How do I get over the feeling that Iâm like a bad feminist for being a trans man? A lot of the people I hang out with will talk about how men suck and men are evil (Iâm not saying theyâre wrong to do so bc a lot of them have had bad experiences w men, I have too), and I also work in a male-dominated field and always did feel like it was important for me to be in spaces as a woman the problem is Iâm justâŚnot
Like idk if this makes sense but Iâm not sure how to get over this feeling that like in a patriarchal world the last thing we need is more men but at the same time Iâm sick of being miserable and dysphoric
Patriarchy and toxic masculinity can be reinforced by any gender. The world needs people who resist the patriarchy. And it needs all genders to do so.
If the people you hang out with are doing hard line "women good, men bad" gender essentialism, they're on the road to terf rhetoric. If they would consider you a "gender traitor" for transitioning, they are ironically working against their own cause. (You can also do a good vibe check on how they feel about non-binary people, especially those that look or lean masculine.)
If they are venting in broad terms, though, that is an opportunity to listen and reflect. As a man, you need to be able to swallow your pride sometimes in order to build your social awareness about systems of oppression. Same as when a black person vents about white folks, or a trans person vents about cis people.
As a man (especially if you are white), you will have opportunities to uplift voices of people who are not men, shut down toxic men, and inspire future generations of men to be better.
And sometimes, you will have to give people who are marginalized in ways you are *not* their space, away from you.
But your masculinity is not inherently bad. Patriarchy gives men systemic advantages, but it still is primarily designed to reward those who do not fight its system. And it won't suddenly be fixed if there's one less man in the world.
There is no reasonable men:women ratio that will suddenly make patriarchy go away.
(Hell, even if every man vanished tomorrow never to return, the Ghost of Patriarchy would still be a looming enemy to be dismantled because its tendrils run so deep.)
Fighting patriarchy requires consistent effort at every social level, from the individual to the highest tiers of government. Simply existing as whatever gender is not going to fix or worsen the problem. Your behavior is what matters.
You cannot affect social change if you yourself are drowning. Being a visible "woman" in a male-dominated field like STEM is going to be meaningless if you are not actively carving out space for yourself in order to thrive and help other women do the same. And I don't see any of that happening if you're wilting away in the closet.
If you transition to male, you are still trans. You are still vulnerable in ways cis men are not. And you are still in a position to uniquely understand and support women and non-binary people, especially because of the overlapping oppressions we face -- discrimination in reproductive care, wage gaps, etc.
For example, I very much use my male privilege in my own spaces to fight for fair pay for my female and non-binary co-workers. I share my salary info with them so they know if they should push for a raise, and have been the organizing face of multiple lawsuits now wrt wage theft, even when my own paycheck was fine.
You can use the experience of transition to hone your empathy, social awareness, critical thinking skills, humility, and courage to stand up to patriarchal power. You can do all of that as a man, and don't let anyone say otherwise.
Questions like this one from trans men always break my heart a little. I struggled with some similar ones while I was exploring masculinity/genderqueerness/the possibility of transness, and some of the particular feminist communities I was connected to at the time had a strong radfem streak and did not help. Coming from there, Iâve also badly hurt some neurodivergent/nonbinary/otherwise marginalized friends, and itâs taken me over a decade to sort through a lot of that. Thatâs an ongoing project.
As a result, I take a hard line on this: you donât owe any person or any movement the gender/sex of your body, your own relationship to your bodyâs sex/gender, or your own relationship to or rejection of gender. You deserve cognitive, emotional, and bodily autonomy in this deeply personal internal relationship. The world is better when more people have a grounded and loving relationship to their own gender (or absence of gender) and can act from a place of groundedness and safety in their own body. If you are a trans man, I love that for you. Welcome.
Itâs also ok if (at least for now) you canât be the one that your friends vent to about men as a group. I really hope you also have friends who vocally love and care for men - their friends, their family, their lovers. Thereâs a difference between burying your head in the sand about the real effects of sexism (or being an obnoxious reply guy) and intentionally making some space for this new gender to grow without always looking over your shoulder to check whether your precious new self is secretly inherently ruining the world, you know?
Written by Libby Banks for ASAN. This piece is for the autistic people who have been told, by themselves or others, that they are grieving i
"It means the watcher is finally off: no audience requiring a performance, no timeline imposing closure, no demand to feel a certain way by a certain date. For people who arenât watched by default, thatâs an ordinary condition; they reach it often. For many autistics, itâs rare. The audience went internal a long time ago, so emptying the room isnât enough â the monitor has to stand down too.
