have you guys seen the enemy to lovers romcom that is Heat 1995
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
No title available

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Mike Driver
cherry valley forever

Love Begins
Sweet Seals For You, Always
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

blake kathryn
NASA
will byers stan first human second
occasionally subtle
taylor price
almost home
YOU ARE THE REASON

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Sade Olutola
ojovivo

PR's Tumblrdome
seen from Australia
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 Canada

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from South Korea

seen from Singapore

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from Taiwan

seen from Singapore
@fall-on-demand
have you guys seen the enemy to lovers romcom that is Heat 1995
i feel like the reason that dating is so frustrating in certain ways is because it is a process that solicits like basically zero feedback and therefore is like impossible to figure out what is actually the problem (if one even exists)
My life got a lot better when I finally stopped referring to myself as "nonbinary" (a term I always disliked and only used begrudgingly because there was no other term for "genderweird" that people nowadays acknowledge as legit) and started just calling myself "gay."
Looking for something spooky to watch that will also make your friends wish they never met you? This is a list you need to read.
how many of these movies have you seen
none
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
I've seen all of these, including the bonus entry
the thing about disability is it really does sometimes boil down to "wow i wish i could do that" and then you can't. and it sucks.
accomodations are important but i think they miss the point of this post. sometimes you can't do it. at all. someone needs to do it for you or it will never happen.
"and then you force yourself anyway" folks im starting to think some of you really do not understand what it means to not be able to do things.
There's "can't do it" as in a task that is trivial to most people would take me 10 times as long and/or burn up most of a day's spoons. There's "can't do it" as in it's painful and dangerous for me, and I really really shouldn't.
And then there's can't as in flatly impossible. If my life depended on doing this thing even once I would die.
The first categories do need help and accommodation, but it's important to recognize that the last category does exist.
Do you remember this photograph? In the United States, people have taken pains to banish it from the record of September 11, 2001. The story behind it, though, and the search for the man pictured in it, are our most intimate connection to the horror of that day.
They began jumping not long after the first plane hit the North Tower, not long after the fire started. They kept jumping until the tower fell. They jumped through windows already broken and then, later, through windows they broke themselves. They jumped to escape the smoke and the fire; they jumped when the ceilings fell and the floors collapsed; they jumped just to breathe once more before they died. They jumped continually, from all four sides of the building, and from all floors above and around the building’s fatal wound. They jumped from the offices of Marsh & McLennan, the insurance company; from the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond-trading company; from Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors—the top. For more than an hour and a half, they streamed from the building, one after another, consecutively rather than en masse, as if each individual required the sight of another individual jumping before mustering the courage to jump himself or herself. One photograph, taken at a distance, shows people jumping in perfect sequence, like parachutists, forming an arc composed of three plummeting people, evenly spaced. Indeed, there were reports that some tried parachuting, before the force generated by their fall ripped the drapes, the tablecloths, the desperately gathered fabric, from their hands. They were all, obviously, very much alive on their way down, and their way down lasted an approximate count of ten seconds. They were all, obviously, not just killed when they landed but destroyed, in body though not, one prays, in soul. One hit a fireman on the ground and killed him; the fireman’s body was anointed by Father Mychal Judge, whose own death, shortly thereafter, was embraced as an example of martyrdom after the photograph—the redemptive tableau—of firefighters carrying his body from the rubble made its way around the world.
From the beginning, the spectacle of doomed people jumping from the upper floors of the World Trade Center resisted redemption. They were called “jumpers” or “the jumpers,” as though they represented a new lemminglike class. The trial that hundreds endured in the building and then in the air became its own kind of trial for the thousands watching them from the ground. No one ever got used to it; no one who saw it wished to see it again, although, of course, many saw it again. Each jumper, no matter how many there were, brought fresh horror, elicited shock, tested the spirit, struck a lasting blow. Those tumbling through the air remained, by all accounts, eerily silent; those on the ground screamed. It was the sight of the jumpers that prompted Rudy Giuliani to say to his police commissioner, “We’re in uncharted waters now.” It was the sight of the jumpers that prompted a woman to wail, “God! Save their souls! They’re jumping! Oh, please God! Save their souls!” And it was, at last, the sight of the jumpers that provided the corrective to those who insisted on saying that what they were witnessing was “like a movie,” for this was an ending as unimaginable as it was unbearable: Americans responding to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world with acts of heroism, with acts of sacrifice, with acts of generosity, with acts of martyrdom, and, by terrible necessity, with one prolonged act of—if these words can be applied to mass murder—mass suicide…
The resistance to the image—to the images—started early, started immediately, started on the ground. A mother whispering to her distraught child a consoling lie: “Maybe they’re just birds, honey.” Bill Feehan, second in command at the fire department, chasing a bystander who was panning the jumpers with his video camera, demanding that he turn it off, bellowing, “Don’t you have any human decency?” before dying himself when the building came down. In the most photographed and videotaped day in the history of the world, the images of people jumping were the only images that became, by consensus, taboo—the only images from which Americans were proud to avert their eyes. All over the world, people saw the human stream debouch from the top of the North Tower, but here in the United States, we saw these images only until the networks decided not to allow such a harrowing view, out of respect for the families of those so publicly dying. At CNN, the footage was shown live, before people working in the newsroom knew what was happening; then, after what Walter Isaacson, who was then chairman of the network’s news bureau, calls “agonized discussions” with the “standards guy,” it was shown only if people in it were blurred and unidentifiable; then it was not shown at all.
