I'm goth now but in an uwu kinda way

People commonly defend this practise with "But the audience isn't meant to understand!" or "It's inconsequential!", neither of which actually address a) their assumption that the [ideal Anglo] audience wouldn't understand, or, perhaps most crucially in the context of CCs, b) that this is a failure of accessibility. A hearing person who speaks that "foreign" language will know exactly what's being said. A deaf or HoH person – the people CCs are primarily intended for – who speaks or reads that language should therefore have the exact same opportunity to understand. It very much feels to me like an assumption that we deaf and HoH people couldn't possibly understand any language but English, so there's no point in getting those languages transcribed for us. I hope it goes without saying how profoundly audist that sentiment is.

There is also, I think, a profound misunderstanding or ignorance of Deaf culture at play. Which is to say, CCs in English-language media are written with not only the assumption that the audience will be native English speakers, but that all d/Deaf and HoH people speak English as their first language, so all other languages are as supposedly foreign to them as they are for hearing people. But sign languages are their own distinct language. BSL, ASL, ISL, AusLan, NZSL etc ≠ English (and are indeed different from one another), LIS ≠ Italian, JSL ≠ Japanese, and so on. So, if you follow the captioners' logic to its natural extreme, all non-signed dialogue is "foreign" to many d/Deaf and HoH people and should therefore be labelled [speaks foreign language] / [speaks English] / [speaks own language] / etc. – which is, obviously, a terrible idea that perfectly highlights all the biases implicit in closed captioning.

like, you still need prostate exams as a trans woman, yeah? and talking about that medical need doesnt mean that you have a "unique connection to manhood", even if people refer to medical procedures having to do with your genitalia as "men's health". im sure you'd prefer they didn't call it that, actually! because you dont actually enjoy the association between your body parts and your agab

I have to go to the “Womens Health Clinic” every time I see my doctor. The receptionists call me “Miss Lastname” when they call me on the phone. My insurance only covers this because I kept the “F” on my marker—my buddy who changed his to “M” is currently fighting his insurance, which is trying to deny him coverage for giving birth to his child.

I would love to commiserate with other folks who’ve had difficulty with their uterus, especially who had a rough time in hysterectomy recovery. I have to out myself to do that. In person it means that I just…can’t tell anyone what’s going on. Unless they’re a very close friend, I have to be extremely vague and cagey.

I can find community online! Sure! As long as I don’t mention the fact that I’m a trans man. As long as I’m cool with being lumped in with “women’s health” and “women’s struggles” and all the forums and communities being “for the ladies,” I can find people to talk about it with.

That cannot, of course, include questions like “hey did you stop testosterone before the surgery or not? Did it help? When did you start T again?” Even though that could be really helpful right now. I can’t ask that question to most people who’ve had a hysterectomy for endo/adeno/fibroids, because all of those communities are centered around women, and suggesting we try gender neutral language could get me nuked from space if even a handful of people aren’t chill.

This sucks! It just sucks. And I’m sick of bleeding and I’m sick of doing it in secret. I’m tired.

And no, I don’t call it a sacred connection to womanhood or divine feminine or whatever. It’s a hell organ from satan’s armpit that I hate and I’m glad it’s gone and I just wish the blood would stop fucking haunting me even weeks after the exorcism.

Last week, the Trump administration quietly released a sweeping new federal rule that would use funding threats to force institutions across the country to reject transgender people. The 400-page proposed regulation would codify the administration's anti-trans executive orders into binding federal policy, imposing a blanket prohibition on federal funds going toward "gender ideology"

The proposed rule, formally titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," rewrites the government-wide framework governing all federal grants across every agency. Among its most consequential provisions, it requires that before a federal grant recipient can receive money, the award must pass a "pre-issuance review" conducted by a political appointee—not a career expert or peer reviewer—to ensure it is "consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest." The regulation explicitly instructs these appointees to screen for "denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic." [...] An institution that acknowledges transgender people exist—through its policies, its training, its healthcare, its bathroom access, its HR procedures, its name-change processes—could be deemed to "deny the sex binary" or to “support the notion that sex is mutable” and have its federal funding blocked.

This torches everything. And I do mean everything.

A very abbreviated list of its ramifications include (but are not limited to):

ending funding for ALL DEI related initiatives

allowing the government to terminate grants at any point for any reason

preventing researchers from publishing, going to conferences, and being part of academic societies

requiring that topics must support the president’s agenda.

What this means, and if anything I’m under selling it, is the death of science and research in America. It allows the government to restrict any topic they please at a whims notice, putting officials who have no background in the topic in charge of deciding funding continuity. It controls what gets researched and if/how researchers are allowed to share their discoveries. There are no books to burn if the government never allows them to be written. This is fascism plain and simple.

Public comments are not a vote, it is a chance for you to say "here is an issue with this law I think you need to address" and provide justification for legal challenges if it goes forward:

"Comments raise the bar that agencies have to meet when making a rule; “if an agency fails to adequately respond to significant, relevant comments in a final rule, members of the public may seek to challenge the rule in court on that basis and claim it could be struck down.ˮ"

This year’s is different. They are now federal REQUIREMENTS, which means there’s no flexibility. As was said previously, the 400 pages are not singularly devoted to being absolute shitheads to trans people. Theres a lot of stuff in there, some of which is the standard dry boring grants stuff, some of which is the horrible ideological warfare outlined above.

This document is issued by the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, which is currently lead by fucking Russell Vought, the principal architect of Project 2025. This is how they’re going to implement all the horrible shit in there that wasn’t covered by Executive Order. Russell Vought is actively coming for my job, my marriage, and my kid, and most of my friends lost their jobs last year because of him. He is the fucking arch villain behind the heinous shit the current regime is doing.

short comic about birthdays 🎂

Bonus:

Spin the wheel again. That’s who’s trying to protect you.

(If you have zero idea about a name you got, spin until you see someone you recognize.)

"Yeah, Stratt, I've been having weird dreams about a rock-spider in space who's been dealing with this damn line all my life I know all about it"

sometimes a trans woman wins against a cis woman. sometimes a cis woman wins against another cis woman too. yet only one of them is allowed to win without facing consequences.

It’s an interesting way of exploring the presentation scientific research, you may not be correct 100 percent of the time, but the research that you conduct can pave the way to expansive thinking. While the main hypothesis might be incorrect, if the methods and procedures are utilized properly, the ideas and research that come out of excitements are not wasted! They can be repurposed for future research or be used as evidence to support the prevailing line of thought. This aspect of half truths felt like a tribute to the practice of academic writing, and added a lovely layer of realism.