Keni
art blog(derogatory)
wallacepolsom
Misplaced Lens Cap

titsay
YOU ARE THE REASON
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
No title available

Kaledo Art
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
will byers stan first human second
RMH
Peter Solarz

Janaina Medeiros

izzy's playlists!
Cosimo Galluzzi

shark vs the universe
taylor price
we're not kids anymore.
tumblr dot com
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from Türkiye

seen from Peru
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Switzerland
@alarmed-father
The rule could have heavy impacts towards trans people across society.
Last week, the Trump administration quietly released a sweeping new federal rule that would use funding threats to force institutions across the country to reject transgender people. The 400-page proposed regulation would codify the administration's anti-trans executive orders into binding federal policy, imposing a blanket prohibition on federal funds going toward "gender ideology"
The proposed rule, formally titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," rewrites the government-wide framework governing all federal grants across every agency. Among its most consequential provisions, it requires that before a federal grant recipient can receive money, the award must pass a "pre-issuance review" conducted by a political appointee—not a career expert or peer reviewer—to ensure it is "consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest." The regulation explicitly instructs these appointees to screen for "denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic." [...] An institution that acknowledges transgender people exist—through its policies, its training, its healthcare, its bathroom access, its HR procedures, its name-change processes—could be deemed to "deny the sex binary" or to “support the notion that sex is mutable” and have its federal funding blocked.
Importantly, the gender ideology prohibition has no age limitation—hospitals could be targeted not just for providing care to minors but for providing gender-affirming care to adults, because prescribing hormone therapy to a transgender patient of any age could be deemed promoting the belief that "sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic."
THIS IS OPEN TO COMMENT UNTIL JULY 13, 2026
This is all very bad and horrible, but I want to be clear that it’s worse and more sweeping than just eliminating trans research.
This torches everything. And I do mean everything.
A very abbreviated list of its ramifications include (but are not limited to):
ending funding for ALL DEI related initiatives
allowing the government to terminate grants at any point for any reason
preventing researchers from publishing, going to conferences, and being part of academic societies
requiring that topics must support the president’s agenda.
What this means, and if anything I’m under selling it, is the death of science and research in America. It allows the government to restrict any topic they please at a whims notice, putting officials who have no background in the topic in charge of deciding funding continuity. It controls what gets researched and if/how researchers are allowed to share their discoveries. There are no books to burn if the government never allows them to be written. This is fascism plain and simple.
Please, if you only ever write one public comment, this is the one to do.
Bringing back this guide to writing an effective public comment. This gives you the basics you need to know, what you need to include, a basic outline you can follow, etc.
Public comments are not a vote, it is a chance for you to say "here is an issue with this law I think you need to address" and provide justification for legal challenges if it goes forward:
"Comments raise the bar that agencies have to meet when making a rule; “if an agency fails to adequately respond to significant, relevant comments in a final rule, members of the public may seek to challenge the rule in court on that basis and claim it could be struck down.ˮ"
But also, if possible, don't stop at writing a comment. Don't stop at calling your representatives. You should ideally be talking to people in your community about this and organizing resistance on-the-ground; there is a good chance people are already doing that even if you aren't hearing about it.
It's hard to say this without sounding like a right wing dickhead, but the thing about progressive spaces is that they may naturally attract people who are always on the lookout for excuses to start a fight. Like you can find yourself faced with someone whose political outrage is totally justified, and whose humanitarian ideals are right on the money, but simultaneously they are carrying a ton of psychological baggage about being wronged and getting revenge, and they will exploit literally any opportunity to live out this psychodrama with anyone in their line of vision. I have thought of several related anecdotes since I started typing this post, but I'll limit myself to the thing that inspired it, which is that I just visited this ultra-lefty cafe/bike shop/community gathering space where I've heard that the proprietor is constantly in a fight with everyone around her. When I paid for my stuff I noticed that there was no tip option, but I thought I had heard something about this, so I snuck away to look at the website and it made me really glad I didn't ask! I think there should have been a really enticing and exciting way for her to say "I've decided to be the change I want to see in the world, so I'm paying my baristas a full living wage, I'm making sure EVERYONE feels welcome and comfortable here, and I'm selling products I believe in!" -- but instead all the web copy sounded more like "You're either with me or against me, you're a fucking piece of shit asshole if you can't handle the inclusive atmosphere here, and by the way tipping is for fascist cavemen and if you ever try to tip someone you are refusing to relate to them authentically and you are enforcing a dangerous and evil power dynamic that should be purged from human society (so therefore I pay my staff well)." Like everything she stood for was totally agreeable, but why did she have to put it like it was directed at her worst enemy, rather than at the kinds of people she wants to attract? If the word on the street is to be believed, the reason for this posturing is that she spends quite a lot of energy making as many enemies as possible, and she probably likes it that way. I guess I'm just reminding myself, and perhaps others, that while one might think of "politics" as being broadly social and theoretical, no individual can fully separate the political from the intimately personal. Even somebody who seems to want to uplift and protect their fellow humans may be getting some perverse inner satisfaction out of that valiant crusade, and you may never realize it until you find yourself in a confusing fight with them.