"Thatâs why it can take years. Not because the grief wasnât there, and not because we loved them less, but because the conditions that let grief happen for many of us â unwatched, unhurried â are the conditions we get least."
uninstall adobe acrobat. it is malware. it has been malware. these aren't opinions: acrobat meets the definition of malware.
it installs a user-login-time "startup" executable that ignores any windows directives to disable it on startup. doing so only removes the even-more-malicious taskbar-icon-creating advertisement-notification-creating process. no matter what you do, the sleeper "updater" process starts when you log in, and runs perpetually
it sends & receives encrypted network traffic both periodically and non-periodically. both are bad, both are suspicious, and a program doing both is more suspicious than the sum of their parts. and to boot: acrobat will polymorphically edit its code after such network activity
this isn't new: it has always done this. now, it does not even do the thing it is meant to: provide a way to interact with documents, which is amongst the very first features computers were built to provide. you can merely open PDFs and read some of their content in the narrow space between the requests for adobe to give them your money, and interface for features you cannot use (because you don't) or do not, have not, and will not ever need
adobe and microsoft would very much like the user's cultural norms around computers to allow for advertisement built into the local software and even operating system itself. the web being 100% advertisements was not enough! sure enough, acrobat will hijack the windows notifications system thing to give you the 2026 equivalent of pop-ups
i don't really know enough about windows software equivalents, so i'll paypal $20 to the first person that reblogs this with a list of 3-5 PDF reader/editor/etc acrobat equivalents that meet the following criteria:
open source, locally-built executables must match checksum of prebuilt distributed executable
no paid features/premium version/subscription/whatever
not a toy hobby project thing, must be windows-users-proof
Firefox's built-in PDF.js viewer: does everything you could want from a basic viewer, fast enough search, and can now do annotations for filling in forms and such
KDE Okular: is a decent viewer and can also do basic annotations, and is so not-a-toy that you can even download it on the Windows app store.
LibreOffice Draw: I don't ever really like having to open this but if you have to edit a PDF in detail it does work, and doesn't just vomit up a bunch of polygons when you give it text to work with. Better as an authoring tool than an editor.
For at least 4 years now, Adobe Acrobat has scanned to detect antivirus and anti-malware software, because it knows that its behavior runs afoul of their monitoring, and then adjusts its behavior to avoid detection when doing shady things:
See this Reddit thread.
Also, all this behavior is threatening to users' security and privacy in multiple ways. Not only is it bad on its own, but Adobe Reader has, for years, been a vehicle for hackers, viruses, and other malware to get access to people's computers and data.
When Adobe Reader itself starts evading and bypassing security measures, and this becomes accepted as the default, it will make it much easier for other bad players to use it as a way of taking control of your machine. A compromised application with lots of privileges and ability to evade oversight by antivirus programs is much more dangerous than an arbitrary compromised application.
If you care at all about security or privacy, never ever install Adobe Reader.
I've been exclusively using free alternatives to it for around 18 years now, and I very rarely run into any compatibility issues and the last time I did was more than 5 years ago.
there is a screen reader / magnification program that is the only one the low vision clinic knows of with these features and it is $650 Canadian Dollars behind specific approved vendors that require you to be geographically close to them and get government approval of a degree that I am only just now reaching after being visually impaired for going on seven years. I feel normal about this
if you can code a program that does any or all of the following:
Magnifies a display beyond standard options with keyboard / mouse movement inputs or voice commands,
Can read text on the screen,
Has different color filter options for text / background distinction,
Can change and magnify the cursor beyond standard amounts,
Works on Windows or more than just Windows,
Has a keyboard echo (says the character you've pressed on the keyboard out loud)
... there is a genuine, GENUINE need for you to code this and put it at a more accessible price point than $650 Canadian Dollars which I also just learned is a SUBSCRIPTION FEE AND NOT EVEN PERPETUAL. if you are reading this and able to code I am begging you. would genuinely change lives
Hello, tumblr! I saw something on here the other day that worried me, so I decided to Do Science about it. But I can't do it alone: I need your help to build the dataset!
Here's what I need you to do:
If you see a post with a "mature content" label, and it's 2026, DM me a link to the post.
Yes, that's really it.
