Sometimes manuscripts only survive in pieces. Here is an example: a 15th c. breviary used to make collages in the 1800s. An interesting historical example, but not something you would want to to today! (UPenn Ms. Coll. 713)
đ:
Access 'Breviary collages' through the Penn Libraries catalog.
Fuck Meyer-Briggs whatever typology. This INTFP shit is only for redditors up their own asses to substitute for a personality. Use my new typology instead!
yesterday i had a nice southern teenager call me "ma'am" and then look at me and go, in a well-meaning tone, "uhhhh, if you go by ma'am. sorry if not." and i had to be like yeah man ma'am is fine. appreciate you being inclusive though. i could almost see the little warning pop up in his UI-- hold up! people with blue hair often have pronouns. are you sure you want to address this individual with a gendered term?
The idea of âbut everyone knows thatâ needs to stop.
I saw a post about someone chiding Millennials for not knowing about JKRowlings transphobia, and asking how it is at all possible that people can exist in the world and the internet and, you know, not know.
Which I mean, I get. It is so present in so many of my online spaces that it seems astounding that someone could simply be ignorant! It feels impossible!
But let me tell you a story:
I went on a girls trip with a bunch of friends. All of us are rather incredibly liberal and all of us are incredibly online.
One girl would not stop talking about Harry Potter.
At one point, another girl asked her why she was ok with supporting it, and she had no real clue that JK Rowling was at all transphobic. She had heard that she likes to support Lesbian causes and thought âoh ok cool!â And that was it. She was AGOG with the news and rather horrified.
I must once again emphasize that she was an incredibly online person. Sheâs a foodie and a restaurant blogger.
Later in the trip we were picking restaurants and I suggested one I found on Google, and she gasped at me. Actually gasped, asking how I could ever be okay picking that one.
The shock mustâve been on my face, because she then told me all of the shitty things that restaurateur does. He abuses staff. Underpays them. Fires them on a whim. Is known for being one of the worst people to his employees in the entire restaurant business on this coast.
And she was so shocked I had never heard of this. Because in her mind, I was just as online as her. And in her online world, EVERYONE knew about this guy.
So I think the moral of this story is: always approach the other person with some empathy. Even online people, even people you think MUST know about how bad people are, may not have heard. It may truly be just them being on a different sphere of the internet than you.
So be gentle, be kind when letting people know they might not have heard about the cancellation of XYZ person. Donât assume that everyone knows all the same info as you.
By all means, let them know so they can make informed decisions, but being kind will go a lot further than attacking them for some info they might not know yet.
Had a fun moment in my history seminar today where we were talking about politics and voting and everyone was either like "I don't vote" or "I'd recommend tactically voting even if you don't like them" and I was like "I'd vote green cos I'm trans and I would like to have civil rights for me and my friends idk" and I think that's an important lesson in how politics isn't just some theoretical game for intellectual musing
How the Supreme court ruling has been weaponised against British institutions.
On December 2, Girlguiding announced that trans girls would no longer be welcome. That felt especially cruel and hit me especially hard, because this was a direct attack on children. It wasnât framed as protecting the children, as is often the case. This time the mask had slipped, and for the first time, this was a direct attack on children themselves â trans children in particular, and it was framed as compliance to a recent Supreme Court ruling. As if the court had descended from the heavens with tablets of stone declaring that little girls like my great niece are suddenly not only ânot girlsâ but also fair game because theyâre ânot like other childrenâ.
Then, the very next day, the Womenâs Institute (WI) released their own sombre statement. Beginning in April, they will no longer accept transgender women as members. Frankly, it looked like a hostage video.
The WI is an absolute institution here here in the U.K. Technically, itâs a membership organisation for women, who meet up in village halls once per month, but in reality, itâs the heartbeat of village life. Itâs known for jam making, choir singing, crafts, and community. For many older women, itâs a genuine lifeline â a place to go for routine and friendship in a world where social spaces are disappearing.
And now, after forty years of quiet, uneventful trans inclusion, the WI is closing the door. Not because they wanted to. Not because there was ever an issue â itâs not as if trans women were storming the jam-making classes and causing a riot. They are doing it because they felt âforced.â They claimed a recent Supreme Court ruling made their position âuntenable.â
To get why they are so scared, you have to look at how earlier this year, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that in specific parts of the Equality Act, âsexâ refers to biological sex. Thatâs it. It didnât ban trans women from any spaces. It didnât say we arenât women socially or culturally. It just cracked open a legal door.
But anti-trans lobby groups pounced. They realised they could weaponise this ruling to pressure any group with âwomenâ or âfemaleâ in its name. They are actively hunting for targets: Girlguiding, the WI, the Ladiesâ Pond on Hampstead Heath, book clubs, choirs. Anything that looks vulnerable.
The WI and Girlguiding were the perfect victims. They are beloved British institutions, sure, but they are financially fragile. They run on volunteers and bake sales, not corporate budgets. They knew a single lawsuit could bankrupt them. So, they folded. Not because inclusion was risky, but because the litigation was.
That is the sad reality: the Supreme Court ruling is being used as a bludgeon. Itâs not about clarity or safety. Itâs about intimidation â squeezing the kindest, gentlest institutions until they push us out.
The thing is, neither organisation was forced to do anything.
They just couldnât afford to fight.
My toxic trait is that I think that the commercialization of Christmas reaching into November is a direct result of people not knowing anything about the Christian liturgical calendar, and could be solved by making secular Christians go to church and learn what Advent is.
Walked into work and my coworkers who go to a mega church but don't know what Advent is are playing Christmas music despite my loud and consistent yearly begging for them not to. So I am going to amend this to say that people need to go to a real church and not a non-denominational one.