we know ourselves, which is also an ableist framework.

Disabled people are often poor because of how our society's ableist framework makes it near impossible for us to exist in society and receive the care we need for survival. This means we may not have access to reliable Internet or data plans that can handle heavy data loads, so it is classicist to assume we are able to access software that relies on reliable and heavy-data Internet and data plans.

So how can we approach this in a more nuanced way?

For one, talk to disabled people from that community and try to include a diversified sample from all sorts of races, ethnicities, classes, genders, etc.

We need ethical and accessible designs that includes us, as well as making these tools cheaper to access. For example, Diction software or Handwriting-to-text can be irritatingly expensive to find ones that are fairly accurate. The licensing of these types of software can be expensive too, so building up accurate, free and open-source alternatives would be lovely. This way we can use our own words spoken by us (or handwritten on the tablet).

We need a community of people that support us through a diversity of ways (emotionally, physically, intellectually, etc.) As in we need to stop isolating disabled people, and instead include us more holistically. To build up communities of care, where human beings work together to swap skills and help one another build what they envision.

We need society/orgs/people to listen to us and respect us as equally valid as their own selves. To stop speaking for us and allow us to speak about our needs. To stop assuming disabled people can't use their brain at all. To stop assuming we have no skills.

We need society to be more accessible and to center accessibility from the get-go. We need to expand the definition of accessibility to include not just physical spaces, but to include information, transportation, justice, sensory, etc.

We need accessible and cheap/free housing. clean water, clean air, and food.

What we do not need is people using us as a shield in order to silence criticism.

I wrote this article on my blog awhile back, but I'll resurrect it here:

Introduction

when i ask for accessibility as a disabled person, most abled-bodied (as in non-disabled people) assume that means if the ‘physical space’ is accessible for mobility reasons. it’s a common and not entirely accurate assumption of the ask itself. we are taught to view accessibility only as physical space adjustments, but this is not the only meaning of the word ‘accessible’ and it erases the diverse needs within the disability community.

the needs within the disability community can also improve the lives of those who aren’t disabled; accessibility is about justice for all people, where we create an multi-layered environment that is accessible not just transport-mobility-wise or physical-space-wise but also information-wise and multiple-role-wise.

what do i mean by multi-layered accessibility?

accessibility is about movement through the multi-layered spaces within our society. it’s about mobility.

mobility through physical space, information space, community space, intellectual/engagement/labor space, sensory space, transport space, time-independent space, and justice space.

mobility is the way we move in society whether physically through spaces such as buildings or streets. mobility is also how we move figuratively through community relationships.

mobility is how easy it is for us to access information and share information. another form of mobility is the roles we have in a community or in a movement — those roles provide emotional and intellectual spaces where people can exist based on their gifts.

so mobility justice and accessibility is a multi-layered space that exists not just in physical/transport space but also in community-space and information-space and sensory and intellectual/labor space.

we need to be cognizant of these multi-layers when creating events and movements so that we can be accessible to our most vulnerable members of the community.

so when a disabled person asks if something is accessible, we aren’t just asking if we can navigate to and from the event, or if we can understand the information presented (such as is there interpreters, etc), but also if there is a role we can exist within to further the goals of the movement as well as information about the movement and/or event that is easy to access and share.

Community Care and Accessibility

community care is also reliant on accessibility from a mobility justice framework. we cannot care for one another unless we find ways to center accessibility so that all people feel able to access support systems that may meet the multitude of needs in a diverse community.

to build up community care so that these diverse needs can be explored for possible accessible services and care practices is crucial to the goal of mutual aid efforts and the idea of community care itself.

accessibility is a gift not an add-on. it is a gift that provides a multitude of avenues for people to participate in ways that fits their abilities and energy levels.

if we reframe how we view accessibility, where we see it as a gift that creates more depth and space for all to exist and participate, then we can revolutionize our approach to community and building movements. centering accessibility — and its multi-layered definition that goes beyond just physical space — is crucial to liberation of all people.

our most vulnerable populations are Black disabled trans people, and thus accessibility also needs to be examined from their viewpoint in order to best meet their needs.  

