Hi there, I'm Enviri | early 30s | they/them | queer | disabled | freak | My blog name is in reference to my late dog Melody, who will always be part of me.
It’s legitimately triggering to me, getting people begging for money in my inbox. Especially the ways which some of them do it.
“$20-30 may not seem like much to you”
Oh??? You know my financial situation???
Fuck off.
If anyone’s curious why I basically never answer asks, it’s because my inbox is full of landmines for triggering stuff surrounding financial insecurity and I cannot handle it, and it only gets added to day by day with what are almost certainly 99% scams which are hoping to prey upon my empathy.
I can't believe this is even a debate but even if someone's disability is genuinely fully caused by their own actions they still deserve accommodation and community
Yes this applies to substance use yes this applies to reckless behaviour yes it applies to purposefully injuring yourself.
If someone disables or injures themselves on purpose to such a large degree then they need aid regardless of how you feel about their actions
Here’s a community reminder that the New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, and is generally considered to be an arm of the far right’s propaganda machine.
They just do a slightly better job of pretending they’re centrist or liberal than Fox News, because their goal is not to sway conservatives, but to sway everyone to the left of the far right.
i think that, when it comes to discussions around bigotry, way too many people are happy to approach it as a competition - a way to prove that their perspective is the correct one.
i think that, instead, there are ways to approach it that do not come down to arguments about who's right and who's wrong (and thus, a bigot), but instead take into account the fact that the topic is nuanced and complex enough that from different perspectives, it can look very different. that conversations around these topics should be approached not with the intent of "prove the other party wrong" or "prove i am right", but that people should be willing to listen in good faith and go in with the intent of walking away with a more nuanced and informed picture of things, due to having gained something from the conversation.
ultimately, a lot of the models and frameworks we use to discuss queerphobic and gendered forms of bigotry are attempts to describe a complicated, hypocritical, and contradictory set of systems that have complicated, hypocritical, and contradictory motivations behind them. is it any surprise that they struggle to capture the whole picture, or that it can look very different from different perspectives?
there's a couple examples of the kinda stuff im thinking about under the cut, which i put in because this post was getting kinda long.
for reference, im gonna be referring a lot to sexism (about the treatment of men and women), cissexism (about the treatment of cis people and trans people, and heterosexism (about the treatment of people who are straight and people who are not).
here is an example of what i'm thinking about above;
many people seem to regard "sexism" and "misogyny" as more or less synonymous, when i would regard there as actually being some nuance.
i would describe "misogyny" as being about the ways in which the box society has called "men" is broadly elevated above the box society has called "women". meanwhile, "sexism", i would describe as being more about the ways in which those boxes are constructed, what they're shaped like, and the ways in which people are punished for failing to conform to their assigned box.
or, to summarise, sexism is the way in which two boxes are out of inward-pointing spikes, and misogyny is the way in which one of them is set above the other.
the thing is, while seperating them is useful for breaking experiences and how society treats people based on gender, they also overlap to a significant degree- and "misogyny is a subset of sexism" is a view i would struggle to argue against.
for a broader example- i would argue that, while it is useful to consider cissexism and heterosexism as broadly independent from eachother and sexism, and doing so can allow for more nuanced discussion about people's experiences and their intersectionality, they are both heavily rooted in sexism.
a lot of society seems to regard orientation and a person's body needing to be "correct" for their gender as necessary parts of correctly conforming to it, i think. consider how frequently stereotypes and bigotry towards cis gay people lean towards portraying gay men as feminine, and gay women as masculine, in ways intended to be degrading. the way that trans people's bodies are so frequently used as "proof" they aren't really their actual gender.
here's the thing; while, to my eye, much of this has roots in sexism... i would be kind of surprised if there were not decent arguments for viewing things the other ways around here- that sexism and heterosexism are rooted in cissexism, and cissexism and sexism are rooted in heterosexism- as well as each of them being similar and overlapping but independent. and while i consider much of cissexism and heterosexism to be fundamentally based in sexism, that does not mean i consider them to be subsets of it.
Having a speech impediment is honestly such an odd experience. What do you mean I’ll use writing whenever possible because when people hear my voice they automatically assume I’m unintelligent and much younger than I am instead of listening to my words and realizing my potential?
Okay but word cousins is a real as fuck thing to call them. If they rhyme or they have the same starting syllable or they live next to each other in my mind they are cousins and at constant risk of being swapped for each other. Speech impediment gang we deserve one thousand dollars per stutter
Just kidding, this fool is out here sunning himself and taking naps.
