Liz Lives

The thing you're saying.

That that thing is worth saying.

That is, speech/writing has a cost to it, in the form of energy and time expended doing it, in the energy and time taken by others to listen to/read it, and the thing you are communicating is implied to be sufficiently valuable to worth that trade-off.

E.g. if you meet a woman and she says, "Hi, I'm Becky, I was born on a Thursday," it would be an odd experience because even if 1 applies, 2 clearly doesn't (unless you are running some kind of day-of-birth study or something ig). There is a hidden meaning of, "you should be aware of the weekday of my birth because it is important," that seems to make no sense.

And yet people will often defend something they have said on the basis of it being strictly true, which is unsatisfactory because it only justifies half of what was communicated by the act of saying it.

If Becky comes along to a queer event and says "Hi, I'm Becky, I'm AFAB," you have to understand that that is not just a neutral statement of fact, it also communicates something like this: "I am aware that if I looked and sounded the same but my sex assignment was different I would be treated differently. I am informing you of my sex assignment right now so that you treat me appropriately hereafter."

And that is just straight-up transmisogyny, both in displaying uncritical acceptance of how prevalent transmisogyny is in queer groups, and in demanding exemption from it. It sounds absurd on the face of it that a cis woman describing herself using entirely true statements can be doing transmisogyny, even in the absence of any transfeminine person or any mention of transfeminity at all. But it's true all the same.

And the head-ass response seemed to be, “attention,” because that’s the kind of thing we can expect from British media at this point.

It’s not like the entire world just went through a mass disabling event or anything. It’s not like more and more women are finally getting diagnosed with chronic, lifelong illnesses and dynamic disabilities due to advocacy and raised awareness by the people who were left to suffer before them for decades.

No, no. Young lassies just want “attention.”

"Transgender" literally used to be one of the context-sensitive banned words on YouTube. I'm the reason that got fixed 5 years ago. My video was the one that got deleted citing a "child safety" policy because I said "transgender" in a video about Super Mario Galaxy and you used to LITERALLY not be allowed to mention trans people in anything that could be assumed to be "kid friendly" (like Mario.)

As tempting as it is to say that there's no excuse on Tik Tok bc you shouldn't be doing Tik Tok for a living, videos there absolutely will be suppressed if the topic you're speaking about isn't entirely positive and social media is supposed to be for conversation. If you can't have conversations about certain topics without your video being hidden from people, that's censorship!

Instagram's captioning tool straight up bleeps out swearing FOR you if you don't do it, too.

AND the pipe went near a bronze age grave instead...

All this cos a scene was filmed there.

So destroying the environment, disturbing ancient human remains of archeological significance AND murdering Trans people all in one fell swoop.

hanaa-family

@hanaa-family55

https://chuffed.org/project/180992-help-hanaa-in-gaza