when we view and create access with our most vulnerable populations, we are creating a multi-layered space that is accessible for all people, as it is when our most vulnerable populations needs are met that all needs will be met as well.

 that theory of building up has shown to be helpful especially in many Black Lives Matter groups around the country and in Indigenous groups, where their centering of the most vulnerable populations often created a fluid accessible multi-layered space that is held accountable to the needs of those communities. it created a creative and dynamic space for the diversity of people to exist.

to remind, the disability community is a vastly diverse community of so many different genders, sexual orientations, races, ethnicities, etc — to center accessibility and the multi-layered tenants of mobility/disability justice means opening up community and movements to a diverse and gifted group of people. it nourishes and inspires more creative ways of existing in relationship with one another.

may we learn and seek understanding. may we hear the voices of the vulnerable and seek to meet their needs. may we create community systems that are accountable to one another and care for one another as we are. may we listen and grow and uplift one another in the work we do.

_________

Crafting Accessible Spaces: Questions to Consider as Examples

I typed up the following guide for a friend to assist them with what questions to consider when centering accessibility at their event. May it help all of you as well. 

Do you have any questions to add to any of the categories that I may have missed? Is there further details on a suggestion that I could add? Let me know in the comments! I’ll edit this post as needed.

physical space:

is the area accessible for limited-mobility folks? As in can we reach it and navigate through it easily?

Are doors easy to open? Is there ramps? Is there elevators or wheelchair lifts that are easy to access?

Is there benches or chairs or places for people to rest if walking/wheeling is involved?

Is there air filtration units to help clean the air? Is masking with N95s mandatory to make sure immuno-compromised people can attend safely?

If there are speakers, can everyone in the audience hear the speaker? If not, how can the physical space be adjusted so people can hear better or see the interpreter better?  

How do you present any slides — is that easily seen by the entire audience?

information space:

are your materials easy to read? As in avoid jarring color combinations or too small font.

Are there interpreters if there are speakers? (This includes ASL as well as spoken languages).

Do you require everyone to include pronouns in their introductions? (You should.)

Do you have speakers provide a brief description of themselves in introductions for those who are blind? Is there descriptions of pictures (such as those used in slideshows or in videos) that blind people can access easily?

Does your online materials have alt-text and/or captions for those with sight and hearing disabilities?

Is information on accessibility easily available in your event invites?

Is the information translated into a language that is understandable by one’s audience? (This includes adjusting words used based on culture as well as different spoken languages).

community space:

How are you engaging the affected communities?

In what ways are you engaging in mutual aid for those that may attend? (such as meeting their needs in the other intersecting accessibility spaces I listed here).

In what ways are the needs of the community being listened to and addressed? Have accessible discussion spaces for community to provide feedback. Include the community in collaboration on how to create the access they need to fully engage with society and with one another.

Is the community walkable (or wheelable with a wheelchair/mobility aids)? Is the sidewalks easy to traverse? Is needed services nearby? Is there a way to create a mixed zoned neighborhood so that the community can access the food, healthcare, parks, etc to fully engage one another and the city at large? To be able to access events within the town?

Is there pandemic mitigation strategies to make sure people are able to safely convene without large risks to their health? (This means mandatory masking with N95 or better, air filtration units like HEPA filters or Corsi-Rosenthal boxes in each room, good ventilation systems, having the event outside, washing hands and using hand sanitizers. Strategies that are multi-layered are the safest for all people).

intellectual/engagement/labor space:

How are you utilizing/leveraging the gifts of the disabled community?

Are you sharing materials made by disabled people and providing compensation for their labor? Are you compensating the labor of disabled folks advising your event?

Is compensation possible – why or why not? What would compensation look like ideally? Is the idea of compensation preventing you from utilizing the gifts of disabled people? Why is that?

In what ways can you leverage those gifts to avoid tokenizing and/or erasure?

sensory space:

Do you have a space cordoned off for those that may get sensory overloaded to cool down? (This will allow them to “take a break” to cool down and then return to the event. The spot needs to be away from loud noises, dimly lit if possible, and be easily entered.)  

Do you have content notes/trigger warnings written into your scripts? (This allows people who have panic attacks to determine their level of engagement, and if they need to temporary exit to recover).