DID YOU KNOW, peafowl (and other birds) sun themselves like this to kill ectoparasites? This kind of sunning can take their feather temps to 140F+, hot enough to kill feather lice. And he's just soaking it up like he hatched on the surface of the fucking sun. So comfy he can barely keep his eyes open.
the amendment that "ended" slavery specifically left permission for slave labor as punishment for convinced criminals and our inmates have been legally exploited ever since, yes
You guys need to recognize that the push to treat ace and aro discourse as stupid infighting that never left tumblr is indeed a manifestation of the continued erasure and devaluing of asexuality, aromanticism, and and ace and aro lives in an effort to pretend that the people who did it weren't part of a reactionary hate movement that completely decimated two entire marginalized communities both on and offline.
Like I try to be nice about this but I have seen SO many fucking people being like "lol yeah ace/aro discourse was one thing" and that is deliberate erasure of real and important queer history in service of dodging blame on the parties that did this who, for the most part, never fucking apologized or owned up to it, or, in the case of a few blogs I still see going around, clearly still stand by all of it and just hope you don't point that out, and ofc, no one ever fucking does.
Stop downplaying the absolute fucking devastation the queer community did to ace and aro people and our communities. If owning it makes you uncomfortable, good, go make it right, and start by not fucking lying about what happened, thanks.
I do want to say if you got caught up in this I don't hate you, especially if you learned and changed, because like most reactionary hate movements ace/aro discourse was always presented as righteous and fun, and also it was EVERYWHERE and the people stirring shit were very well articulated. A lot of us were teenagers joining queer spaces for the first time ever and we wanted to belong and sometimes that means hating who the people who already belong tell you to hate. I get why people fell for it, I came close a few times myself when I was at my lowest and most desperate to feel like I belonged again. I get it.
I can't offer forgiveness or absolution to everyone, but you don't need me to forgive you to forgive yourself and move on, and I do think most of the people who got caught up in it have more than earned moving on.
However, what I want is for everyone to stop downplaying it. Don't call it stupid infighting, don't go "ace stuff was one thing but this with trans men is too far" don't claim it didn't leave tumblr or the internet, own how bad it was. If you were there you know, and your history is valuable, so even when it sucks please be honest about what happened. This part of queer history should not be forgotten, and especially not for the people who never really changed and have an interest in making sure everyone thinks this was just some silly infighting.
That's what I ask, do right by us, don't let us be erased again.
Especially because when you forget, when you downplay it, you downplay what's happened with truscum shit, with biphobia, and now with trans masc exclusion. You downplay it and you disguise that it's the same people saying the same things about a new group. I found out about the rise in trans man/masc exclusion because I saw someone saying that trans men are collateral damage secondary to the real targets of transphobia, trans women, and I immediately knew the person saying it was a shithead I should NEVER trust because that is exactly what they said about bi and ace and aro people. Word for word.
You do those who were hurt a disservice when you downplay what happened, but you also make our spaces less safe because if we pretend what happened didn't we can't stop it when it starts again.
Reblogging again after seeing YET ANOTHER person say ace/aro discourse wasn't mainstream and didn't leave the internet. People got kicked out of irl queer spaces behind this, stop fucking lying about what happened. At this point more someone pushes the "ace/aro discourse was bad but not mainstream/offline/as bad as what's happening now with [xyz group]" the more I think you have a vested interest in making it out to be not a big deal and that doesn't say anything good about you.
Like y'all claim to be against oppression olympics, but you're still engaging with it every single time you say anything even remotely like "ace/aro discourse was really bad but nothing as serious as what's happening now" and I'm sick of pretending it's not oppression olympics and also not a manifestation of the continued violence against ace and aro people. If the only way you're going to talk about what happened is through downplaying our suffering and/or spreading misinformation about it, do me and every other aro and ace person a favor and stop fucking talking about us.
B-but people with micropenises are my emotional support minority to bully!! 🥺🥺 B-but it's funny that their penises are small!! 🥺🥺 B-but I only make fun of BAD people by calling their penises small!! 🥺🥺 I have good reason to make fun of people with micropenises!! 🥺🥺 It's not intersexism if it's funny!! 🥺🥺 It's sooo funny because their penises are small!! 🥺🥺 Guys it's sooo funny come on!! 🥺🥺
There is no feminist way to participate in toxic masculinity, and mocking people for having fragile masculinity is toxic masculinity, point blank period. Its fundamentally patriarchal.