And so it went. In 9/11, the documentary extracted from videotape shot by French brothers Jules and Gedeon Naudet, the filmmakers included a sonic sampling of the booming, rattling explosions the jumpers made upon impact but edited out the most disturbing thing about the sounds: the sheer frequency with which they occurred. In Rudy, the docudrama starring James Woods in the role of Mayor Giuliani, archival footage of the jumpers was first included, then cut out. In Here Is New York, an extensive exhibition of 9/11 images culled from the work of photographers both amateur and professional, there was, in the section titled “Victims,” but one picture of the jumpers, taken at a respectful distance; attached to it, on the Here Is New York Web site, a visitor offers this commentary: “This image is what made me glad for censuring [sic] in the endless pursuant media coverage.” More and more, the jumpers—and their images—were relegated to the Internet underbelly, where they became the provenance of the shock sites that also traffic in the autopsy photos of Nicole Brown Simpson and the videotape of Daniel Pearl’s execution, and where it is impossible to look at them without attendant feelings of shame and guilt. In a nation of voyeurs, the desire to face the most disturbing aspects of our most disturbing day was somehow ascribed to voyeurism, as though the jumpers’ experience, instead of being central to the horror, was tangential to it, a sideshow best forgotten.
It was no sideshow. The two most reputable estimates of the number of people who jumped to their deaths were prepared by The New York Times and USA Today. They differed dramatically. The Times, admittedly conservative, decided to count only what its reporters actually saw in the footage they collected, and it arrived at a figure of fifty. USA Today, whose editors used eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence in addition to what they found on video, came to the conclusion that at least two hundred people died by jumping—a count that the newspaper said authorities did not dispute. Both are intolerable estimates of human loss, but if the number provided by USA Today is accurate, then between 7 and 8 percent of those who died in New York City on September 11, 2001, died by jumping out of the buildings; it means that if we consider only the North Tower, where the vast majority of jumpers came from, the ratio is more like one in six.
And yet if one calls the New York Medical Examiner’s Office to learn its own estimate of how many people might have jumped, one does not get an answer but an admonition: “We don’t like to say they jumped. They didn’t jump. Nobody jumped. They were forced out, or blown out.” And if one Googles the words “how many jumped on 9/11,” one falls into some blogger’s trap, slugged “Go Away, No Jumpers Here,” where the bait is one’s own need to know: “I’ve got at least three entries in my referrer logs that show someone is doing a search on Google for ‘how many people jumped from WTC.’ My September 11 post had made mention of that terrible occurance [sic], so now any pervert looking for that will get my site’s URL. I’m disgusted. I tried, but cannot find any reason someone would want to know something like that…. Whatever. If that’s why you’re here—you’re busted. Now go away.”…
…the pictures that came out of the death camps of Europe were treated as essential acts of witness, without particular regard to the sensitivities of those who appeared in them or the surviving families of the dead. They were shown, as Richard Drew’s photographs of the freshly assassinated Robert Kennedy were shown. They were shown, as the photographs of Ethel Kennedy pleading with photographers not to take photographs were shown. They were shown as the photograph of the little Vietnamese girl running naked after a napalm attack was shown. They were shown as the photograph of Father Mychal Judge, graphically and unmistakably dead, was shown, and accepted as a kind of testament. They were shown as everything is shown, for, like the lens of a camera, history is a force that does not discriminate. What distinguishes the pictures of the jumpers from the pictures that have come before is that we—we Americans—are being asked to discriminate on their behalf. What distinguishes them, historically, is that we, as patriotic Americans, have agreed not to look at them. Dozens, scores, maybe hundreds of people died by leaping from a burning building, and we have somehow taken it upon ourselves to deem their deaths unworthy of witness—because we have somehow deemed the act of witness, in this one regard, unworthy of us….
…the only certainty we have is the certainty we had at the start: At fifteen seconds after 9:41 a.m., on September 11, 2001, a photographer named Richard Drew took a picture of a man falling through the sky—falling through time as well as through space. The picture went all around the world, and then disappeared, as if we willed it away. One of the most famous photographs in human history became an unmarked grave, and the man buried inside its frame—the Falling Man—became the Unknown Soldier in a war whose end we have not yet seen. Richard Drew’s photograph is all we know of him, and yet all we know of him becomes a measure of what we know of ourselves. The picture is his cenotaph, and like the monuments dedicated to the memory of unknown soldiers everywhere, it asks that we look at it, and make one simple acknowledgment.
That we have known who the Falling Man is all along.