Do you make sure that no strong scents dominate the area or that there are alternate food or drink that accommodates intolerances/food allergies?

Do you allow adequate time between speakers for people to process what was said? (Having speakers back to back without at minimum a two or three minute break can be exhausting for some disabled folks).

Do you have materials set up for deaf or visually impaired folks to access the materials and understand content?

transport space:

how do people reach your event? Is there an easy to find parking area and accessible walkway to your event?

For those that may not be able to drive themselves, are you near a bus line or have a ride system?

Do you have a way for people to make it safely home if they find they are too exhausted to drive themselves? (Safety drivers – give them a vest to make them easy to see. Give them a short training before the event on how to respond when approached for a ride home, and how to ask consent before offering to assist a disabled person into or out of the car)

Is this information easily available in your event invites?

time-independent space:

Does your event have a way to capture and share what transpired so others can view at a later date?

Is there a way to make breaks and the timing of the event flexible for those with various disabilities?

justice space:

do you have plans on how to adjust your event to meet the needs of disabled people? How can you collaborate with the community to enact these plans? (Keeping the community in the loop, so they can offer insight can avoid harmful blunders/accidents later down the road).

For example, while going through the above questions, if you find something you need to tweak or alter to provide that space for disabled folks, is that something you are willing to do? Why or why not? What is stopping you? 

Did you create take-aways for people to take home that informs them of the event’s goals and aspirations? Is there suggestions on how people can virtually or physically assist your organizations and/or events goals? (Make these easy bullet points. For example, ‘write a letter to x senator. here is a script you can use.’ or ‘donate to z fund to aid political prisoners’)

Is there ways to lead people toward justice and liberation through the above accessible materials, discussions, events, etc?

When you enact the plans for improving accessibility within your city/town/group, do you collaborate with the impacted community and keep them informed? Allow them to assist with enacting the plans?

_________

Bibliography of Sorts

these ideas and definitions are based on the writings of disabled people such as myself, Alice Wong, Imani Barbarin, Matthew Cortland, A. H. Reaume, and other disability activists as well as conversations with local disabled activists.

Books:

Disability Visibility: First Person Stories from the Twenty-First Century edited by Alice Wong

Mobility Justice by Mimi Sheller

Care Work: Dreaming of Disability Justice by Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha

Disfigured: On Fairy Tales, Disability, and Making Space By Amanda Leduc. 

Black Disability Politics by Sami Schalk (free access book)

A People's Guide to Abolition and Disability Justice by Katie Tastrom

Design Justice Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need by Sasha Costanza–chock

Building Access Universal Design and the Politics of Disability by Aimi Hamraie

Restricted Access Media Disability and the Politics of Participation by Elizabeth Ellcessor

Crip Spacetime: Access, Failure, and Accountability in Academic Life by Margaret Price

Accessibility for Everyone by Laura Kalbag

A Disability History of the United States by Kim E. Nielsen

Surviving the Future: Abolitionist Queer Strategies by Scott Branson, Raven Hudson, and Bry Reed

Crisis and Care: Queer Activist Responses to a Global Pandemic edited by Adrian Shanker

Stairs and Whispers: D/deaf and Disabled Poets Write Back Edited by Sarah Alland, Khairani Barokka, and Daniel Sluman

Crip Kinship: The Disability Justice & Art Activism of Sins Invalid by Shayda Kafai

The Future Is Disabled: Prophecies, Love Notes and Mourning Songs by Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha

Articles:

On Reclaiming Brokenness and Refusing the Violence of ‘Recovery’ Narratives”

How Colonial Visual Cultures Have Worsened This Pandemic and What Needs to change

10 Principles of Disability Justice by Sins Invalid

Accessible Activism Guide

What to do When Your Disability Keeps You From Writing?

[trans-axolotl]

Image description: [Screenshots of pages from Brilliant Imperfection by Eli Clare. Text reads:

Your Suicide Haunts me.

Bear, it’s been over a decade since you killed yourself, and still I want to howl. I feel anguish and rage rattling down at the bottom of my lungs, pressing against my rib cage. If ever my howling erupts, I will take it to schoolyards and churches, classrooms and prisons, homes where physical and sexual violence lurk as common as mealtime. I know many of us need to wail. Together we could shatter windows, bring bullies and perpetrators to their knees, stop shame in its tracks.