I am hoping to collect several thousand such posts, so that I have a decent sized dataset. I do not care what the post is about; if it's labeled as "mature content", I want to add it to my dataset.
If I get 10,000 posts in my dataset before August 31st 2026, I will post my preliminary findings then. I won't feel comfortable calling my findings "settled" before 2027, unless I get over 50,000 posts.
Do you need affordable sewing supplies? Do you want to help cut down on waste and fast fashion?
Do yourself a favor and check out Swanson's Fabrics! The physical location is in Turners Falls, Massachusetts, USA, but the online shop will ship to you!
I can't remember who first told me about Swanson's, but they're a textile thrift shop that collects and repurposes donations of unused sewing supplies. Their physical location, The Stash House, offers community sewing resources and a studio. For non-locals (such as myself), their online shop offers fabrics, patterns, and notions. The shop restocks on Thursdays, and they have a constantly-rotating collection of items. If you like thrifting secondhand craft materials, Swanson's is for you!
Via their official "about" page:
Swansonâs Fabrics and notions are gifts from retired sewing stashes. They are the fabrics and supplies that sewers and fiber-artists naturally accumulate. I had a suspicion that the reason we all collect so much is that we didnât have a place âgood enoughâ to take it. So I made the place. Turns out I was right, and thanks to my community (and yours) of makers and crafters, I can resell these fine materials at a low, approachable cost.
ALL FABRICS ARE $5.00/yd, NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE MADE OF. REALLY. I MEAN IT. I KNOW. UNBELIEVABLE BUT TRUE!
As we come to grips with the climate crisis, interrupted supply lines, and our dependency on slave-labor in far away countries to produce our cotton and fiber goods, we need another way to approach the fabrics in our lives.
We have a massive resource of textile goods in our country and it is time to tap into it. Our attics, basements, thrift-store donation bins, and dumpsters are brimming with discarded fabrics. It is time to start making and trading for the things we need, and stop buying so much new stuff we donât. We need to see ourselves as trash-rich.
Customers at Swansonâs can pay for goods and services with goods and services. I accept trade of sewing and fiber supplies/materials, and trade for help in the shop.
I hope to inspire you to make your own clothes, to mend the ones you have, to shop second-hand and alter things to your taste. There is a lot of power in dressing yourself. Custom is king, and you canât have a revolution in your masterâs clothesâŚ.
â¤ď¸đŞđť
-Kathryn
The CovidSafeCosplay blog and its admin are unaffiliated with Swanson's Fabrics, and are simply sharing the resource.
Do you have a favorite place to get your crafting supplies? Share in the comments or via a reblog! Bonus points for those that prioritize sustainability, accessibility, community, and trade.
Lots of cities / areas have stores who also sell repurposed or donated fabrics! Hereâs one directory of creative reuse stores. (Though âcreative reuseâ is usually the key search term)
I get most of mine at Scrap in Ann Arbor (they also sell some items online) and New City Sewing Center in St. Louis.
hoohooo my linen arrived!! This should do me for 6 pairs of summer pants. Pants for many years to come. (I already have some black linen for pants too.)
I really donât want to open this can of worms because Tumblr hath no fury like people called out on their political performativeness but it is literally driving me up the wall to watch people react to Serkisâ âkeep Tolkien whiteâ commentary by insisting twice as hard that Tolkien would descend down to earth and dropkick the entire Republican party to hell or whatever, just because they want to ensure that a piece of media they enjoy isnât seen as being morally impure. Case in point: I have seen at least five instances of Tolkienâs âI hate apartheidâ valedictorian address being used as a âcounterâ to Serkis being racist, including by actual news outlets.
Except itâs only ever the âI hate apartheidâ line thatâs shared, and not the actual quote in its full context. Because here it is:
If we consider what Merton College and what the Oxford School of English owes to the Antipodes, to the Southern Hemisphere, especially to scholars born in Australia and New Zealand, it may well be felt that it is only just that one of them should now ascend an Oxford chair of English. Indeed it may be thought that justice has been delayed since 1925. There are of course other lands under the Southern Cross. I was born in one; though I do not claim to be the most learned of those who have come hither from the far end of the Dark Continent. But I have the hatred of apartheid in my bones; and most of all I detest the segregation or separation of Language and Literature. I do not care which of them you think White.
