Bisexual John Danziger Evangelist

we need to periodically remind everyone that a headline not including a person's name isn't an attempt to erase their identity from the narrative, it's just not good practice to put someone's name in a headline unless the reader can be expected to already know who they are

"if you can say the name in the article why can't you say the name in the headline?" what do you think a headline is for

relentlessly funny to me when people treat a relationship between someone in their 30s and someone in their 40s as "age difference". bro i cannot tell you which of my friends are 34 and which are 44. i can probably tell you which ones aren't 30 yet, but it's probable some of them are 50 now and i didn't notice. if you're over 30 and don't have kids, it's kinda all one age until you can collect social security.

And like I genuinely am loath to negatively discuss women’s bodies online and I think the way that famous women’s bodies are up for discussion online and in the press is upsetting and dehumanising and I feel a lot of compassion for women who are struggling with eating disorders and body image issues in the public eye however the fucking mass weight loss happening to all famous women either through eating disorders or weight loss medication cannot just go uncommented on. Nearly every single famous woman got skeletal overnight and it is so incredibly worrying both for them and for what it signals to other women and girls about how they should look.

it is of course easier to performatively ban children from social media than to do things like "actually challenge and regulate the abusive tactics tech companies use to extract people's data and money via social media" but if we did the second thing we wouldn't have any excuse to force people to use digital ID :(

obligatory reblog of this after I forgot to bookmark them (again)

All consent is dubious. Don't get me wrong, like, it's useful as a commonly accepted benchmark, but its such a flawed system that we absolutely cannot treat it as inviolable. If someone asks me for sex twice, and I say no the first time and yes the second, was I coerced or pressured into it? I said yes, didn't I? Does the other party hold any responsibility, given that as far as they can tell, I consented? If I later say that 'no, I was pressured into it,' what happens to my partner? The sex, under this binary definition of consent, was consensual sex. Two people, both said that magic word 'yes.' And then, by saying that I was pressured into it, have I retroactively changed the act into rape? Or was it always rape, but the other person couldn't tell? Who was the rapist, in that case? If I feel like I NEED to lose my virginity, seek out a partner, and have sex, is that all okay? Or have I been coerced? Obviously there's no rapist that can be singled out, no single person that forced the issue, everyone involved thought they were acting under their own will, but the forces of society that pressure people to act in specific ways was influencing the entire situation from start to finish! Consent is likely the best we're going to get, but its not a complete framework. It's a social construct.

All consent being dubious is a very real part of any consent education that goes deeper than the basic "no means no" conversation. This includes consent for things that aren't sexual. I really recommend the consent primer from consent.academy. I did one of of their 8 hour consent for leadership workshops thinking "theres no way that we can talk about this topic for 8 hours" and was laughably wrong. Consent requires information: you need all the information about what is going to happen in order to give real consent. This by itself can be super grey, or super black and white depending on the situation and the people involved. Consent requires capacity. Certain people are not capable of understanding sex well enough to consent, like children. Capacity can also change suddenly. Tired? Drunk? Overwhelmed? Capacity can diminish from any altered state of consciousness. That's a gradient too. Now what about people with developmental disabilities and people with mental illness that severely limits their perception? These people are adults and have the right to have their sexual needs met. So we have to contend with what diminished capacity means for them. To say nothing of the complexity in boundary setting, negotiating, and finding joy in riding the grey areas where implicit consent is preferred. We have to do away with this idea that there are rapists and victims and every sexual consent violation fits into that dichotomy. Sexual consent is often violated passively, on accident. Trauma can sometimes be caused by a tiny miscommunication. It's important to carry that nuance and apply transformative accountability and restorative justice instead of punitive justice.

the way ozempic has finally made the fact that eating healthy and exercising doesn't necessarily make you thin well known and society's reaction to this is not "oh i guess being thin or fat doesn't actually show if you're healthy" but "oh i guess everyone should be on this drug"

I hate that this is infact how ozempic is viewed now because I watched, in real time, how my mothers diabetes got significantly better on ozempic, she didn't start it for weight loss, infact she started it before it even got big for weight loss, but all people can talk about is the weight loss on ozempic and not how good it is as a diabetes medication. Watching my mom find energy and happiness because for once a drug wasn't making her lethargic and miserable was wonderful, she was able to feel better, but then it was spouted as this miracle weight loss drug, and suddenly she just couldn't access it anymore at a good price. Not only has the ozempidemic made fatphobia normal in an already fatphobic society but it's making it harder to access for people who genuinely need it because it's seen as a luxury cosmetic drug.

my A1C (long-term blood sugar test) tends to waver up and down between just barely below the pre-diabetic range to up into the low end of the diabetic range, and due to a long family history there's a good chance of it progressing to diabetes if it isn't kept under control. Ozempic, or another glp1, would actually be really helpful for leveling out my blood sugar and keeping me from progressing towards actual diabetes. However, because so many people have been trying to get on it, the state insurance i have has tightened the requirements for coverage, and now you need two back-to-back tests in the full diabetic range to get on the drug, and because my blood sugar fluctuates so much in the long term my tests aren't consistent enough for me to qualify despite the fact that it would be genuinely very helpful for keeping me from developing diabetes. i'm so fucking sick of it being a fucking cosmetic drug i swear to god.

[image text: Got a really crazy fic coming up in the next 7-8 years. Stay tuned. /end]

reblog and put in the tags what your childhood password that you just stuck with is!