I ran a LARP for a few years explicitly aimed at being queer friendly and accessible, and eventually cut it short mainly for this exact reason. You wouldn’t believe the amount of abuse my staff and I took for reasons that felt genuinely insane. I got called ableist for telling someone they couldn’t be invincible in my game of make believe, more than once. Defended myself, multiple Jewish players, and a conversion student from accusations of antisemitism based on alleged lore we’d never written / suggested / that simply and plainly did not exist in game. Had a staffer try to talk to someone about how a joke she made was uncomfortable only for this person to retaliate in epic proportions full white woman crocodile tears style, trying to get this staffer removed and eventually escalating into a full public hate campaign when she didn’t get her way. All that’s still just the tip of the iceberg.
Progressive spaces are naturally populated by traumatized people, and unfortunately trauma makes people more difficult. (I’m not excluded in that. No one is.) Running a progressive space is doubly difficult because a lot of left-facing trauma was inflicted by authority, so you’re setting yourself up to be the windmill that someone tilts their displaced rage at. I don’t really know what the solution is, but I do know that this is one of the huge reasons it’s so hard to find community: the people with a bone to pick can’t reach the ones who actually hurt them, but they’ll sure find you along the way, and the safer they feel around you the safer they’ll feel coming after you.
Once again I am begging everyone to read Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It by Chris Voss.
Voss spent 25 years as a hostage negotiator, meaning that his job was to talk to guys on the phone who had literal guns to innocent people's heads. He KNOWS how to compassionately de-escalate a conflict and have productive, constructive conversations with people who are highly activated and reactive.
Especially if you are neurodivergent, read this book. The communication tools are specific, concrete, easy to implement, and will dramatically reduce the psychic damage you're taking just from trying to navigate the conversation.
Adding the book Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg. Rewired my brain and also changed how I communicate with myself, if that makes sense.
And there is an additional problem, which is that leftists are often uncomfortable being authorities themselves and acting like it. (Not saying this was true of any previous posters! It is simply a common Thing.) Leftists like being inclusive and being relaxed on rules. But the only way to make a truly safe space is to protect it, and that means having someone who is willing to say “no.” People feel safe when leadership has their back.
Sometimes you have to tell that woman that if she keeps picking fights she won’t have any allies to fight them. Sometimes you have to tell that guy that no, really, you have to shower sometimes, and the Stink Cloud is why people don’t want to hang out with you.
It’s okay to be the adult in the room. It is something to be done compassionately and authoritatively. I would probably drone on more in this post but my cat is headbutti g my phone out of my hands
there's literally nothing more radical in 2026 than believing that humanity can become good news for each other and the only world we'll ever share.
Saving the tags.
The Three Graces by the late photographer Leonard Nimoy (yes, Spock from Star Trek!) from his Full Body Project
no further (furter) explanation required 😋
i always forget religious posts like this are dead serious because starting out with the phrase “i knew my flesh was evil” is so incredibly funny to me
YOU ARE A REGULAR GUY. YOU CAN HANDLE CRITIQUE. YOU ARE A REGULAR GUY. YOU CAN EMBRACE BEING TOLD YOU WERE WRONG. YOU ARE A REGULAR GUY. YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH UNPLEASANT TASKS. YOU ARE A REGULAR GUY. YOU CAN DELIVER DISAPPOINTING NEWS. YOU ARE A REGULAR GUY. YOU KNOW HOW TO BE DISAGREED WITH. YOU ARE A REGULAR GUY. YOU CAN BE CORRECTED. YOU ARE A REGULAR GUY. YOU CAN BE TOLD YOU MESSED UP. YOU ARE A REGULAR GUY. YOU ARE ABLE TO DO HARD THINGS.
