Yo

“You get used to it” true but misleading because someday your back problems are gonna inexplicably cause stomach problems. And then you get used to the stomach problems but your thumbs start hurting because you had to do so much work on your phone lying in weird positions while waiting for the stomach problems to go away. And there are way more distractions on your phone too so while you always had adhd this just makes it more annoying/prevalent-

Q. You want to raise every boy as a girl? Yes.

Q. Why? A boy will learn to hate girls as long as he is raised in such a way where he is treated as better, and superior to, his girl peers, whenever he is cruel to girls. So, instead, we raise boys as girls.

Q. What if they say they are not a girl, and want to be acknowledged as boy? Then you know they are a boy, so you must make sure to understand them as boy, and not a girl.

Q. What does it mean to be 'raised as a girl'? That's up for you to decide. The only difference is that you should not raise boys any differently than you raise girls, since you raise every boy as a girl.

Q. Girls and boys are raised in specific ways for specific purposes, so it does not make sense to raise boys as girls. If you raise every boy as a girl, then there is no being which is not raised as a girl, so anyone raised as a girl necessarily must learn to do anything and everything to grow up, without restrictions on tasks, labours, or interests.

Q. But boys and girls are different. All two girls are different, and raising girls in one specific way destroys this individuality in favour of moulding girls to serve the same master. Still, the girls resist to live life on their own terms. If girls can be raised such that they know they can do anything they want, including not being girls, so too will boys raised as girls.

Q. Why not raise every girl as a boy? Because if a girl does not exist among boys, then the girl is made.

Q. Why not raise girls and boys as themselves? The self must be made in a world where girls and boys can first and foremost be themselves. One step towards this goal is to raise every boy as a girl.

Q. The way people raise girls is cruel, so why would you raise boys with that cruelty? If you raise girls with cruelty, then you should stop being cruel to girls.

can’t tag themselves. That’s what the

scientists are for

There is no research done on this to be able to definitively give an answer. I've written about this before, as well, but I'm feeling chatty.

However, according to anecdotal evidence by keepers around the world, after being hand raised male peafowl treat humans the same way as they would treat a rival peacock they hold a grudge against, and the aggression is almost always worse during mating season (exception cases where it's bad all year). This would seem to indicate that instead of seeing themselves as humans, peacocks see humans as "like them" ie: peacocks, and that the aggression is hormone based.

With peafowl, a male will attempt to chase off unrelated rival males. Related males form leks, but even males that have not ever met before seem to be able to clock blood relations (this actually was confirmed in scientific study, which I have talked about before so you can find it in the peafowl tag somewhere), and whatever method they use to do this, it cannot apply to humans (because you're definitely not able to be blood related to them). As such, the solution is only EVER going to be: chase off. But, humans are not going to be chased off by a bird they are keeping in a pen, and so begins a feedback loop of stress and aggression: they try to chase you off, they can't, they get frustrated and stressed and more desperate, rinse and repeat. This eventually, even with no reinforcement from you, leads them to be stressed even just seeing you, whether or not you're interacting.

However, most people I've seen aren't just "not doing anything," they are actively reinforcing the idea that they are a threat to the bird. They yell, they make sudden movements, they kick them, they pin them to the ground, they chase them around/carry them around, they spray them with hoses, they attack them with sticks/rakes/pool noodles... I have seen the gamut. And ALL of it reinforces the idea, to the peacock, that they are DANGEROUS and should be CHASED OFF. The bird physically cannot escape in many of these situations (being penned in a flight pen), so the only option they would see is fighting.

This is ALL solved by just... not hand raising them. When they don't consider you to be a rival cock, then 99.9999% of them will be chill dudes even during mating season. They don't actually LIKE to fight, but there are certain situations which inform their instincts (instincts strengthened greatly by hormones) that they need to in order to survive/reproduce.

It’s basically the exact same issue, the animal is hand raised and thinks humans are also a llama/alpaca. It’s more of an issue in males because intact males can be very territorial and establish pecking order via neck wrestling and biting. I think you can probably see the issue in having a 400 lb animal attempt to neck wrestle with you.

My family actually has a female who was somewhat hand raised (she was premature and required tube feeding and extensive care) and we are careful with our training of her. She has grown up to be extremely friendly and affectionate, but she absolutely struggles with boundaries. We have to be far more strict with her in terms of her behavior when haltered. I wouldn’t call her an ABS alpaca, however she’s definitely at risk of becoming one.

Males with ABS are commonly castrated to try and reduce some of the territorial behavior, but there’s little that can be done and it’s effectively “incurable”.