Once a week, maybe once a month, I learn of another suicide. They’re friends of friends, writers and dancers who have bolstered me, activists I’ve sat in meetings with, kids from the high school down the road, coworkers and acquaintances, news stories and Facebook posts. They’re queer, trans, disabled, chronically ill, youth, people of color, poor, survivors of abuse and violence, homeless. They’re too many to count.

Bear, will you call their names with me? It’s become a queer ritual, this calling of the names—all those dead of AIDS and breast cancer, car accidents and suicide, hate violence and shame, overdoses and hearts that just stop beating. The names always begin wave upon wave, names filling conference halls, church basements, city parks. Voices call one after another, overlapping, clustering, then coming apart, a great flock of songbirds, gathering to fly south, wheeling and diving—this cloud of remembrance. Then quiet. I think we’re done, only to have another voice call, then two, then twenty. We fill the air for thirty minutes, an hour, a great flock of names. Tonight, will you sit with me? Because, Bear, I can’t sleep.

I remember your smile, your kindness, your compassionate and fierce politics. I remember our long e-mail conversations about being disabled and trans. I remember a brilliant speech you gave at True Spirit, a trans gathering in Washington, DC. I remember you telling me about how you’d disappear for months at a time when your life became grim, how you’d do anything not to go to a psych hospital again. I remember your handsome Black queer trans disabled working-class self. And then, you were gone.

The details of your death haunt me. You had checked yourself in. You were on suicide watch. I imagine your desperation and suffering. I know racism, transphobia, classism colluded. The nurses and aides didn’t follow their own protocols, not bothering to check on you every fifteen minutes. You were alive and sleeping at 5:00 a.m. and dead at 7:00 a.m.; at least that’s what their records say. Did despair clog your throat, panic coil in your intestines? In those last moments, what lingered on your tongue? I know about your death as fleetingly as your life.

Bear, I’d do almost anything to have you alive here and now, anything to stave off your death. But what did you need then? Drugs that worked? A shrink who listened and was willing to negotiate the terms of your confinement with you? A stronger support system? An end to shame and secrecy? As suffering and injustice twisted together through your body-mind, what did you need?

I could almost embrace cure without ambivalence if it would have sustained your life. But what do I know? Maybe your demons, the roller coaster of your emotional and spiritual self, were so much part of you that cure would have made no sense. You wrote not long before your death, “In a world that separates gender, I have found the ability to balance the blending of supposed opposites. In a world that demonizes non-conformity, I have found the purest spiritual expression in celebrating my otherness.”

Yes, Bear. I know that truth. Your otherness was a beautiful braid— your hard-earned trans manhood looping into your Black self, wrapped in working-class smarts and resilience, woven into disability, threaded with queerness. I saw you last in an elevator at True Spirit. You told me that you were spending the weekend hanging out with trans men of color. I can still see your gleeful smile, sparkling eyes.

Friend, what would have made your life possible with all its aches and sorrows? I ask as someone who has gripped the sheer cliff face of suicide more than once. Calling the names exhausts me. Your death exhausts me. The threat, reality, fact of suicide exhausts me. Its arrival on the back of shame and isolation exhausts me. Bear, will you come sit beside me tonight? I’m too exhausted to sleep.]

From Brilliant Imperfection: Grappling with Cure by Eli Clare, pages 63-64.

This passage has stuck with me since I first read it and I find myself returning over and over, especially in the times I want to be gentle to my grief.

