Greetings

MR. SPIRO: Do you give these lectures at all of your depositions? MR. BANKSTON: I do, and you can watch them.

is ESPECIALLY hilarious to me having listened to multiple depositions Mark has had to take in the Sandy Hook case, where he has needed to lecture EVERY. SINGLE. ATTORNEY. at some point in the case about how they're violating Texas Rule XYZ, because they all, to a one, did something seriously ethically questionable during the deposition.

drew gooden video: The us governments obsession with integrating ai into every facet of our daily lives is going to bring about the collapse of society if we don’t get of our ass and start taking action

If you prioritize your own comfort and "rights as a person" (read: repeatedly demean/mock fanwork and endorse the harassment of other real human beings for things you personally dislike, including while actively seeking out things that distress you) over the wellbeing of others, you are being an asshole. If you are willing to flirt with other people as a joke but balk at people taking that (frankly tired and at times downright homophobic) joke seriously, you are being an asshole. If you are willing to take inspiration from fanwork that you enjoy, with or without crediting it, and still insist on being able to dictate what people can and cannot make based on your own moral standards, you are being an asshole.

Distress and disgust at fanwork you do not enjoy is completely valid. Requesting that it not be taken into spaces you manage or otherwise shown directly to you is totally fine, and if people insist on breaking the rules of your community space then that is absolutely a bannable offense. We would even personally go so far as to say that, should you be the type to "lurk" in your AO3 or Tumblr tags and happen to by sheer bad luck stumble on something that you dislike to an immense degree, quietly and without fanfare blocking/banning someone that you are personally uncomfortable with being in your community spaces is, in the grand scheme of things, relatively inoffensive. If you are actively seeking out things that distress you for the purpose of crossbanning those who create it, however, you are -- once again -- being an asshole.

We do not say this oft-tread punchline lightly: you are going to lose subscribers. You are going to lose the core backbone that makes up fandom, you are going to lose any respect your audience has for you, and the spaces you frequent and manage will begin to be considered unsafe by others. There are plenty of people who are the most polite, respectful, well-meaning, and boundaries-following individuals you could possibly want in a fandom*, and many of them will be driven away by this sort of behavior. You will instead be curating a fanbase full of those who can tolerate and potentially even engage with stalking, harassment, threats, and outright harm to others that you personally deem unacceptable.

*(We're talking model citizen by even the strictest standards. People with next to no interest in shipping (or smut, or RPF), who are actively engaging with community and seeking to bring in new fans, whose fanwork all falls fully within the bounds of the "acceptable" even when posted in private spaces, who are loudly and proudly allies for marginalized folks and are invested in deterring bigotry whenever possible.)

We are already seeing people actively distressed by the actions and behaviors of people they assumed they could trust (as role models or otherwise) -- and while the refrain no one you look up to is better than you are still applies here and may be cold comfort for us, that does little to alleviate the very real and material impact of people being soured on your work for good.*

*(And also, people will get hurt. Doxxing, persistent harassment, stalking, death/assault threats, falsified accusations, bigoted comments, the whole works. But even if that's less important than your own comfort so long as that stuff never touches you directly, it still hurts your bottom line and broader reputation to be associated with this sort of thing.)

We do not think having engaged in this behavior makes someone a bad person. We do not think having outdated, iffy, or misinformed beliefs makes someone a bad person. We do not consider speaking overly harshly at times or having an unawareness of one's impact on others to be a cardinal sin. It is, however, room for improvement and growth.

"Here's an entire systematic review finding that the pain box from Dune has literally no effect on anything related to detransition."

"Well it's important that we don't make people do things they regret"

But the gatekeeping model isn't just not helpful to detransitioners. It isn't just ineffective in preventing detransition. It's counterproductive.

What's less traumatic? What's less frightening and humiliating? What's less likely to lead to despair in that small fraction of patients who decide they need to stop/go back?

Option A: "You can transition if you want. Try HRT and see if you like the effects. If you're not sure, you can try a lower dose and ramp up gradually. If you want to stop, you can stop at any time. Some effects will gradually reverse themselves as your body readjust. Some may be permanent. But either way, you'll be fine. We affirm your right to make all decisions related to your transition, and we trust you to protect your own emotional wellbeing throughout this process. We're here to support you."

Option B: "You're about to make irreversible changes to your body, so we need to make sure you're making the right decision. What if you're delusional? Or immature? Or just a pervert? What if you haven't fully considered the potentially catastrophic effects of transition? You know this is mutilation of a healthy body, right? So are you sure? Are you sure? Are you really really sure? You can never go back! Point of no return! Last chance! Final countdown!"

Like, the point of this is obviously not to protect the dignity and peace of some hypothetical patient who got all the way through transition and then is like oh oops.

If that were the case, the emphasis would be completely different. It would not be stuck on let's make sure you're not about to fuck your life all the way up.

If there were any empathy or actual concern, any intrerest in detransitioners or their actual relationship to this gatekeeping process, the problem with this approach would be immediately clear. The problem with treating patients like they're not competent would be clear.

The spectre of transition regret exists to torment trans people and justify external (cis) control of transition. It's brutal because it's intended to brutalize. It's meant to create learned helplessness through shame, to punish everyone who transitions for the sin of self-determination.