i’m sure you guys have heard about kansas invalidating trans ids- just so you know it’s not all hopeless
hi did you know that trans christians spend their entire lives in faiths that try and convince them that on a cosmical level they should hate themselves and for them this would be emotionally fufilling? hi did you know that kansas is over 70% christian? hi did you know that just because you think atheism is the correct and the only thing that deserves respect that doesn’t mean that this isn’t incredibly impactful and meaningful for many people?
reblogging this again to bring up that when my grandma said she didn’t understand trans people, and why would they betray the body God gave them, it would have been 0 help to explain to her all the biological and cultural and societal components to the existence of the concept of gender and trans people. You know what did make her pause and reconsider her stance? “Did you ever think that maybe God made trans people on purpose?” And we got to have a conversation about all the interesting things God has made so why wouldn’t God make trans people? And she came out of the conversation with more grace and understanding.
"How many trans people does god have to make before you admit he might want them around?"
two spirit is not a "native version" of anything
its not a "native version of nonbinary" or a "native version of bigender"
thats not what it means, that’s not what it’s ever meant
two spirit is an pan-tribal term coined by indigenous people in 1990, for indigenous people, to replace the term berdache, an offensive term that white settlers applied to indigenous people that fell outside of the western lens of gender and sexuality
two spirit isnt a "native version of nonbinary" because two spirit doesnt inherently mean someone is nonbinary. some of us are, but so many two spirited people arent. many people in our community also choose specifically not to label themselves with terms like nonbinary, gay, bisexual, etc, and solely use two spirit or another term from their tribe or language
we can be anything and everything and nothing you've ever imagined
to say its a "native version of nonbinary" is not just inaccurate, it's a complete erasure of a massive part of our community
having a process for people who have done morally horrific things to make amends, rejoin community, and do right going forward is actually fundamentally crucial for the left. having a clear and accessible pathway for people to be socially (if not interpersonally) forgiven is how you get people radicalized against capitalism and imperialism and white supremacy and patriarchy. its how you turn "these people think i am a bad person" into "these people think something and someone coerced or forced me into doing bad things, and these people want to help me do something about that."
if you want more revolutionaries, you must have a system to turn guilty, traumatized, angry bystanders and collaborators into revolutionaries. and I say a system and process because its not "oh the drone operator said they were sorry and felt bad so its all good now :)" there is no shortcut here. but it is absolutely necessary. no revolution is comprised of morally pure people. in many cases, the most devoted revolutionaries are the ones who know exactly what it is like on the other side.
Okay, but are they willing to take the biggest risks to make things right?
Like, if these people have done the most damage to society, to the safety and dignity of minorities, to the basic decency upon which the world functions, are they willing to stand at the front of the effort to fix that damage?
As a trans person, I'm not particularly inclined to forgive transphobes unless they've put themselves in harm's way instead of us.
Part of the issue is for that sort of thing to happen, people have to want to change and do better.
Many don't.
And many do. Why would we waste that desire? Just because many people don't? It's a pessimistic perspective that only hurts the goal of meaningful progress. Progress will not happen because all the Bad People just stop existing.
I am genuinely begging people on this post to realize that our current system CREATES the issues y'all come onto this post to use as proof restorative justice won't work. There are many reasons people resist change, but one very relevant one is that a system where accountability is inherently tied to suffering does not motivate people to put in the effort to change. A deeply hurt person who has developed a lot of very toxic habits, who struggles to imagine a life for themself where they don't rely on those habits to have a sense of identity and safety, may seem like someone who "doesn't want to change." If we assume that is true, then no one tries to help, then there is no reason for that person to believe change is possible or that they could ever be cared for by society given what they've done, so why try?
I am truly fucking begging y'all to talk to like. Any poor white person from the rural US South who realized how evil and systemic white supremacy is, and becomes extremely personally invested in fighting that in their community. This is not some abstract hypothetical. & there are MANY people who would very much be willing to change, if change actually seems feasible. If you see yourself as unforgivable, because everyone around you seems to see you as unforgivable, is it not easier to just dig your heels in?
