Invisible Meat Theremin

But also, and this is really important to keep in mind regarding bigotry that still causes in many ways larger problems, that the structural problems are not actually fixed.

If you go to any computer lab or public library, the mice will be on the right side of the computer. Sometimes they can be moved. Sometimes they can't. Many computer mice are curved to only fit in right hands.

It is impossible to find lefthanded scissors without going to a specialty store, because most scissor makers don't even make them. And it's not just a matter of grip; the slicing side of the blades is obscured if you use righty scissors in your left hand, so your cut is off.

All those signing pads with the little chained styluses? Almost always on the right side, often not even long enough to stretch to the left. Makes signing for lefties extremely difficult.

I caused actual muscular problems in college having to twist around in order to write at right-handed desks in college when there weren't enough lefty desks--and there never were. Some classrooms didn't even have a single one.

I could go on.

Pause for a moment, especially if you’re right-handed—and I’m being serious here, physically do this if you have two functioning arms and hands—and grab a writing tool in your left hand. Now place your right index finger down and try to start writing a word next to it.

Yeah. Great technique, huh? Really convenient and comfortable and easy. 🙃

I sent in a small baggie of small popsicle sticks I’d custom painted for them and labeled with their name for kiddo to use instead, but ultimately they stopped because it wasn’t as convenient when nobody else had to get something out.

Writing in English is difficult enough when you’re left-handed (most of our letters are designed with pull motions, but lefties must push), but even other foundational basics are made more difficult than they have to be, because their needs aren’t considered, even in situations where overt hostility isn’t intended.

Even now, in an older grade, they’re now all sharing a lot of the supplies, but my kiddo has their own pair of labeled lefty scissors they keep in their personal cubby. Teacher was 100% chill with me sending them in, but didn’t even consider to take the step further when I’d asked about whether or not they had them to just… get some for all the lefties. I know there are other kids, know some of them personally. (I made a set of writing spacing sticks for the single one that I knew of back in 1st grade.)

Regarding computer mice? Kiddo had standardized testing last year. They do it on chromebooks now at their school. They did their entire first day with the track pad instead of the mouse, because none of the teachers proctoring or assisting even knew you COULD switch the sides/toggle a setting to switch which button was the dominant select. We happened to have one at home thanks to remote learning during Covid’s early days, so that night we sat down together and found the setting ourselves so they could fix it the following day. But on a student account at school, they couldn’t change that setting. And? None of those teachers knew enough about technology to be able to override it. So even when I went above and beyond and personally sought out the skills and tools to help my child level the playing field on their own, the teaching staff was so unaccustomed to even considering this as a need or problem, that they weren’t able to remove the incredibly basic barriers to a fair schooling experience.

Big story: My second master's degree, the school had a clinician come in to do a workshop on unconscious bias and whatnot. To explain privilege in a way that would (theoretically) not immediately get dismissed by the more conservative among us, she got us talking instead about handedness. She asked the right handed people "when is the last time you thought about which hand you use?" And the answer was, of course: never. A small number of people had sort of thought about it, but they struggled to name a time that it had come to mind. Then for the lefties: "when is the last time you thought about which hand you use?" My answer was, two minutes ago when we all sat down. Because of course, all of the lefties were hoping to get the corner seat at their table so that they wouldn't be bumping elbows with their neighbors (though funny enough, all the lefties ended up at the same table anyway). Right handed people rarely-to-never think about where they're sitting at the dinner table; if they do think about it, I 100% guarantee it's because they dine regularly with a lefty.

we've had positive interactions before Rina and I saw this from your blog not from any of the people arguing with you, so I hope you're able to take this as well meaning as I intend it.

I can't perfectly describe everything happening here because I only have so much time and confronting transmisogyny directly like this is very discomforting, but I do think this is transmisogynistic and it's sad to see.

it's true that misogyny is rampant and not widely condemned in society, and if that's all you were noting like some of the other tags on this post, I would probably just move on because while I don't think winged-void was claiming that it isn't, it's not wrong to note explicitly.

but what you've done here is a few steps further than that, and you've approached a trans woman very hostily about misogyny and doubled down on it as well. it's true that it didn't originally say "progressive spaces" or something, but this is pretty clearly a vent post speaking about a specific type of experience. the first line can be read grammatically less as a statement of "this is what happens in the general context" and more in the way of "in the context set up by this line; second line". which is to say: in the context that people frown upon misogyny, they often still enjoy transmisogyny.