Which is to say. This isnât exactly the antiracist quote of the century, to say the least. This is a white South Africa born man and a white Australian shaking hands and going âomg we relateâ and expressing what is a very, very mild âsegregation is not greatâ opinion in order to convey his thoughts on an academic subject, ie the confluence of language and literature. Using race to make a point about his own subject of interest, in his own interest, which is, amusingly enough, what a lot of ostensibly well meaning progressive seem to be doing.
I also think that some of the general surprise around âwhat do you mean large swathes of the Tolkien fandom are incredibly conservative!?â in lib/left Tolkien fandom is the result of a tendency in said parts of the fandom to transpose oneâs own progressiveness onto Tolkien and turn a blind eye to things like, say, the Shire being a very specifically mid-century British racist construct that is very, very clear in its politics, often going so far as to insist itâs anarchist or an ideal society or whatever the fuck⌠and then getting really Pikachu-meme âbut theyâre misreading itâ every single time a conservative explains exactly what it is about the legendarium that they really love, and get surprised when someone uses the Shire being a racist construct to do more racism. It is 2026 let us do away with âI donât see colourâ interpretations of media, I beg. Nobody is cancelling you for enjoying a book that is not kind to race. Most of the books I love are not kind to race.
I genuinely donât have the energy to go deeper into it now because I and others have been beating this drum for ages but like man. Man. Iâm not surprised by Serkisâ comment. I donât really give a shit about what Andy Serkis says and does because if I was the kind of person who gave a fuck about Andy âI felt like an ethnic minority on the Black Panther setâ âI somehow interpreted Animal Farm in the most ridiculous way possibleâ Serkisâ opinions on anything, let alone race, my life would be much sadder. I think the adaptation will be an enshittified money-grab, and I will probably embrace cannibalism when McDonalds inevitably starts giving out little Gollums with every Happy Meal. Again.
What I am surprised and disappointed by is how the liberal-left reaction to this shit is to always and forever just either pretend it doesnât exist in the text, or is the result of a complete misreading. So seldom is the response âfuck me, this book has some real wild thoughts on race, letâs see how we can engage creatively with that in an adaptationâ. Which has never happened. In fact, all your thoughts on Amazon and lore faithfulness and other adaption criticism or applause aside, TROP, the only Tolkien interpretation that has directly engaged with race has thus far done so very, very badly, and only on a surface level. Why?
Because the loudest parts of liberal Tolkien fandom is not interested in exploring race as it exists in the text, to explore it progressively, to engage creatively with the structural conservatism present within the very construction of Middle Earth. Theyâre interested in concessions that change very little: you can have your brown elves, as long as we donât have to think about the implications of foundational aspects of our beloved world, which we relate to greatly and do not wish to think about why we relate to it beyond our own experience of encountering the text.
No, itâs always either an insistence that the Racists are Wrong because the Text is Pure, or a slight, grudging concession that Tolkien had âa few racist elementsâ but ânothing like the racism of todayâ. Of course itâs nothing like the racism of today. Tolkien isnât writing in 2026. It was the racism of yesterday, and it is very clearly written into the text. Tolkien is not your mildly problematic grandpa. Tolkien was an Oxford don with an enormous, wide-ranging cultural impact, and refusing to acknowledge that is the misreading, not the pointing out of or engagement with structural racism within the text.
There's also a version of this where people cite Tolkien's 1938 letter to the German publisher, ie the one where he refuses to confirm he's of "Aryan" descent and basically tells them to fuck off, as the other canonical "proof text" that Tolkien Was Not Racist, and it does the same flattening as the valedictorian quote. It's a great letter, very âget thee gone from my gateâ but it is also a letter about refusing a specific, legally coded Nazi racial category, not a statement about the internal racial logic of his own fiction.
Nobody is saying Tolkien was a fascist white supremacist Nazi. Hell, Tolkienâs own thoughts on military atrocity in general is pretty clear in the depictions of the escalating kinslayings. But people love to conflate "hated actual fascism, said so on the record and is very evident in his fiction" with "therefore the legendarium contains no racialised hierarchy," as though those two things have to rise or fall together, when they don't. You can be sincerely, personally opposed to Nazi race science and apartheid violence and still write a mythology where moral and aesthetic worth consistently map onto a Northern-European somatic ideal. Because the racialisation Tolkien both inherited and passed on wasn't Nazi race science, it was the broader Edwardian/interwar philological raciology he was actually swimming in, hell, drowning in, considering the Oxford environment. And I find it so, so frustrating how fandom keeps failing to make this distinction: structural racialisation and personal bigotry are not the same axis, and refusing to be measured on one doesn't clear you on the other.