We NEED!!!!!!! people to be willing to come over to our side and that simply will not fucking happen if your every reaction to "we need to have a process that allows people to make amends and which incentives meaningful change" is "ohhhhhh but that's hard tho :("
Compassion is a practical revolutionary necessity. It's not a thought experiment. Yes, it will be hard, and complicated, and cause a lot of discomfort for everyone on a lot of levels. It will take a hell of a long time to get where we actually want to be. We will fuck it up a lot along the way. There is still no other choice. Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy and it does nothing for anyone.
You're moving the goalposts and I'm starting to lose my patience. Your original post started with this premise:
having a process for people who have done morally horrific things to make amends, rejoin community, and do right going forward is actually fundamentally crucial for the left
Then, when me and @magicrainbowkitties rightfully pointed out that people who do the worst things have to both accept that they've done those worst things and also that to make amends they'll have to accept the greatest amount of risk in making things right.
You then promptly shifted entirely to
Any poor white person from the rural US South who realized how evil and systemic white supremacy is
Motherfucker, I'm not fucking talking about some guy from Biloxi who said slurs a couple of times - and neither were you, until it became useful to completely misrepresent our caveats.
"people who do the worst things have to both accept that they've done those worst things and also that to make amends they'll have to accept the greatest amount of risk in making things right."
That is literally what this post is saying we need to have a process for. What exactly are you caveating here????????????
I'm not moving any goalposts. I didn't say "someone who said slurs a couple of times." In the notes of this post, I have elaborated on how this post was prompted by reading about a woman who worked as a fucking drone operator for the US military. I have also responded to people talking about child rapists.
I am really frustrated and annoyed by your "caveats" because they make no sense. I do not fucking understand what you people think I am saying with this post. Like, genuinely, what the fuck did you think I meant by this section:
I say a system and process because its not "oh the drone operator said they were sorry and felt bad so its all good now :)" there is no shortcut here. but it is absolutely necessary. no revolution is comprised of morally pure people. in many cases, the most devoted revolutionaries are the ones who know exactly what it is like on the other side.
Did you think I was just fucking around and smashing random keys when I wrote this? By "process" and "there is no shortcut" I meant "people who did the worst things don't need to accept they've done anything bad and don't need to accept that making amends means accepting a great amount of risk"? Is that what you think I meant?
Its not just y'all. Other people keep coming on this post and adding "caveats" because, as far as I can tell, y'all cannot see a person talking about restorative justice without immediately assuming that they don't understand that bad things require actual effort to amend. The point of this post is that it is necessary to have systems for people to make amends, that actually facilitate and incentivize people to do that hard work, rather than providing zero support or clear pathways to actually go about doing that.
Not a SINGLE part of this implies anything remotely like "you should just forgive anyone whose done anything horrific even if they have done nothing to make amends simply because they said sorry." In fact I LITERALLY included a part of the original post where I explicitly said that's not what I'm saying. So why do people keep feeling the need to come onto this post and just restating the things I already clearly said as if its something that I left out of the post? Why is there this need to keep reiterating, on a post about how it is important to provide mechanisms for people who caused harm to make amends, that people who caused harm need to make amends?
Okay, having calmed down a little bit, I want to make myself clearer. @vexwerewolf blocked me (after coming onto my post calling me a motherfucker unprompted, but whatever) but still:
My original post is about the need for a formal, explicit process that facilitates people making amends. These caveats seem, to me, to suggest that people want those who have contributed to harm to make amends, but then get defensive at the suggestion that communities need to put effort into actually allowing that change to happen, making it clear how it needs to happen, and having that change actually matter, rather than simply talking about it in the abstract but doing nothing to facilitate it.
I will never disagree that people need to actually make amends and take on responsibility. I am saying that we need to make it clear what we expect from people and actually let that change matter and reintegrate them into our communities. What is best for victims is what actually works to prevent harm, not just in the moment but on a systemic level. If we want people to change, we have to actually make change possible, we have to make the mechanisms for change explicit and accessible, and make it actually matter.