This article from 2016 about those who jumped from the Twin Towers- focusing most on the single individual in the famous picture above- is truly jaw-dropping. Also, among the wild details in it: the person who shot that photograph is also one of the four photographers who shot pictures of Bobby Kennedy’s body immediately after his assassination.
a) This article is excellent, and
b) I’ve never understood the weird “suicide” taboo around the jumpers. Like even if you believe suicide is a sin, surely you can understand the difference between “jumping out of a burning building in desperation” and “shooting yourself because your wife left you.” The first one isn’t a “choice” by any reasonable metric. On top of that, a lot of the “jumpers” probably fell – they bumbled out of windows by accident because they were instinctively recoiling from the heat, smoke, fire, collapsing ceilings, etc. But even for the ones who did consciously “choose” to jump (because surely there were ones who did), that’s still not meaningfully a “choice.” Those people didn’t want to die. The family members freaking out over the possibility of “what if my dead loved one was a jumper, and therefore a Bad Person” is so unnecessary. Like I’m trying to be empathetic here, but when I hear the wife saying “no, it can’t be my husband, he wouldn’t abandon us like that,” I’m like okay let’s stick you in a burning skyscraper and see how long you last before jumping out a window. Do you really think you’d be “strong” enough to just sit still in an office chair and let yourself burn to death?
Like even if you’re devoutly religious, it’s not hard to argue that the 9/11 “jumpers” don’t count as suicides.
c) That said, I do think there’s another more valid reason why the “jumper” photos are taboo: It’s rare in our culture to see photos of a person in the moment right before death. The Bobby Kennedy and Father Judge photos were after death, and the napalm girl is still alive. I think there’s a particular type of existential angst attached to photos of a person who’s about to die, and who knows in that moment that they are about to die. I can see why a photograph of someone caught in that moment would be considered too personal, too violating, too intrusive to be printed publicly.
Come to think of it: The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire is another historical event where some of the victims jumped to their deaths to escape a fire, and ime this fact is always mentioned in historical accounts of the event, and is never censored or regarded as taboo and the jumpers are not considered suicides. Why the difference?
a) There are no photos of the Triangle Shirtwaist jumpers (to my knowledge), so the horror maybe feels less visceral to modern people.
b) The Triangle Shirtwaist building was much shorter than the WTC -- the jumpers were falling only 8-10 stories -- so maybe it's easier for people to rationalize it as "well they were trying to escape the fire and hoped they'd be able to survive the fall." Whereas if you're jumping off the 90th floor of a skyscraper, you know with total certainty that you're going to die.
c) Gender? Race? The Triangle Shirtwaist victims were mostly young women and teenage girls, so maybe it's easier for modern observers to conceptualize those jumpers as tragic victims, or to stereotype them as emotional, hysterical, irrational, and therefore innocent of wrongdoing, where as the Falling Man is, well, an adult man, and our society is uncomfortable seeing an adult man in such a state of vulnerability. Also the Shirtwaist victims were mostly immigrants, whereas the 9/11 victims were (thought of as) Real Americans, so the latter deaths have an element of "Real America has been humiliated and brought to its knees" which the Shirtwaist deaths lack.
Do you remember this photograph? In the United States, people have taken pains to banish it from the record of September 11, 2001. The story behind it, though, and the search for the man pictured in it, are our most intimate connection to the horror of that day.
They began jumping not long after the first plane hit the North Tower, not long after the fire started. They kept jumping until the tower fell. They jumped through windows already broken and then, later, through windows they broke themselves. They jumped to escape the smoke and the fire; they jumped when the ceilings fell and the floors collapsed; they jumped just to breathe once more before they died. They jumped continually, from all four sides of the building, and from all floors above and around the building’s fatal wound. They jumped from the offices of Marsh & McLennan, the insurance company; from the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond-trading company; from Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors—the top. For more than an hour and a half, they streamed from the building, one after another, consecutively rather than en masse, as if each individual required the sight of another individual jumping before mustering the courage to jump himself or herself. One photograph, taken at a distance, shows people jumping in perfect sequence, like parachutists, forming an arc composed of three plummeting people, evenly spaced. Indeed, there were reports that some tried parachuting, before the force generated by their fall ripped the drapes, the tablecloths, the desperately gathered fabric, from their hands. They were all, obviously, very much alive on their way down, and their way down lasted an approximate count of ten seconds. They were all, obviously, not just killed when they landed but destroyed, in body though not, one prays, in soul. One hit a fireman on the ground and killed him; the fireman’s body was anointed by Father Mychal Judge, whose own death, shortly thereafter, was embraced as an example of martyrdom after the photograph—the redemptive tableau—of firefighters carrying his body from the rubble made its way around the world.
