i am the judas of the french canada

Before that, I didn't mind being a little girl so much. I didn't much enjoy being little, but little girls are not so different from little boys, except that I was taller than all of my male peers and you had better believe I was lording it over them, so the gender part did not bother me significantly. My dysphoria made itself fully known to me when my mother sat me down to explain to me that my body was going to change in a whole lot of ways that ranged from "I'm not thrilled about this" to "This is horrible and disgusting". When she told me about menstruation, I remember asking her, "How long will I have to deal with that?", and she said, "Something like forty, fifty years." I shouted, "Fifty YEARS?!?!" and promptly burst into inconsolable bawling.

All I could think then, and for many years afterward, was that I would so much rather have picked the other puberty. To me it seemed obvious and indisputable that testosterone puberty was the better option in every way. Nothing about estrogen puberty excited me and much of it revolted me. I dissociated from it and ignored it and dragged it along with me like mental deadweight. It took me until I was 13 for me to realise that most girls do not feel that estrogen puberty is a cosmic injustice inflicted against them personally, and that "I'd rather have gone through testosterone puberty; it's so much better anyway" is not a common thought among girls. That, in reality, half of the population vehemently disagreed with me, and the fact that I wasn't in that half of the population meant that I had some questions to ask myself. Once I realised this, the conclusion that I was non-binary was obvious, and took no time at all to come to terms with.

I am still angry that I was not able to access testosterone HRT in a timely enough manner to avoid my body being twisted into something so unlike me. But now that I am on HRT, my body changes in ways that don't feel tyrannical, that don't feel like a sick joke. It feels like a course correction. For once, when I see new changes with my body, I feel right. Even the things I didn't think I would enjoy bring me a sense of alignment with my body. I had no idea I could feel that way about my body. I consider it a gift primarily to my younger selves, all of whom still live within me, who had to watch their body betray them and who now get to feel something they always should have been able to experience.

To say of people that they are local is to imply that they are attached to a place, rooted, circumscribed, limited. People who are not local are thought of either as displaced, uprooted, disoriented—or more positively as unlimited, cosmopolitan, universal, belonging to the whole world (and the world belonging to them). Thus, Saudi theologians who invoke the authority of medieval Islamic texts are taken to be local; Western writers who invoke the authority of modern secular literature claim they are universal. Yet both are located in universes that have rules of inclusion and exclusion. Immigrants who arrive from South Asia to settle in Britain are described as uprooted; English officials who lived in British India were not. An obvious difference between them is power: the former become subjects of the Crown, the latter its representatives. What are the discursive definitions of authorized space? Everyone can relate themselves (or is allocated) to a multiplicity of spaces—phenomenal and conceptual—whose extensions are variously defined, and whose limits are variously imposed, transgressed, and reset. Modern capitalist enterprises and modernizing nation-states are the two most important powers that organize spaces today, defining, among other things, what is local and “what is not. Being locatable, local peoples are those who can be observed, reached, and manipulated as and when required. Knowledge about local peoples is not itself local knowledge, as some anthropologists have thought (Geertz 1983). Nor is it therefore simply universal in the sense of being accessible to everyone.”

Personal ad from the Village Voice, 1996 (longlostpersonals)

Quote from page 491:

"For a diagnosis of female sexual interest/arousal disorder to be made, clinically significant distress must accompany symptoms in Criterion A. Distress may be experienced as a result of the lack of sexual interest/arousal or as a result of significant interference in a women's life and well-being. If a life-long lack of sexual desire is better explained ny one's self-identification as "asexual," then a diagnosis of female sexual/arousal disorder would not be made."

Worse, there is no equivalent sentence for "men" and/or "male" persons, so their asexuality would straight up be pathologised and diagnosed as Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder.

Furthermore quote from page 779:

"A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that is currently causing distress or impairment to the individual [...]"

A secret moment - Ricardo Cherbeluka , 2025.

Brazilian , b. 1978 -

This is not to say that feeling anger is abusive; it's human to feel anger. But if you've ever felt like your anger was "unjustified" or were afraid to express it outwardly because you expected it to be dismissed ... ask yourself how you would react if the roles were reversed. I find that a lot of folks who were The Grown Up in a relationship with their parents hold themselves to much different standards than they hold other people.

Plugging away on this little project, about 1/3rd the way done.

Some talk about freedom from gendered expectations, but become weirdly dismissive or aggressive when people have complex genders that don't fit into 'so you're a boy' or 'so you're a girl'.

"You're not nonbinary, you have internalised transmisogyny and will one day realise you're a binary trans woman."

"Theyfabs love to remind you they're nonbinary when you call them men 🙄"

"Only AFAB people want to be nonbinary but they're still basically women."

"If you're AMAB and nonbinary you're clearly just a man trying to be special."

"Weaponising their special snowflake gender."

"Abolishing gender is binaryphobia."

Some AAVE speakers pluralize 'child' as 'childrens'. People get racist about this ("It's already plural!"), but 'children' actually comes from Middle English speakers doing the same thing: slapping their plural marker on word already pluralized by an extinct plural marker.

To oversimplify: in Old English, 'childer' ('ċildra') was the plural of 'child' ('ċild'). Middle English developed an '-en' plural marker, which we see in 'oxen'. Instead of updating to 'childen', people slapped their preferred '-en' onto the end of 'childer' - so now we have 'child-er-en'. AAVE carries on this tradition with 'child-er-en-s'.

"Pure" language is just impurity obscured by the passage of time.