Thought I'd share it with you all right now <3

[gizdathemxel]

hot take but i think some of u guys r too blinded by your hatred of men and the ways women suffer under them that ur kinda left unable to make complete intersectional analyses. like hate men all u like, but please keep in mind that race, ability, class & sexual/gender orientation are also forms of oppression.

like yes cishet women hold privileges over queer/gender varient men (and women!!). don’t tell me y’all forgot who anita bryant was or that second wave feminist movements purposely excluded queer women (the lavender menace y’all). like yes white women do hold privileges over moc, like yk, the white tears and the moc = savage rapists coming for your (white) women idea. much the same way that white women also hold privileges over woc. let’s not forget that early suffragette and feminist movements were championed by white women purposely excluded women of color.

like unfortunately oppression is not as simple as “group of people shitting on other group of people”, it is complicated and intertwined between people!! for example, me! i am disadvantaged compared to a white person by proxy of my blackness, but privileged to a disabled person by proxy of my ablebodiedness! neither of those things negated the other !!

if you want to make complete intersectional analysis that does ultimately uplift marginalized groups, you’re going to have to recognize that. or else you *will* end up incorporating bigoted beliefs in your feminism !! which will always end up excluding the marginalized groups that you’re trying to uplift. (you’ll also look like that one exclusionary asshole that no one besides other bigots fw)

tldr: hate men all u want but for the love of god recognize that oppression is not simple top down marginalization but is instead interwoven & utilized by other people at different times!! remember to be intersectional!!

[grison-in-space]

Via a conversation on Metafilter about the state of Florida's decision to crush its public institutions, a person I think is particularly wise left a comment about the state of the legislature on higher education in Wisconsin.

The situation in Florida is atrocious, but it's important to be aware of how widespread this movement on the part of MAGA politicians to ban all academic and support programs related to gender, race/ethnicity, and sexuality is. I'm a professor in the Wisconsin state university system, where, in addition to my regular fulltime work in my home department I direct the LGBTQ+ Studies Program (a more-than-halftime job I have done for many years in return for zero additional salary, or summer funds, or course buyout, or any other compensation...).

This summer, the Wisconsin state legislature, gerrymandered into permanent Republican control, voted to ban all DEI programs in the state university system, and cut $32 million from the university budget, which it stated was amount of "taxpayer money being wasted on divisive indoctrination efforts" (to paraphrase Assembly Speaker Robin Vos). This comes after years of successive budget cuts and a ten-year tuition freeze and years of faculty and staff taking pay cuts in the form of "furloughs" through which we were expected to just keep working. The situation is now somewhat improved in that Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, vetoed the DEI ban, but he cannot restore the funding. Anyway: a few days after the legislative vote to ban DEI , I was giving a talk about the range of state bills attacking trans youth and adults, and there was a Democratic state legislator on the panel. When we were introducing ourselves and I told her I directed the LGBTQ+ Studies Program, she said, "Oh, but that's no longer legal. Well, unless Evers vetoes the ban; we'll see."

After doing some blinking, I responded by explaining the difference between DEI programs and academic programs. DEI programs provide student support services, which is deemed administrative work, in contrast to academic programs. The LGBTQ+ Resource Center and the LGBTQ+ Studies Program at my university are both vital and important. But the resource center organizes support groups and social activities for students, while the academic program teaches classes and sponsors academic talks. Academic programs are not part of the DEI system--and the very same legislature that voted for the DEI ban had spent years prior threatening sanctions against students and faculty for supposedly not sufficiently respecting the absolute value of free speech in academia. Legislators presented instructors as censorious ideologues, students as snowflakes in love with a victim narrative, and the legislature as the champion of teaching and discussing all ideas freely.

The image of DEI programs presented by Republican legislators is some kind of kink fantasy, in which cis straight white men are forced to prostrate themselves, declare themselves to be bad and deserving of punishment, and lick the boots of students who are trans and queer, of color and feminist. The reality is that university DEI programs are providing mental health services and tutoring and social support to college students, at a time when their levels of mental health challenges are very high. They have zero to do with the kink humiliation fantasy, they really are about inclusion, and it is ludicrous and cruel to cut social support to marginalized college students.

But even if the state ban were not vetoed, a DEI ban does not dismantle programs like Gender Studies or African and African Diaspora Studies or LGBTQ+ Studies, because they are academic programs, I explained to the Democratic legislator. But from her response, it was clear that not only did Republican Wisconsin legislators think they'd banned all academic programs examining race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and who knows what else (disability studies? Jewish studies and Islamic studies?), but that the Democratic legislators seemed to believe so as well.