We can talk all day long about how people need to take responsibility and it needs to actually matter and they need to be willing to take risks etc etc, but we do at some point actually need to grapple with what that means. If someone does harm, we need to be able to actually say "okay, this is what the process for taking accountability looks like," and then we need to live with the fact that the end point of this process is that person is still a part of our community. I see a lot of people talking about wanting folks to take accountability, but then also don't seem to want to discuss what that would actually practically mean, don't want to imagine being in a community with people who have done harm, don't want to imagine what social changes would need to occur for this process to be as productive as it could be. And then you end up with this fixation on people who don't want to change, itself a product of a system which does not incentivize meaningful change, used as a cudgel against any discussion about how to incentivize meaningful change.
I understand why people immediately go to "but will they actually take accountability? but will I be expected to personally make a person who harmed me a better person?" but there is a reason I distinguished between social vs interpersonal forgiveness and emphasized this being a process with no shortcuts. Trauma causes an aversion to nuance, because nuance is discomfort and vulnerability and risk, and that's all entirely understandable. But we can't just sit here in our trauma responses forever and talk about how much we want a better world while also being viscerally uncomfortable with what getting to that better world actually involves.
Once again: Yes, it will be hard, and complicated, and cause a lot of discomfort for everyone on a lot of levels. It will take a hell of a long time to get where we actually want to be. We will fuck it up a lot along the way. There is still no other choice. If we cannot hold multiple concepts at once and synthesize them productively, then our great-great-grandchildren will be dealing with the same trauma and horrific systems we are right now, because we want the fruits of a better world without doing any of the labor to get there.
What is frustrating to me most is not people pointing out that those who have done harm need to really take on the burden of accountability and repair. It is the attitude that this is not inherent to the restorative justice ideal I am describing, that clearly I must be forgetting that harm is real and serious or that accountability needs to be equally real and serious. Its the reading into my post some innate dichotomy between being victim-centered and try to keep our community pure of all perpetrators of harm, or being perpetrator-centered and utterly naive to what harm actually means and how it occurs, when the entire point of restorative justice should be that this dichotomy is fake and unhelpful to actual, long-term healing.
#you people will do Anything to avoid even the thought of potential future discomfort i s2g#i think people see ''we need clearly defined processes for people to make amends & reenter the community''#and read it as ''MY community? My PERSONAL friend group?? you want me to go out for beers w/ my abuser & be besties & let them move in???#why would you say that?!''#nobody is saying that you personally ever have to want that person back in your life#what people ARE saying is that after they've participated in a process of restorative justice & made amends you don't get to-#-demand that they be fired from their job bc seeing them exist in public makes you uncomfortable#in a world where restorative justice has been successfully implemented sometimes your childhood abuser is going to be a teller at your bank#and that has to be okay. you don't have to go through their line! but you do have to accept that they have a right to be there.
This, exactly.
In a world where restorative justice has been successfully implemented sometimes your childhood abuser is going to be a teller at your bank. And that has to be okay. You don't have to go through their line! But you do have to accept that they have a right to be there.
"absolutely fucking wild shit" and its the idea that people who have abused others will have jobs and exist in the world, as opposed to idk being stood against the wall and shot. because that's working out so well for everyone right now. 99% of punitive justice advocates stop just before the emotional catharsis of violent revenge actually leads to meaningful safety and prevention of harm!
some of my childhood abusers are, at times, genuinely kind, loving, and charismatic people who are valued members of their communities. i sometimes rely on these people for help and guidance as a fully-grown, independent adult.
i wish we had a formal process for restorative justice because it would make the ongoing emotional aspect a lot easier. it’s been a process of setting and enforcing boundaries, one of those includes that they had to acknowledge the harm they caused without immediately spiraling about it. i am better because we did this. i’m not some victim that they did things to and they’re not horrible irredeemable people but they’re not above reproach either.
Five years ago, when Hitler had made an impassioned speech to Nazi youth, demanding "unquestioning obedience to the Leader" as the highest virtue, Pravda broke into a long editorial that denounced the Nazi ideal and declared that the Soviet ideal was the exact reverse.