From the beginning, the spectacle of doomed people jumping from the upper floors of the World Trade Center resisted redemption. They were called “jumpers” or “the jumpers,” as though they represented a new lemminglike class. The trial that hundreds endured in the building and then in the air became its own kind of trial for the thousands watching them from the ground. No one ever got used to it; no one who saw it wished to see it again, although, of course, many saw it again. Each jumper, no matter how many there were, brought fresh horror, elicited shock, tested the spirit, struck a lasting blow. Those tumbling through the air remained, by all accounts, eerily silent; those on the ground screamed. It was the sight of the jumpers that prompted Rudy Giuliani to say to his police commissioner, “We’re in uncharted waters now.” It was the sight of the jumpers that prompted a woman to wail, “God! Save their souls! They’re jumping! Oh, please God! Save their souls!” And it was, at last, the sight of the jumpers that provided the corrective to those who insisted on saying that what they were witnessing was “like a movie,” for this was an ending as unimaginable as it was unbearable: Americans responding to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world with acts of heroism, with acts of sacrifice, with acts of generosity, with acts of martyrdom, and, by terrible necessity, with one prolonged act of—if these words can be applied to mass murder—mass suicide…
The resistance to the image—to the images—started early, started immediately, started on the ground. A mother whispering to her distraught child a consoling lie: “Maybe they’re just birds, honey.” Bill Feehan, second in command at the fire department, chasing a bystander who was panning the jumpers with his video camera, demanding that he turn it off, bellowing, “Don’t you have any human decency?” before dying himself when the building came down. In the most photographed and videotaped day in the history of the world, the images of people jumping were the only images that became, by consensus, taboo—the only images from which Americans were proud to avert their eyes. All over the world, people saw the human stream debouch from the top of the North Tower, but here in the United States, we saw these images only until the networks decided not to allow such a harrowing view, out of respect for the families of those so publicly dying. At CNN, the footage was shown live, before people working in the newsroom knew what was happening; then, after what Walter Isaacson, who was then chairman of the network’s news bureau, calls “agonized discussions” with the “standards guy,” it was shown only if people in it were blurred and unidentifiable; then it was not shown at all.
And so it went. In 9/11, the documentary extracted from videotape shot by French brothers Jules and Gedeon Naudet, the filmmakers included a sonic sampling of the booming, rattling explosions the jumpers made upon impact but edited out the most disturbing thing about the sounds: the sheer frequency with which they occurred. In Rudy, the docudrama starring James Woods in the role of Mayor Giuliani, archival footage of the jumpers was first included, then cut out. In Here Is New York, an extensive exhibition of 9/11 images culled from the work of photographers both amateur and professional, there was, in the section titled “Victims,” but one picture of the jumpers, taken at a respectful distance; attached to it, on the Here Is New York Web site, a visitor offers this commentary: “This image is what made me glad for censuring [sic] in the endless pursuant media coverage.” More and more, the jumpers—and their images—were relegated to the Internet underbelly, where they became the provenance of the shock sites that also traffic in the autopsy photos of Nicole Brown Simpson and the videotape of Daniel Pearl’s execution, and where it is impossible to look at them without attendant feelings of shame and guilt. In a nation of voyeurs, the desire to face the most disturbing aspects of our most disturbing day was somehow ascribed to voyeurism, as though the jumpers’ experience, instead of being central to the horror, was tangential to it, a sideshow best forgotten.
It was no sideshow. The two most reputable estimates of the number of people who jumped to their deaths were prepared by The New York Times and USA Today. They differed dramatically. The Times, admittedly conservative, decided to count only what its reporters actually saw in the footage they collected, and it arrived at a figure of fifty. USA Today, whose editors used eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence in addition to what they found on video, came to the conclusion that at least two hundred people died by jumping—a count that the newspaper said authorities did not dispute. Both are intolerable estimates of human loss, but if the number provided by USA Today is accurate, then between 7 and 8 percent of those who died in New York City on September 11, 2001, died by jumping out of the buildings; it means that if we consider only the North Tower, where the vast majority of jumpers came from, the ratio is more like one in six.
And yet if one calls the New York Medical Examiner’s Office to learn its own estimate of how many people might have jumped, one does not get an answer but an admonition: “We don’t like to say they jumped. They didn’t jump. Nobody jumped. They were forced out, or blown out.” And if one Googles the words “how many jumped on 9/11,” one falls into some blogger’s trap, slugged “Go Away, No Jumpers Here,” where the bait is one’s own need to know: “I’ve got at least three entries in my referrer logs that show someone is doing a search on Google for ‘how many people jumped from WTC.’ My September 11 post had made mention of that terrible occurance [sic], so now any pervert looking for that will get my site’s URL. I’m disgusted. I tried, but cannot find any reason someone would want to know something like that…. Whatever. If that’s why you’re here—you’re busted. Now go away.”…
…the pictures that came out of the death camps of Europe were treated as essential acts of witness, without particular regard to the sensitivities of those who appeared in them or the surviving families of the dead. They were shown, as Richard Drew’s photographs of the freshly assassinated Robert Kennedy were shown. They were shown, as the photographs of Ethel Kennedy pleading with photographers not to take photographs were shown. They were shown as the photograph of the little Vietnamese girl running naked after a napalm attack was shown. They were shown as the photograph of Father Mychal Judge, graphically and unmistakably dead, was shown, and accepted as a kind of testament. They were shown as everything is shown, for, like the lens of a camera, history is a force that does not discriminate. What distinguishes the pictures of the jumpers from the pictures that have come before is that we—we Americans—are being asked to discriminate on their behalf. What distinguishes them, historically, is that we, as patriotic Americans, have agreed not to look at them. Dozens, scores, maybe hundreds of people died by leaping from a burning building, and we have somehow taken it upon ourselves to deem their deaths unworthy of witness—because we have somehow deemed the act of witness, in this one regard, unworthy of us….
