She/They 25

She literally went “debate me! Debate me!” Over and over like the grifter she is and when she couldn’t get what she wanted and when “no” wasn’t enough she resorted to retaliatory sex-pestery, posting an image of somebody’s body with intention to shame and embarrass and spawn more waspish tittering from her internet followers.

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) A intentionally shares a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show, another person (B) in an intimate state, (b) B does not consent to the sharing of the photograph or film, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) A person (A) commits an offence if—

first of all, TVP was not about centering my feelings about transfems' abusers or what they went through. going on about how disgusted and enraged I felt underneath submissions would have actively detracted from the voices I was trying to center. TVP was not about my voice

second, abusers are not a subhuman class of people. they are often very ordinary people that exist in our lives. even my worst abuser did not abuse me because he was a subhuman monster or a demon. he abused me because he had systemic power over me, and that power went unchecked by any of the people or systems that could have protected me. he was thoroughly, mundanely human

She literally went “debate me! Debate me!” Over and over like the grifter she is and when she couldn’t get what she wanted and when “no” wasn’t enough she resorted to retaliatory sex-pestery, posting an image of somebody’s body with intention to shame and embarrass and spawn more waspish tittering from her internet followers.

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) A intentionally shares a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show, another person (B) in an intimate state, (b) B does not consent to the sharing of the photograph or film, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) A person (A) commits an offence if—

The original push behind naming cultural appropriation and having these conversations were so that we as a society could evaluate why we were punished for our heritage while white People were not. It was supposed to be about seeking solutions. The idea was to create a society where we could celebrate our cultures with impunity. It was never about telling white people that they “weren’t allowed” to do certain things. We did ask that white People stop doing certain things because they weren’t doing them respectfully and were not invited to do them, but the primary reason we asked them to desist was to reclaim the things they had stolen and to reassign them culturally back where they belonged.

White “allies” saw these conversations happening and instead of trying to aplify our own voices or even try to learn about the complexities behind why we were saying what we were saying, they instead began screaming over us and creating a narrative that was hardly even the bones of what we originally set out to say. It was like they took the conversation we were trying to have, completely decontextualized it, and stripped it of all it’s nuance in order to gain social currency by seeming progressive.

So the conversation around cultural appropriation went from “This aspect of our heritage belongs to us and we find it egregious that we are shamed for it. What steps can we take to address the racism that’s creating this situation as well as rehome the things that have been stolen” to “you’re not allowed to do that because if you do that you’re racist, we don’t really understand why that’s racist but you’re not allowed to do that and if you do that you’re a klansman no exceptions. So you’re not allowed because because”

At the end of the day, did I like the fact that sally was wearing dreads? No. But my primary concern was not that sally was wearing dreads but rather that sally could wear dreads and I couldn’t. THAT was the intended focus of those conversations. It was about addressing the inequality. It was about us. Now the conversation is just about sally and were completely forgotten.

Doctors are to black women what police officers are to black men. That may seem controversial but I believe it to be true and I speak from personal experience.

If you've seen this TikTok you know that a 2016 study showed that 50% of medical students and residents thought that black people couldn't feel pain the same as white people.

And we learned from this video that because of a 1999 study, to this day, there's a black correction factor for the creatinin levels in black people's kidneys, meaning we're less likely to recieve a kidney transplant if needed.

So if you go to a doctor, feel you aren't getting proper treatment or they refuse the treatment you've requested, say to them the following:

If you weren’t already going to spread this advice because black women are at risk, then spread it because it’s applicable to everyone else as well, including you reading this.

word of this right down in my

tired, tired bones.

One of the barriers that a lot of people have with understanding abolition is that there is not a one-sentence answer to what will replace prisons, nor should there be. Abolition is a whole change of worldview. It moves us from “how do we replace prisons?” to “How do we create a world without carceral systems?” This requires not just tearing down structures, but also building resources that are more just and better suited to solve our problems.

One thing I learned in social work school was that it’s harder for people to work to a negative goal (“stop doing x”) than it is for them to work towards a positive goal (“start doing y”). So the best way to eliminate something is to increase other things that are incompatible or mutually exclusive. For example, if we want people out of coercive mental health treatment, one thing that helps is creating liberatory mental health resources.

The issue of abolition isn’t actually “How do we get there?” but really “Where do we start?” Lots of us are already doing work that is incompatible with the carceral state, but we need to make sure it’s grounded in abolition. In other words, we can incorporate abolition into our corners of the world. It’s not one of the other, it’s both/and.

The world we are in is different than the world we are creating. We will falter and make mistakes, as well as do things that aren’t mistakes but are the best alternatives out of bad options. While we need to be strict in our systemic analysis (i.e, look closely and critically at every aspect of the carceral system we live in), we need to be flexible and compassionate when we are dealing with each other as we work towards abolition by targeting systems.”