The Southrons/Easterlings material is obviously the part most quoted when it comes to Tolkienâs âproblematic elementsâ except it's imo super telling how rarely it actually gets quoted compared to how often it gets vaguely waved at (except Charles E Mills. I love you Charles E Mills). Anyway âBlack men like half-trolls," swarthy, slant-eyed, riding out of the south and east to serve Sauron⌠itâs the same mapping of good-north/evil-south-and-east you get in a dozen other early-twentieth-century adventure texts. And this imo actually undermines the "it's just medievalism, calm down" defense, because medievalism is a selectively retrospective construction of which past you're claiming and which one you're othering, not some sort of static, neutral historical styling.
Tolkien's medievalism is specifically Northern European heroic-elegiac medievalism, the "Northernness" he talks about loving as a kid, and that aesthetic preference is not extractable from the racial hierarchy it produces on the page. You cannot keep the aesthetic and disclaim the politics because as in all art, the aesthetic is the politics, that's what "structural" means as opposed to "incidentalâ, and I just wish that many extremely clever people who understand this in a contemporary sense would allow themselves to feel uncomfortable and look at it in a beloved text.
Jackson's trilogy didn't invent racialisation in Tolkien, hell I think he even softened some of it because the Scouring is straight up impossible to adapt without it being very clear about its politics, but his adaptation does go quite some way make the existing racism legible⌠casting, costuming, choreography and cinematography does the same racialised sorting the text does, and does it visually: Uruk-hai as a kind of grunting brutalised, brutalistic mass, Haradrim on oliphaunts as a fairly straightforward Orientalist boogeyman, and the Fellowship itself photographed like a Pre-Raphaelite fantasy lmfao. Serkis isn't introducing a new interpretive layer with his commentary, hell Serkis was in all those Jackson films as well! Serkis is being very clear about what aspects of the legendarium matter to him, and that aspect happens to be the whiteness of it all. And I genuinely cannot understand why the huge âscandalâ around his comment is not that someone said the quiet part, but that saying it out loud is what became the scandal, taken as some kind of transgression against Tolkien and all his readers with Good Politicsâ˘ď¸, rather than the quarter-century of adaptations, readings, and analysis of the text that wordlessly encoded the racism and got called faithful and dedicated for it.
I didnât want to go to author is dead territory but. Fandom discourse keeps reaching for authorial intent as the arbiter of textual meaning in exactly the way most of these same people would reject in any other context. Everyone is a massive New Critic the second the author in question is someone they love. But Tolkien doesnât need to have consciously intended a racial hierarchy or a white nationalist mythology for the text to functionally produce one, for it to be so loved by conservatives and ethnonationalists who come fifty years after his time.
Intent is not even a contested position in literary theory, it's just the very basic understanding that "text has ideology independent of authorial intent". The insistence on relitigating Tolkien's personal feelings as though that settles the structural question is wild to me, and I find it so extremely unproductive how liberal fandom reaches for this constantly, repeatedly chanting Tolkienâs few vaguely liberal statements that read far less liberally in context. But I guess the alternative, ie reading the actual construction of race in the legendarium on its own terms, requires giving up the fantasy that the thing you love is politically inert. And itâs just so sad man. Like I fucking love the legendarium, and I think insisting on its moral purity is the worst thing you can do to it.
I think my entire argument can be summed up in a few questions. Why do conservatives keep saying "I love Tolkien" completely unashamedly, in a way they donât realy say about most other âcanonicalâ twentieth-century texts, while we on the left have to perform a whole apologetic dance before we say it? What is it that they embrace about the text, that we have to occlude in order to express an unproblematic âloveâ? Why do we have to disavow parts of a text to claim we love it? Who are we performing to? What are we losing in focusing so hard on this performance?
This is why the Serkis-style comment, or the Rings of Power casting discourse, ends up being the deepest engagement we collectively get in fandom terms. Because both "sides" of that fight are actually shallow in the same way, just from opposite ends. The right-wing backlash to diverse casting is, repulsively, responding to something absolutely present in the text: a defensive crouch around a racial aesthetic it identifies as being under threat. The liberal-left response, the "just add brown elves" gesture, claims the problem to be one of representation and casting rather than structure, which is precisely why the racial elements of The Rings of Power satisfies no one and changes nothing.