…the only certainty we have is the certainty we had at the start: At fifteen seconds after 9:41 a.m., on September 11, 2001, a photographer named Richard Drew took a picture of a man falling through the sky—falling through time as well as through space. The picture went all around the world, and then disappeared, as if we willed it away. One of the most famous photographs in human history became an unmarked grave, and the man buried inside its frame—the Falling Man—became the Unknown Soldier in a war whose end we have not yet seen. Richard Drew’s photograph is all we know of him, and yet all we know of him becomes a measure of what we know of ourselves. The picture is his cenotaph, and like the monuments dedicated to the memory of unknown soldiers everywhere, it asks that we look at it, and make one simple acknowledgment.
That we have known who the Falling Man is all along.
This article from 2016 about those who jumped from the Twin Towers- focusing most on the single individual in the famous picture above- is truly jaw-dropping. Also, among the wild details in it: the person who shot that photograph is also one of the four photographers who shot pictures of Bobby Kennedy’s body immediately after his assassination.
a) This article is excellent, and
b) I've never understood the weird "suicide" taboo around the jumpers. Like even if you believe suicide is a sin, surely you can understand the difference between "jumping out of a burning building in desperation" and "shooting yourself because your wife left you." The first one isn't a "choice" by any reasonable metric. On top of that, a lot of the "jumpers" probably fell -- they bumbled out of windows by accident because they were instinctively recoiling from the heat, smoke, fire, collapsing ceilings, etc. But even for the ones who did consciously "choose" to jump (because surely there were ones who did), that's still not meaningfully a "choice." Those people didn't want to die. The family members freaking out over the possibility of "what if my dead loved one was a jumper, and therefore a Bad Person" is so unnecessary. Like I'm trying to be empathetic here, but when I hear the wife saying "no, it can't be my husband, he wouldn't abandon us like that," I'm like okay let's stick you in a burning skyscraper and see how long you last before jumping out a window. Do you really think you'd be "strong" enough to just sit still in an office chair and let yourself burn to death?
Like even if you're devoutly religious, it's not hard to argue that the 9/11 "jumpers" don't count as suicides.
c) That said, I do think there's another more valid reason why the "jumper" photos are taboo: It's rare in our culture to see photos of a person in the moment right before death. The Bobby Kennedy and Father Judge photos were after death, and the napalm girl is still alive. I think there's a particular type of existential angst attached to photos of a person who's about to die, and who knows in that moment that they are about to die. I can see why a photograph of someone caught in that moment would be considered too personal, too violating, too intrusive to be printed publicly.
"Surrogacy is unethical, people should just adopt or foster!"
Hello, I have bad news for you about the ethics of the adoption industry (like for starters, the part where it's an "industry"), and also fostering is not for the faint of heart bc that system is a hottttt mess.
Hiroo Isono
In a language that contains words like devotion, passion, enthusiasm, love, fascination, obsession, etc., I can’t help but regret this tendency to cram all those meanings into "hyperfixation," a word which manages to pathologize and medicalize the act of having interests.
the egg prime directive is equivalent to coming across a girl sitting sad and alone in a hole in the ground where the sun never shines, she asks you weakly “hey should i maybe instead be up there with all of you?” and then instead of saying “yes sweetheart, take my hand” you just shrug and wordlessly toss her an instruction booklet on how to build a ladder with the sticks which may or may not occasionally fall into said hole in the ground. and this is supposed to be the default protocol
like how dispassionate can you be. fuck that we’re cracking those bitches and making a biiiiiiig girl omelette
thanks to @charl0ttan for not only handling this reply but for helping me pin down precisely why the egg prime directive pisses me off so much.
to really understand the “egg prime directive” i think it’s necessary to look back on its basis and namesake, star trek’s “prime directive”. as charlotte pointed out, the prime directive is predicated firmly on a basis of non-interference with developing civilizations out of a fear of swaying their development. when this same logic is applied to trans women however, it paints transfemininity as a kind of forbidden promethean knowledge that’s being withheld by an enlightened third party for the egg’s own good.
and really, the most damning issue with the epd is that it betrays a complete lack of understanding of the material which forms its ideological foundation. within star trek, the prime directive is repeatedly framed as something that is necessary to be broken in order to save lives. it’s just the same with the egg prime directive!
the worst case scenario when politely pointing out that someone might be a trans woman is they try it and they don’t like it. the best case scenario is that it saves her fucking life. to act like there’s some moral imperative not to educate our peers on transfemininity… to actively shield them from it… it’s insidious, to put it bluntly.