The flip from "we are the party of free speech!" to "we are the party that bans books and entire academic disciplines!" happened with dizzying speed. But take it from me as a trans person--these legislative attacks can burst across the country in the space of months, shifting the landscape radically. The thing about the MAGA movement is that it is made up of people who believe that the situation is desperate, the American project is on the verge of failure, and the time has come to destroy or be destroyed. Most Americans, including non-MAGA Republicans, want to see the culture war cool down and Americans get along, but MAGA-sorts want it to go hot. And I have to admit some despair about what to do about this, because of the unpersuadability of this group. Take a look at Question 39 from this CBS/YouGov poll of Iowa voters last week, and what percentage of Republican voters there believe they are being lied to by various parties. The percentage of MAGA voters who said they said they believed they were being told the truth by Trump was 71%, in comparison to 63% for friends and family, 56% for conservative news sources, and 42% for religious leaders. Only 32% of Iowa Republicans generally believed they were told the truth by medical scientists. (The figures for Joe Biden and "liberal media" were 10% and 8% respectively.)

It is hard to persuade people with facts and logic and calls for empathy when they think you are a liar attacking their great leader with whom 99% say they identify. What we have to do is persuade others to stand up. And I don't want to be doomy, but my experience with resisting transphobic legislation and action causes me a lot of concern. It's not just "the face-eating leopards won't eat my face" problem. The fact is, frankly, that a lot of institutions and people are craven. This past year I was in a working group with medical and social scientists advising the HHS about creating guidelines for research with intersex and transgender populations, and then Libs of TikTok spread lies about hospitals supposedly performing "sex changes" on little kids, and several children's hospitals received bomb threats--and suddenly most of the medical researchers working with trans youth were pulled from the working group by the hospitals they were affiliated with. Hospital administrators are shutting down research on trans youth and clinics serving trans youth, rather than having the backs of threatened doctors and patients, handing a victory to the face-eating leopards who growled at them.

My conclusion is that we need to focus energy on teaching people who have not dealt with serious bullying before how to stand up to bullies. For people like concerned parents considering attending school board meetings to oppose book bans, we could teach basic mutual aid strategies, like forming a supportive group to attend together. But what we are to do about people like college administrators and corporate executives who would like to do the right thing for students and employees, but not as much as they'd like to avoid offending a wealthy donor or receiving negative conservative media attention. . . that's a big question to me.

I have left my own longer comment in the wider thread.

(If you also like longform, thoughtful text conversation, this is my regular plug for Metafilter as a platform. If you DM me an email address, I can send you an invitation link for a free account.)

[originalleftist]

Something I dearly wish more people, especially those who identify with progressivism and the Left, understood is Intersectionality.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the subject myself, and I have my own biases and privilege, so take my position for whatever its worth, and feel free to dissect it. But very basically, "Intersectionality is a sociological analytical framework for understanding how groups' and individuals' social and political identities result in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege. Examples of these factors include gender, caste, sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, disability, height, age, and weight. These intersecting and overlapping social identities may be both empower and oppressing. However little good-quality quantitative research has been done to support or undermine the practical uses of intersectionality." (Wikpedia)

Put very simply, its about how different aspects of someone's identity affect how they are privileged and disadvantaged/discriminated against- and, crucially, how one can be both privileged in certain ways, and discriminated against in others.

I had heard the term previously, and probably had a vague sense of what it meant, but I believe that, as with so many things, I first started to really realize its importance, and the deficiency of awareness of intersectionality, while following the Depp v Heard trial (full disclosure: I actually used Depp v Heard as an example of intersectionality on a college anthropology exam, and I will undoubtably repeat some things from that here, though I do not have the exam on-hand to refer to).

One of the recurring arguments raised by certain Depp supporters (presumably those sympathetic to the Left, or perhaps more astute at manipulating the Left) was basically that Amber Heard did not deserve support because she was wealthy/famous/privileged. A recurring line (and example of how, despite being deeply rooted in Right-wing MRA/Incel ideology, "the Justice for Johnny Depp" crowd coopted Left-wing and social justice rhetoric) was to mock and dismiss Heard's obvious distress as "white woman tears".