The idea that "having fragile masculinity" is inherently a personality defect or moral failing is patriarchal. So much of this kind of bullshit is people taking fundamentally patriarchal ideas of manhood (for example, that men being vulnerable is a defect or moral failing) and defining it around slightly more feminist values.
Like, the only thing that is different from bog standard patriarchy here is the inclusion of "macho." But like, the idea that there are "fragile" men who fail to be "real men" with unshakeable firm masculinity, and they also secretly have small penises and are biologically less manly compared to "real men" whose real manhood can be located in their large penises... babe that's just toxic masculinity. The same "macho" shit you hate those men for, you yourself engage in, just a little to the left.
Fragile masculinity is not a moral failing, and it doesn't intrinsically make someone a worse person. And tbh I think talking about "fragile masculinity" like this is kind of disgustingly individualistic, and doesn't do much to encourage conversation about how patriarchy constructs manhood and masculinity as tools of control and oppression (what some feminists might call misandry).
much has been said already about the supreme court case and trans rights but today i'm thinking extra hard about trans kids who have been sent into the psych system for any reason, who have to bear the lack of autonomy innate to it but the extra sting of being denied the right to your name and your gender in sex-segregated facilities, by transphobic staff, etc.
i'm thinking extra hard about how we've ended up where we are, with trans kids at the center of so much hatred, because children are not seen as people with interiority or an ability to narrate their own experiences. we've decided it's alright to lock children up for horrible diagnoses that psychs throw around like they're nothing, to strip their autonomy completely and force them through humiliation, invasions of privacy, and endless torment by "professionals" whose power over every waking moment of their lives has no end. these things cannot be separated.
i'm thinking today of every trans child in a wilderness camp, in a residential treatment facility, in psych wards and PHP/IOP programs, especially those whose transness has been tied to unwellness. fuck the psych industry and the troubled teen industry and transphobia forever
Still trying to learn about breeding and animal husbandry before I start. Would you breed from a quail that hatched from the wrong end of the egg? Is that a genetic trait or do those things just sometimes happen?
It really depends on why it hatched from the wrong side, and whether it had trouble hatching from that side or not.
A normal, healthy egg from my own birds or shipped eggs that I set within 10 days and pops out on time with no issue despite pipping the wrong side? Sure. Weird choice bud but there's clearly not weakness there.
Same situation except I have to help it out? That's a cull. I don't keep ANY bird I have to help hatch. They are all culls.
Same situation except it only gets out over 24 hours later than everyone else? That's a cull, too. I don't keep ANY quail that hatch later then 36 hours past first pip. The only time I'll keep birds past the 24 hours mark is if the entire bag is late, not just one egg (like the EW last hatch all just randomly took 1 day longer.... weird but okay, maybe their section was in a weird colder spot in the incubator).
Shipped eggs where the whole hatch is struggling? It depends on how bad it is, but shipping can be rough on eggs, and if it's the whole batch, it's either the breeder's issue or a shipping issue (or an incubation issue, but the only "issue" my rock solid cabinet ever has is if we lose power for days), and I may consider helping the batch so I don't lose out on the cost of buying and shipping eggs. But so help me, if their babies suck too, I will wash the whole line and start over. But there's no way to know which way it will go in this kind of situation.
As for whether it's genetic or not... it's PROBABLY not. The usual reason for this is the chick can't turn to position itself (COMMON with shipped eggs, as loose or weakened air cells can give the chick a little too much space to grow and they grow a little too much to turn), OR it doesn't have the instinct to position itself (that would likely be genetic, and uncommon), OR the incubator was hotter than it should be and it didn't have time to turn right side up to reach the air cell before its lungs needed air. Those are mostly environmental problems, BUT a weak chick is a weak chick.
This phrase has already entered my vocabulary re: media criticism where like. The viewer has a concrete view of what they expect a story to be based on the tropes and cliches they're used to seeing together, and when that doesn't happen, they judge it as a failed depiction of what they assumed it was going to be instead of judging it as what it actually is.
"This show is problematic because the hero didn't kill the villain at the end": When does he steal the bread?
"These two characters who were close friends throughout the series don't kiss at the end! What the fuck?": When does he steal the bread?
"This feels like it's missing a conclusion! Like, the protagonist does bad stuff and because of a critical decision he makes as a result of his major character flaws, meets tragedy in the end! Where's the part where he learns better and brings is love back from the dead and becomes a good guy and gets a happy ending?": When does he steal the fucking bread??