"Not submission and blind faith but consciousness, daring, decision, strong and original individuality, inseparably connected with the strong collective of the working people." This was set up as the Soviet ideal. To people accustomed to think of the Soviet people as "regimented," the words may come as a surprise. But Stalin, in his first radio speech after the German attack, appealed to the "daring initiative and intelligence that are inherent in our people." The events of the war have shown that these were no careless words. One recalls the guerrilla band which, lacking rifles, stopped Nazi ammunition trucks by spiked boards placed at night in the roads and then demolished them with homemade grenades. Or the Ukrainian farmer who crept up to a German armored car, using a camouflage of three sheaves of wheat; then shouting: "The robbers want our bread, let's give it to them," he threw the dry wheat under the car and set it afire by tossing a flaming bottle of gasoline after it, thus converting the car into blackened iron. Or the guerrilla detachment which captured six German planes, destroyed five of them, and sent the sixth to the Red Army, piloted by an amateur air enthusiast, who was a tractor driver in ordinary life.
Lt. Talalikhin's initiative is already a Soviet aviator's tradition. Exhausting his ammunition in a fight with three enemy planes, he rammed the tail of one enemy with his propeller, smashed the tail of another enemy plane with his wing tip, and then bailed out of his own plane safely. Moscow parks displayed the wreckage of the German planes, and other Soviet pilots quickly copied the tactics. An aviation technician, Konikov, won renown by attaching the fuselage of a plane he was repairing to the front platform of a military train whose locomotive had been bombed by the enemy; he thus pulled the most necessary parts of the train to safety. Railway repairman Sigachev poured water on his clothes and walked on a board into the furnace of a locomotive, raked the burning coals aside, and replaced in forty minutes some fire bars whose displacement would normally have halted the military train five hours.
These are a few of the pictures that flicker rapidly across the screen in the motion picture of the Soviet people's endless initiative. "The most valuable capital of our land is people," is a famous Stalin slogan.
I remembered those words when I heard that the Red Army had blown up the great Dnieper Dam and surrounding industries worth a quarter of a billion dollars all told. I know how the Soviet people loved that dam. I saw it three times during its building. I saw the workers competing on both sides of the river, putting up red stars at night to signal the progress of their work. That dam was the pride not only of its builders, but of the whole people. It symbolized Lenin's great dream of electrifying the land. [...] Millions of men and women went without meat and butter and clothes that the Dnieper Dam might be swiftly built. They said: "We tighten our belts to build our future!" But every Soviet citizen would blow it up swiftly rather than see it fall to Hitler and be used to enslave the Ukrainian people. The greatest thing the Dnieper Dam produced was not power, not light. The greatest thing it made was people. Out of illiterate peasant laborers, the Dnieper Dam made modern mechanics. Out of a passive folk, sunk in the farming and superstitions of the Middle Ages, the Dnieper Darn made tens of thousands of men and women of initiative, conscious of their own power.
Hitler's newspaper tried to explain the fighting temper of the Red Army by saying: "The Russians fight beyond human endurance because Communism has stamped all humanity out of them." It is a rather odd slant on the war.
I think the Russians have a better slant. It may be propaganda, but it's pretty good propaganda when the Russians at the front report that what surprises them most is the lack of individual initiative shown by the German "superior race." They say that when German officers are killed, the rank and file shout for somebody to give them orders. When Germans are captured, they do not seem to know what they are fighting for.
One of the best anecdotes is that of a German corporal from Breslau who, when questioned by a Soviet reporter, said he didn't know why the Germans had attacked the U.S.S.R.
"Don't you read the newspapers?" asked a Red Army inquirer. "No, I fulfil the orders of my superior," said the man with the Nazi soul. "Are you a human being or a machine?" persisted the Red Army representative. The corporal stared for a moment at the unexpected question and then answered sullenly: "We are all of us machines."
I don't know whether he meant to refer to the German army or expressed the wider philosophy that all men are puppets of fate. But I know those words would shock all Soviet people as the ultimate sacrilege, as the symbol of the slavery against which they war.
Russians know they are not machines. Russians know they are people. People who can make and break machines!
Anna Louise Strong, The Soviets Expected It (1941).
big fan of the way that transandrophobes will try and misconstrue me talking about “butch-transmasc-trans man solidarity“ as „TERFy AFAB Solidarity“ when I’m a whole ass transfem Butch.
Way to fight gender essentialism by simply assuming that every butch is AFAB, you’re killing it at the shitheel game.
when we talked about people perceived as women being punished for being masculine, that very much includes masculine trans women & transfem butches.
per my last desperate howl at the heavens,