Of course, this term is typically used to call out white fragility/defensiveness around race, and white women who play the victim against Black people- not a white woman who is in actual distress because she's being forced to publicly relive r*pe trauma in court before a jeering mob of her r*pist's fans. And the entire narrative ignores that Depp enjoyed far more power and privilege than Heard did (those who claim otherwise are generally adopting the misogynist "Men's Rights Activist" narrative that women are actually the privileged gender in society and are always believed, while constantly making false accusations against men- which was probably their whole point). It also means ignoring that Heard was repeatedly and viciously targeted based on her gender, her sexual orientation as an openly queer woman, and her mental health. Depp was subject to some ableist attacks as well, for example, in that he was stigmatized for the illness of addiction, but Heard, as with most things, got by far the worst of it.

One could and should also point out that much of what was directed at Heard and her supporters-the censoring of her freedom of expression, harassment and death threats against her and her child, abuse of the legal system, etc, as well as the horrific and life-threatening abuse inflicted against her by Depp and previously found to be true by a UK court-would be unjustified against anyone, regardless of their relative privilege, at least assuming one believes in universal rights or the rule of law. But the argument of privilege on Heard's part is itself selective, and misleading.

Now, flash forward to October 2023, for case study number 2. Among the arguments of the anti-semitic Left since October 7th have been that Israelis (primarily Jewish citizens of the world's only Jewish state) do not deserve sympathy or consideration, and that anything that is done to them is justified as "resistance", because they are the oppressors- they hold the power and privilege. Often, this has manifested as attacks not only on Israel and Israelis, but one anyone who supports them- and anyone who is Jewish. Again, one could and should reject outright that atrocities such as murder, r*pe, slavery, and torture are justified against anyone, for any reason. But the premise of the argument, that Israel holds the power and privilege, is again over-simplistic. Certainly, Israel has more economic and military power than Hamas, Gaza, or Palestine. But on a world-wide scale, the Jewish people are still a very small, marginalized, and vulnerable group- and would likely be far more so without a nation capable of defending itself. Jews amount to less than half a percent of the world's population, and the vast majority live in one of two countries- Israel and the United States. Further, regardless of the power disparity that exists between Israel and Gaza or Palestine, it should be self-evidently preposterous to argue that a random Israeli civilian, confronted by a Hamas gunman and facing imminent murder, r*pe, abduction, or all of the above, is in a position of power. But all of this is frequently ignored to try to justify bigotry, terrorism, and collective punishment of Israelis- and, very often, Diaspora Jews as well.

One should also consider how many Leftists have reacted to the war in Ukraine. Ukraine is unquestionably the smaller, less powerful party in a war with Russia, and it is unquestionably the victim of aggression. So, how did the Putinist/Tankie wing of the Left justify supporting Russia over Ukraine? Easy- they just treat Ukraine as an extension of NATO/the US, rather than as a sovereign nation, and argue that NATO aggression and imperialism caused the war, which Russia is then the underdog resisting (this of course is basically a Kremlin propaganda narrative).

Now, let's jump forward to the present, where Joe Biden's political future is being imperilled by relentless attacks asserting, on little to no solid evidence, that he is both mentally and physically unfit to run for or serve as President. One would assume that if any person on Earth is immune to systemic discrimination, it's Joe Biden. He is a fairly wealthy, heterosexual, cisgendered, white, Christian, American man. He basically won Privilege Bingo. And he currently holds the single most powerful position on the planet- one which just became frighteningly more powerful with the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling (albeit a ruling they obviously only made for Trump's benefit, confident that Biden would not abuse the immense and utterly unprecedented power that they have bestowed upon him).

And yet, as we saw with Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama before him, even climbing to the heights of political power does not shield a marginalized identity from attack. Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, and was a major party's nominee for President. But she was subjected to relentless attacks, some obviously misogynist, and it certainly played a role in her defeat and the election of Donald Trump- a serial r*pist who was taped boasting about being able to get away with grabbing women "by the pussy". Barrack Obama won the Presidency twice- but not without a widespread movement denying that he was even a real American, allegations that he was a "secret Muslim" (which would not be disqualifying for the Presidency in any case), and a backlash that also likely contributed to the election of Trump, a virulent racist.