And "hand raised" is not the same as human raised, for birds at least. Incubator chicks that don't imprint or aren't interacted with heavily don't get aggressive. It's the people that imprint them or handle them excessively and cuddle them a lot from a very early age, particularly if they continue to do it to maturity. It's the difference between hand feeding and bonding with a bird as a parent figure and the rearing wildlife rehabbers do to allow birds to go back to the wild... The former is what a lot of people do, because in many other fowl it makes a friendlier bird. It's just that generalizing this to peafowl will land you in hot water, which is why it's important for anyone wanting to get a new animal, even (or perhaps particularly) if it's similar to one they've kept before.

Because for peas, once they're imprinted/hand raised, there's no going back. You can't fix it by keeping it business only. It doesn't get better. But you CAN raise them in brooders with minimal interaction and be just fine. Food, water, bedding changes, and <30 minutes of interaction time a day is usually a good method, and ALWAYS raise multiple chicks together (even if you have to sub in a chicken for a solo hatch) so you're not the only creature it interacts with.

This is why you are not exempt from statements about “all men” even if you are overall good.

You benefit from the bar constantly being lowered by systemic issues within the gender.

It was a Tuesday in 1981 when the San Francisco police kicked in the door.

Inside the small apartment, they expected to find a hardened criminal. They expected a drug kingpin. They expected resistance.

Instead, they found a 57-year-old waitress in an apron.

The air in the apartment smelled sweet, thick with chocolate and something earthier. On the kitchen counter, cooling on wire racks, were 54 dozen brownies.

The police officers began bagging the evidence. They confiscated nearly 18 pounds of marijuana. They handcuffed the woman, whose name was Mary Jane Rathbun.

She didn't look scared. She didn't look guilty.

She looked at the officers, smoothed her apron, and reportedly said, "I thought you guys were coming."

#i didnt reblog the first time #because i wanted to verify this #and now that i have? hell yeah brownie grandma

What I did was find sources that made the claim (in this case, that a woman named Mary Jane was a medicinal marijuana activist in California, USA in the 1980s and 90s.) I checked the dates to get some certainty those sources aren't AI slop, then checked that the sources are generally reliable.

Then I followed useful details about the place and time, and other people involved, to explore it more fully.

The first thing I did was search for "Brownie Mary" and see if that turned anything up at all. It turned up a LOT of results. Predictably, some of them were recipes, but not all of them.

Next up, I checked sources and dates. Wikipedia can be dodgy for academic use, but their policy on LLM-generated input is very clear: they don't want slop. I started by reading that page and then went on to read others.

The Atlas Obscura article is from 2018. I found another one from SFWeekly from 2017.

Both of those are decent sources - Atlas Obscura gets a High factual reporting rate from MediaBiasFactCheck, and while MBFC doesn't have a rating for SFWeekly, the verbiage in that article is very close to what GastroObscura has. (Also to what the post itself has, right down to the choice of pull quote.)

Now, we can stop there and feel pretty confident that articles published before the wide availability of LLMs are not, in fact, LLM generated.

...or we can go deeper, and run this all the way back to source.

I spotted references to a Chicago Tribune imterview of Mary Jane Rathbun, published in 1993.

My search string of "Chicago Tribune 1993 Mary Jane Rathbun" hit it in the top 3 results. That article includes some fun new details: she wore a cannabis leaf shaped pendant to her trial!

She also objected to being portrayed as a cuddly grandma up against The Man, so I must retract my flippant tags, above.

The evidence now strongly points to Brownie Mary being a real woman who really went to court for giving AIDS patients weed brownies. But can we get closer? I've now seen several mentions of a 1980 attempt at convicting her too.

The articles have mentioned Sonoma County and a nonprofit called the Shanti Project, so let's hook onto that and see what we get.

Searching for "Mary Jane Rathbun Sonoma County 1980" gets me an article from a law firm; that mentions the prosecuting attorney by name, and points to a book: Lust for Justice: The Radical Life & Law of J. Tony Serra, by Paulette Frankl. It even has an excerpt!

We can run the book down too, just for fun (now we have a primary source.) My favorite used book site has a copy for $1. Amazon gives a view of the back cover, too:

...wow. I should see if my library has that!

The excerpt on the site has a mention of a candelight vigil held for her death in 1999. It took some hunting past things I'd already read and a bunch of shops giving written tributes, but I found a news report about that, too.

There's a lot of information out there, and it's worth digging into. Otherwise it's altogether too easy to think something real and worth knowing is just another bit of slop.

any time someone is in any kind of crisis or upheaval, offer to feed them. tell them they don't have to choose what it is if they can't make decisions, just ask about allergies and preferences and tell them you're just gonna make food happen at their house.

friend having a baby? delivery gift certificate to order food to the hospital after the kid shows up.

someone's relative passes away? offer to make them dinner.

buddy gets laid off? ask if you can order them lunch.

pal stuck in a depressive episode? offer to drive them to fucking mcdonalds, if that's what they want.

people in crisis are tired and sad and angry and the last thing most of them are doing is thinking about feeding themselves. so if you have the ability or time or money, providing that is always, always a good move.