Weary Wordsworth

dont cry craft son

Panel 1: A wolf with the intersex-inclusive progress pride flag in its mouth. Text reads, "I want a world / where Pride Month is not necessary."

Panel 2: A wolf, crying, with its muzzle colored a variety of colors. Its muzzle has lines of it erased. Text reads, "I want a world where / we weren't hunted, erased."

Panel 3: A wolf, in a mid leap. It looks very joyous. There is a rainbow heart on its body. Text reads, "I want to just be / then know that that's enough."

Panel 4: A wolf sitting and crying next to a field of flowers which has been stabbed with differently colored swords. More swords seem to be falling from the sky, each one becoming more and more starlike the higher they are. Text reads, "and I want / to lose nobody else."

A census can understand population level trends just fine without storing your assigned sex as part of your legal identity. They can ask for this information in the census. The census tracking population level data is not the same as your assigned sex being permanently part of your legal identity. (At least, the way my country does a census.)

Your doctor can know your anatomy by you communicating it to them if/when it is relevant. There is never a time when they might need to know something that could only be conveyed by your assigned sex being officially relayed to them via government documentation. You can just use your words. The same way you tell your doctor any other part of your medical history.

People respond to "the government doesn't need to store your assigned sex as part of your legal identity" as if they are hearing "no one should ever acknowledge gender or sex at all" but that's not what's being said.

Your birth certificate conveys important legal information about you. Your name, as a designation. Your parents, as they have a legal obligation to you. Your place of birth, as that place has a legal obligation to you. Date and time of birth, since age is important for application of some laws.

And sex. That's on there too. But what is the legal relevance? What laws is the government going to apply to you differently based on what sex is on your birth certificate? I can only think of one thing my government really uses that for, and that is to determine who has to sign up for the draft. And guess what, fuck that shit anyway. The government also used to use this to decide who is allowed to marry who. They don't do that anymore. For now.

Your body is your own. Body hair and facial hair do not become "unhygienic" or harm anyone, just because they belong to a woman instead of a man.

Every woman who doesn't do the hair removal demanded of her is participating in staking the feminist claim that women's bodies exist for ourselves, not to fulfill the aesthetic preferences of people with power over us.

I'm grateful to every woman I ever knew who showed me that it's possible to just stop removing body hair and (for many women in many situations) it's literally fine. No one in my life even comments on my pit hair or leg hair, except for a kid once in awhile, which gives me the chance to say things like "Most grownups grow hair there! Some grownups remove it, but I don't want to."

I'm also grateful to the transfeminists who taught me to see the gender role enforcement in the demand that women have no facial hair.

Even when the removal of certain hair feels necessary for safety from harassment or abuse, understanding that the stigma against female facial & body hair is misogynistic (and frequently specifically transmisogynistic and racist) can make it easier to identify the structural problem, instead of buying into the propaganda that there's something fundamentally wrong with your body if you grow this hair at all.

You have every right to decide what purely cosmetic work you will spend time, money, and planning on, and what isn't worth doing. Regardless of what you decide, you should have the right to live free of harassment, discrimination, and other forms of body policing. So should everyone else.

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.