Biden, as a white man, has advantages that Obama and Clinton never did. But Biden too can still be attacked and treated unfairly based on his association with various marginalized identities. As soon as he showed signs of age and frailty, he was subject to the relentless contempt of our society for the geriatric and the disabled. Add to that his life-long stutter. Granted, Biden has far more power than most to resist such attacks, so it would probably be a big stretch to say that he is a victim of systemic oppression. But these attacks, using ableism and ageism to declare someone unfit for the Presidency, are ultimately also attacks on the dignity of all older and disabled people (there's also a good bit of racism and misogyny underlying it, as at least some of the hyperbole and fear-mongering over Biden's age and fitness is clearly driven by fear that a Black woman might succeed him- see in particular the recent piece in The Washington Post calling for Biden to stay in but replace VP Harris).

So what is my point in all of this? It is that peoples' identities are complex, and that just because someone is privileged-even immensely privileged-in certain ways does not mean that they cannot be underprivileged, marginalized, or oppressed and discriminated against in others. And that if the Left/progressives as a whole had as solid a grasp of intersectionality, and its importance, as they do of privilege, they would be far less likely to fall so easily for fascist psy-ops trying to convince Leftists that no, this whole class of people are okay to persecute because they're actually Oppressors, in order to divide and conquer us all.

Because the thing is: privilege is real. So is systemic discrimination. Certain people and groups of people do have unfair advantages over others based on their identities and how they are perceived, which contribute to bias and must be accounted for and rectified. But this is also true: everybody has multiple different identities. Everybody has ways in which they are advantaged over someone else, and ways in which they are disadvantaged. Some people have far more things that fall on one side of the scale than the other. But you can find something about just about anyone that gives them an unfair advantage over someone else. So if you focus only on that, and define someone's worthiness to receive sympathy accordingly, then you can reframe anyone as the Oppressor, and therefore unworthy of sympathy, and deserving of anything that is done to them.

Of course, one might also cynically argue that many people WANT to fall for that ploy, because it gives them an excuse to engage in harassment, bullying, and abuse; to join in the mob, while pretending to be righteous. I might also observe that the Left's fixation on determining who is worthy of sympathy based on who holds the most power essentially commits them ideologically to always being on the losing side- should any Leftist ever actually succeed in achieving major political success, they will become part of "the establishment", and immediately suspect. And I wonder how large a role this sort of thinking plays in Leftist third party "purity politics", and the infamous "circular firing squad".

[rjalker]

GrannyGamer1 said in a youtube comment 6 days ago:

Representative democracy? Oh, my sweet, summer child! You've never known real winter. Guess it's that whole preferred race sex, gender, sexuality, able bodies thing again. The lesser of two evils has gotten more and more evil, but you did notice because you weren't affected. But now, they're coming for you. The only thing progressive about the Democratic party is that it's become progressively more corrupt and beholden to corporate lobbies and interests. Funding gen ocide props up failed, late stage capitalism. Just as it always has since Europeans first set foot on western hemisphere shores. This was never a participatory democracy A! Damn near ever soul who doesn't look like you fought and suffered for the ballot box. Particularly indigenous people. What we're seeing in Gaza is the long tradition of white supremacy controlling the lands, houses, resources, economies, education, health, calories per day, the very bodies, living and dead, of an ancient, colonized indigenous population. I'm not the one being silly and naive here. They're screaming the quiet parts out loud now. That's how far the lesser of two evils has gone. Thank to US corporate and political collaboration with the Zionist pry, Google, Musk, Bezos et al have surveillance and weapons technology, battle tested, which makes it's sale more appealing, on Palestinian bodies, coming to Cop Cities, where officers are trained by IDF, all over USA. Oh, you sweet, summer child. You were only placated so long as you caused absolutely no inconvenience. Stay in your house and quibble over talking points spooned out by one of the six corporations controlling "news" in USA and maybe you'll dodge their scrutiny. But don't bet on it. Not if you're subversive enough to love or respect someone who's Queer, disabled, not whit and middle class…. They're coming for you,btoo now. And there's nobody left to speak up for you. We're all just livestock to them. We're all Palestinian. If you don't directly contribute to their agenda, they'll snuff you and sell off pieces of your corpse. The lesser of two evils is evil.