No, the worst case scenario is that the person gets angry and defensive and starts lashing out at you and then you possibly lose a friend over it, and then the person's progress gets delayed because they're defensively shoving themself deeper in the closet.
Closeted trans people tend to react really badly to someone else suggesting "hey you might be trans???" because being trans is scary and intimidating, and this is extra true for closeted trans women because they are the most oppressed and therefore have the most to lose and the most to fear by coming out. If you function as a man in society with the privileges and protections that entails, you are not gonna react well to someone saying "hey maybe you're a member of that tiny stigmatized minority group everyone else uses as a punching bag?"
When people (transfems especially) are like "ohhhhh I wish someone had just told me I was trans sooner, why are you bitches all so mean, why did you leave me hanging," I'm like, yeah but would your in-denial emotionally-volatile deeply-closeted past self have reacted well to that information? Be serious.
Experienced out-of-the-closet transes don't want to deal with this shit because we have our own lives to live. We're not interested in being someone's Cassandra. Being a Cassandra sucks! It's not fun.
I have 3 friends (1 amab and 2 afab) who are currently vibing along in various states of theythem or theyasab, but all of whom I strongly suspect are much much trans-er than they currently realize. One of them is even currently dating someone whose sexuality is probably incompatible with their true gender (if I'm correct about their true gender) which makes that situation more dire and urgent. But I'm still not close enough friends with any of these 3 people to even attempt to have an egg-cracking conversation, because you have to be pretty close friends for that conversation to not feel really weird and violating for the recipient, thus ensuring the recipient will shoot the messenger. If these 3 people ask me questions about gender stuff, I happily answer them (and try to subtly nudge them in the right direction), but otherwise my hands are tied. And besides: I might be wrong about these 3 people! Maybe their current gender is the correct one and all the "egg vibes" I'm seeing are just smoke and mirrors.
And that's the thing: Online trans women really overestimate their own ability to detect "eggs," and so goddamn weird, and arrogant. Y'all are so certain that you Just Know who is a woman and who isn't, but you don't! You don't know other people like that. It's like y'all are allergic to the idea that amab they/thems and he/theys exist.
Also I have a theythem transfeminine friend who has said that in their 20s, when they were newly ID-ing as nb, they'd have interactions with binary trans women whose vibe was "yeah you say you're 'nonbinary,' but We Know you'll end up as a trans woman someday." Anyway after 10 years, a couple surgeries, and countless estrogen shots, my friend is still firmly a theythem with a short haircut who still presents very androgynously, to the point where you could mistake them for transmasc.
Anyway: You don't know people like that!
I've had a friend respond to my new haircut and style with journalistic eagerness to hear about my new pronouns and it felt really bad. Great, my taking another step towards choosing my own presentation in the world means nothing except potential evidence of how in-the-know you are, that you want to be one of the first ones to get (and spread) the news.
I still don't know what my whole deal with gender is (and I've been actively chewing on it for most of my life at this point), but that kind of bullshit is actively unhelpful to me ever working it out, as well as being damn rude.
People do not exist as pawns for your identity as The One Who Knows or your projection space for wishing you had figured yourself out earlier. People are their own people. Trying to crack someone else's egg for them is an act of violence and erasure.
"People do not exist as pawns for your identity as The One Who Knows or your projection space for wishing you had figured yourself out earlier."
This is EXTREMELY the important point, and phrased better than I could have.
Very glad that I started lifting weights before I got top surgery, bc it means that even just a few months post-surgery I already have some pectoral muscle definition that's nicely visible in skintight shirts.
the egg prime directive is equivalent to coming across a girl sitting sad and alone in a hole in the ground where the sun never shines, she asks you weakly “hey should i maybe instead be up there with all of you?” and then instead of saying “yes sweetheart, take my hand” you just shrug and wordlessly toss her an instruction booklet on how to build a ladder with the sticks which may or may not occasionally fall into said hole in the ground. and this is supposed to be the default protocol
like how dispassionate can you be. fuck that we’re cracking those bitches and making a biiiiiiig girl omelette
thanks to @charl0ttan for not only handling this reply but for helping me pin down precisely why the egg prime directive pisses me off so much.
to really understand the “egg prime directive” i think it’s necessary to look back on its basis and namesake, star trek’s “prime directive”. as charlotte pointed out, the prime directive is predicated firmly on a basis of non-interference with developing civilizations out of a fear of swaying their development. when this same logic is applied to trans women however, it paints transfemininity as a kind of forbidden promethean knowledge that’s being withheld by an enlightened third party for the egg’s own good.
and really, the most damning issue with the epd is that it betrays a complete lack of understanding of the material which forms its ideological foundation. within star trek, the prime directive is repeatedly framed as something that is necessary to be broken in order to save lives. it’s just the same with the egg prime directive!
the worst case scenario when politely pointing out that someone might be a trans woman is they try it and they don’t like it. the best case scenario is that it saves her fucking life. to act like there’s some moral imperative not to educate our peers on transfemininity… to actively shield them from it… it’s insidious, to put it bluntly.