You can put actors of colour in NĂşmenor and Harfoot villages and yet the underlying moral framework of who is coded as inherently noble and who as inherently monstrous, whose skin colour the textual narrative uses as a standin for corruption, stays completely untouched. Again, see my TROP link above, with the jihadi-coding of the villains. Because that framework isn't located in the casting of an adaptation, it's located in the construction of Arda itself and physiognomy-as-morality at the level of the prose itself, constantly present throughout the text. Casting a Black actor as an elf doesn't do anything to the fact that "evil race coded as racially other" is still sitting right there in the Southrons and the orcs, unadapted, undiscussed, doing exactly the same work it always did, and this work takes on a new look in post-2001 adaptations.
So what you get is two adaptations of the same tiresome insanemaking discourse rather than two different arguments: the right defends the racial aesthetic as the substance of their love, and the liberal mainstream defends the fantasy that representation-level tweaks constitute engagement with race. And so, nobody actually produces the adaptation that takes seriously what nonwhite Tolkien scholars have been saying for decades, which is that you'd have to touch the orc/Southron/Valar/Valinor/blondeness architecture itself to ever productively have this conversation. Not diversify who plays the good guys, but interrogate why "evil" in this legendarium has a face and a hair colour and points compass east.
But if the talk about this goes on as it does, and continues between Tolkien the Pure versus Tolkien the Misread, there will never be anyone willing to make that adaptation, and weâll go on forever in a sisyphean climb, where both the reactionary embrace and the progressive denial are just two versions of refusing to read the same damn book. Basically, I think we on the left etc need to stop treating "is Tolkien racist" as a yes/no gate you have to clear before you're allowed to enjoy the books, and stop acting like enjoying problematic media makes you a fascist. We need to start treating the racialised architecture within Tolkienâs world as the actual object of study, same way you'd read imperial romance or Forster or Kipling or Haggard, without needing to acquit or convict the author first.
Which means we have to name the conservatism specifically rather than gesturing at "some outdated attitudes," trace where it comes from historically (the philological Northernness Tolkien grew up steeped in, not some special personal failing that reflects badly on you), and then ask what an adaptation would look like which dramatised that rather than smoothing over it or weaponising it. We have to let go of the idea that critical engagement is disloyalty, and let go of the idea that loving something requires defending its honour. We need to get the resilience needed to engage with the idea that a work can be both formative and ideologically compromised at the same time.
We donât need to resolve that tension into either adoring hagiography or totalising cancellation. If we do, we're going to keep getting âkeep the Shire whiteâ Serkis soundbites and âhooray we cast a brown elf in our we-invented-elf-jihadis show!â news cycles standing in for a conversation that hasn't actually started yet, and ngl buddies I have to say I personally will be biting people the next time I see yet another rendition of the same damn response-reaction cycle start again because everyone, both the conservatives and the left, wants the things they love to be a reflection of themselves, and will twist themselves into pretzels to ensure that remains the case.
hikes are very good yes but a deluxe hike is when you are accompanied by a freak with niche nature knowledge. theyâre like omg stop thereâs a horned valerian varmint beetle here and then you both get to crouch down and look at a bug like :)
Iâm reading a book on biofeedback trainings right now and they talk about this. The words âtryâ or âneedâ add pressure to stuff. Sometimes switching from âI need to calm downâ or âIâm trying to slow my breathingâ to âIâm allowing myself to calm down a little more with each exhaleâ or âIâm giving myself permission to slow my breathingâ can be more helpful. Thereâs a difference between âtry to relax the muscleâ and âallow the muscle to softenâ that is significant enough that for some people it can totally change the outcome of a relaxation exercise.
For other tips and tricks, instead of asking âwhyâ you canât change a thought/feeling (why being an offensive question, meaning it forces you to respond defensively - in this case defending the emotion you donât like) you can ask âis there any leeway or wiggle room with this feeling/thought/belief for something else?â Oftentimes we know multiple things at once, and by allowing for a small amount of ambiguity we can start to accept the situation more fully.
One of the worst parts of being chronically ill is how lonely it gets. You need a community to help you but you realize just how conditional your friendships are on you being able bodied.
blakekathryn
snowghoul
ellievsbear
tangentwithtanner
yousharknotpass