No, the worst case scenario is that the person gets angry and defensive and starts lashing out at you and then you possibly lose a friend over it, and then the person's progress gets delayed because they're defensively shoving themself deeper in the closet.
Closeted trans people tend to react really badly to someone else suggesting "hey you might be trans???" because being trans is scary and intimidating, and this is extra true for closeted trans women because they are the most oppressed and therefore have the most to lose and the most to fear by coming out. If you function as a man in society with the privileges and protections that entails, you are not gonna react well to someone saying "hey maybe you're a member of that tiny stigmatized minority group everyone else uses as a punching bag?"
When people (transfems especially) are like "ohhhhh I wish someone had just told me I was trans sooner, why are you bitches all so mean, why did you leave me hanging," I'm like, yeah but would your in-denial emotionally-volatile deeply-closeted past self have reacted well to that information? Be serious.
Experienced out-of-the-closet transes don't want to deal with this shit because we have our own lives to live. We're not interested in being someone's Cassandra. Being a Cassandra sucks! It's not fun.
I have 3 friends (1 amab and 2 afab) who are currently vibing along in various states of theythem or theyasab, but all of whom I strongly suspect are much much trans-er than they currently realize. One of them is even currently dating someone whose sexuality is probably incompatible with their true gender (if I'm correct about their true gender) which makes that situation more dire and urgent. But I'm still not close enough friends with any of these 3 people to even attempt to have an egg-cracking conversation, because you have to be pretty close friends for that conversation to not feel really weird and violating for the recipient, thus ensuring the recipient will shoot the messenger. If these 3 people ask me questions about gender stuff, I happily answer them (and try to subtly nudge them in the right direction), but otherwise my hands are tied. And besides: I might be wrong about these 3 people! Maybe their current gender is the correct one and all the "egg vibes" I'm seeing are just smoke and mirrors.
And that's the thing: Online trans women really overestimate their own ability to detect "eggs," and so goddamn weird, and arrogant. Y'all are so certain that you Just Know who is a woman and who isn't, but you don't! You don't know other people like that. It's like y'all are allergic to the idea that amab they/thems and he/theys exist.
Also I have a theythem transfeminine friend who has said that in their 20s, when they were newly ID-ing as nb, they'd have interactions with binary trans women whose vibe was "yeah you say you're 'nonbinary,' but We Know you'll end up as a trans woman someday." Anyway after 10 years, a couple surgeries, and countless estrogen shots, my friend is still firmly a theythem with a short haircut who still presents very androgynously, to the point where you could mistake them for transmasc.
Anyway: You don't know people like that!
the egg prime directive is equivalent to coming across a girl sitting sad and alone in a hole in the ground where the sun never shines, she asks you weakly “hey should i maybe instead be up there with all of you?” and then instead of saying “yes sweetheart, take my hand” you just shrug and wordlessly toss her an instruction booklet on how to build a ladder with the sticks which may or may not occasionally fall into said hole in the ground. and this is supposed to be the default protocol
like how dispassionate can you be. fuck that we’re cracking those bitches and making a biiiiiiig girl omelette
thanks to @charl0ttan for not only handling this reply but for helping me pin down precisely why the egg prime directive pisses me off so much.
to really understand the “egg prime directive” i think it’s necessary to look back on its basis and namesake, star trek’s “prime directive”. as charlotte pointed out, the prime directive is predicated firmly on a basis of non-interference with developing civilizations out of a fear of swaying their development. when this same logic is applied to trans women however, it paints transfemininity as a kind of forbidden promethean knowledge that’s being withheld by an enlightened third party for the egg’s own good.
and really, the most damning issue with the epd is that it betrays a complete lack of understanding of the material which forms its ideological foundation. within star trek, the prime directive is repeatedly framed as something that is necessary to be broken in order to save lives. it’s just the same with the egg prime directive!
the worst case scenario when politely pointing out that someone might be a trans woman is they try it and they don’t like it. the best case scenario is that it saves her fucking life. to act like there’s some moral imperative not to educate our peers on transfemininity… to actively shield them from it… it’s insidious, to put it bluntly.
No, the worst case scenario is that the person gets angry and defensive and starts lashing out at you and then you possibly lose a friend over it, and then the person's progress gets delayed because they're defensively shoving themself deeper in the closet.
Closeted trans people tend to react really badly to someone else suggesting "hey you might be trans???" because being trans is scary and intimidating, and this is extra true for closeted trans women because they are the most oppressed and therefore have the most to lose and the most to fear by coming out. If you function as a man in society with the privileges and protections that entails, you are not gonna react well to someone saying "hey maybe you're a member of that tiny stigmatized minority group everyone else uses as a punching bag?"
When people (transfems especially) are like "ohhhhh I wish someone had just told me I was trans sooner, why are you bitches all so mean, why did you leave me hanging," I'm like, yeah but would your in-denial emotionally-volatile deeply-closeted past self have reacted well to that information? Be serious.
Experienced out-of-the-closet transes don't want to deal with this shit because we have our own lives to live. We're not interested in being someone's Cassandra. Being a Cassandra sucks! It's not fun.
I have 3 friends (1 amab and 2 afab) who are currently vibing along in various states of theythem or theyasab, but all of whom I strongly suspect are much much trans-er than they currently realize. One of them is even currently dating someone whose sexuality is probably incompatible with their true gender (if I'm correct about their true gender) which makes that situation more dire and urgent. But I'm still not close enough friends with any of these 3 people to even attempt to have an egg-cracking conversation, because you have to be pretty close friends for that conversation to not feel really weird and violating for the recipient, thus ensuring the recipient will shoot the messenger. If these 3 people ask me questions about gender stuff, I happily answer them (and try to subtly nudge them in the right direction), but otherwise my hands are tied. And besides: I might be wrong about these 3 people! Maybe their current gender is the correct one and all the "egg vibes" I'm seeing are just smoke and mirrors.
And that's the thing: Online trans women really overestimate their own ability to detect "eggs," and so goddamn weird, and arrogant. Y'all are so certain that you Just Know who is a woman and who isn't, but you don't! You don't know other people like that. It's like y'all are allergic to the idea that amab they/thems and he/theys exist.
78% of developers claim AI makes them more productive. 14% say it's a 10x improvement. So where's the flood of new software? Turns out those
sort of a summary of all the AI articles I've posted of late
My argument: If so many developers are so extraordinarily productive using these tools, where is the flood of shovelware? We should be seeing apps of all shapes and sizes, video games, new websites, mobile apps, software-as-a-service apps — we should be drowning in choice. We should be in the middle of an indie software revolution. We should be seeing 10,000 Tetris clones on Steam.
I glimpsed my housemate and their newish boyfriend interacting in a very specific way that sent me hurtling into a flashback to a Significant Moment in the saga of my favorite ex and I, a moment when we interacted that exact way, but under very heartbreaking circumstances. That moment happened 9 years ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday.
I often worry that am destined to be one of those people who had One Great Love that burned bright but lasted only a tragically short time, and who then was alone forever after, always living in the shadow of it. Which is better than never having a Great Love, obviously, and I try to remind myself of that. But my relationship resumé has been almost entirely blank since he exited my life 8 years ago and honestly it's not because he was perfect (he wasn't) and it's not because I'm still in love with him (other more recent crushes have superseded him somewhat, although those never resulted in even so much as a kiss, which is why he still sticks in the mind -- I miss the idea of him more than I miss the actual person). It's honestly just because of a long series of unfortunate events and bad luck, and because it turns out I'm very picky about partners because I am a peculiar person so finding someone who matches my vibe enough to be worth dating is difficult, especially now that I'm old and trans, so my dating pool is already small.
But being the person with the One Great Love Who Got Away makes me feel like my life is a movie, and not in a fun way. It's a movie that wins lots of awards and critical praise partly because it's very poignant and tragic and there's no happy ending. I keep waiting and waiting for the happy ending that will un-movie-ify my life, but it keeps not coming.
In short: There's a reason why I relate so hard to Millennium Actress, and why it emotionally destroyed me when I first saw it a few years ago.
it’s creepy that so much Art About The Pandemic is about being bored and isolated at home and sourdough starters and not about. people getting sick and dying.
Hmm, but "stories about people getting sick and dying" are very rare to begin with, right? And those that exist tend to be about slow and terminal illnesses, because those are the easiest to narrativize. COVID doesn't lend itself particularly well to that type of story -- the fact that it klilled a lot of people at once is only relevant if you want to tell a story about staff at a medical or care institution trying to hold down the fort, and that's a story you could tell anytime, but people mostly don't. Otherwise, the thing that separates COVID from other experiences of fatal infection is the weird isolation that came with it, the difficulty of visiting or travelling to see dying relatives and so on, the combination of intimacy and sterility. That's a compelling story, but it's hard to tell in an engaging way. So I think this has to be viewed less as a statement about how people think about the pandemic and more about what functions as a story.
The narrativization of COVID is mostly about lockdown rather than sickness because the individual experience of severe sickness and death is a story you could tell about any number of endemic illnesses, and the aggregate experience (that it was happening to far more people) was not so extreme as to support a human-level plague narrative. That aspect of the pandemic is best approached through nonfiction, because the key aspects of it are details like "how big an impact did this have" and "what challenges did governments and institutions face in managing it and setting policy", which work better as "documentary" than "narrative".
Also people forget: COVID only killed like 1-2% of the population? As opposed to plagues like the Black Death that killed 30%. For the overwhelming majority of the population, the COVID experience was boredom, isolation, and sourdough starters.
Plus, even if you knew someone who got sick or died, you didn't get to see or visit them, and the disease was swift to either kill or spare the victim, so that aspect fades from the memory.
Contrast with AIDS art, which heavily features death and disease partly bc AIDS takes a long time to kill you, and you look visibly horrible and sickly in public for months before your death. The slow grotesque dying was the main thing everyone noticed during AIDS (the other big things were the paranoia around sex and toilet seats, and the politics of stigma around homosexuality and recreational drug use).