this is a completely reasonable interpretation of the original post and it seems like you've completely discarded it. you've also stated that no space has managed to create a space outside patriarchy, which is true in the most literal sense, but the implication is that there are no spaces or types of spaces which misogyny receives pushback. this is why you're being called a cryptoterf in the notes, because the universality and primacy of misogyny as fundamentally inescapable is perhaps the most defining trait of terfism and what separates radical feminism more broadly from other feminisms. there's several reasons why this view of misogyny is deeply harmful, it often leads directly to downplaying other forms of discrimination like racism, but it also leads to pretty directly to a sort of female-pessimism of the separatist trend, most visible of these probably being dworkin, who rather infamously advocates for an Israel for women, using much the same rhetoric zionists do, that women will never be safe otherwise because of how inescapable misogyny is, even explicitly so drawing the comparison to Israel/antisemitism repeatedly by name in her book on the subject. another reason is this perspective is harmful is that it totally inverts historical materialism and places gender at the base of class distinctions, which is not remotely backed up by anthropology or any modern science really. it deemphasizes the primacy of class struggle and substitutes sex struggle, a substitution which has been responsible for most of the worst mistakes of radical feminist thought.

the issue is also obviously visible in real life - are there no spaces where misogyny is generally frowned upon? the idea is so laughable that I have trouble thinking this is what you intended to imply, i think more likely you're trying to make a point about how this isnt the general case, and most places are misogynistic*, in which case it loops back to the above paragraphs about interpretation, so I'll move on. *(or saying that in these cases people aren't truly anti-patriarchal, just superficially, which I'll touch on in a moment)

is saying misogyny is a societal wide problem terfism? no, but saying that its fundamentally inescapable, moreover, never even opposed or combatted, while speaking over trans women, you can start to see the lines.

there are obviously spaces where misogyny receives at least superficial pushback, such as overtly feminist spaces and plenty of queer spaces as well, and we also know pretty clearly that these spaces are nevertheless not kind to trans women. does this mean they actually in reality treat cis women super well? no. even if they did would they not be misogynistic? no, because trans women are women and transmisogyny is misogyny.

but regardless, the reality is that many spaces claim to care about misogyny, and then do overtly misogynistic shit to trans women in particular and in ways above and beyond what they do to cis women. if you deny this, you deny transmisogyny. by arguing that there are no spaces where cis womens issues are even superficially recognized, you also deny that anyone can experience further marginalization in this regard. if misogyny is never believed, then being a Black or imperialized or trans woman will never make the misogyny you experience more invisible, because it's already completely and utterly ignored, and all that's left is the distinct fully unrelated experiences of marginalization, in other words, this perspective is fundamental anti-intersectional.

I say "this perspective" in reference to the perspective I outline above, not explicitly your perspective, because I understand the conclusions I've drawn likely aren't ones you share explicitly, but I do think support for them can be found within your words and it seems like some element of them are present due to the way you're doubling down on this. I really think you ought to step back and think through this a little bit more.

this post is an expression of the hyper marginalization that trans women face. it's not saying misogyny isn't real, and you don't need to teach trans women about how big an issue misogyny is, we know. what we're trying to say is that the problem is often worse for us specifically.

whenever any multiply marginalized group speaks about the way they're oppressed within their own communities, they're often made out as downplaying whatever marginalization is shared. in Black groups, Black women speaking up against misogynoir are said to be downplaying racism, in women's spaces trans women speaking against transmisogyny are said to be downplaying misogyny. can you see the pattern here?

yes, if winged void wanted to be extraordinarily precise ae could've specified the exact social context which this happened, but is that really necessary when this is a real phenomena we experience regularly? by downplaying it you either argue that it doesn't happen at all, which hopefully isn't the case, or that it's not an experience worth discussing because it downplays misogyny - the position you're appearing to take. it's not anti feminist to discuss how marginalized women are hurt even within situations that might support cis women. heck, its post didn't even say "everyone unilaterally boos and then donates money to women and says I'm sorry women" just that people booed. people boo misogyny sometimes? that's like a really real thing that happens, and especially in these queer comedy shows, where they then go on to be incredibly transmisogynistic. this is a real experience that we really need to talk about, and it shouldn't just be subordinated to cis womens concerns, because trans women are women and misogyny isn't adequately being combatted until transmisogyny is recognized as well. you're right that misogyny is still rampant in these spaces, but one of the key manifestations of this misogyny is transmisogyny and to be an effective feminist you must recognize this.

There's worse to come, folks. Strap in and stay strapped.

The dark wife: thriller, adapted into a Hulu original

The mailman’s niece = historical fiction

The mailman of Warsaw = also historical fiction but about war

The gate of wind = fantasy

The gate of wind and bones = young adult fantasy

A gathering of pelicans = mystery, part of a long running series that takes up a whole shelf at the library

The Group Project Partner Gambit = romance with a cartoon cover

There’s no mention on the department’s social media feeds or even on the official website. There aren’t many details about when it was established, who is running the office, or what work it is carrying out. When WIRED reached out to ask if the office exists, the State Department wouldn’t share specific details about the office and its work.

But the office, created a year ago and seemingly named for a racist far right European plan to expel minorities and immigrants from Western nations, does exist. The office’s main purpose, according to one source familiar with the work, is to process payments possibly worth tens of millions of dollars to facilitate the deportations of immigrants to countries they may not even be from. All of this is happening, the source says, with little to no oversight.

The Office of Remigration is at the heart of the Trump administration’s dramatically expanded efforts to urge other governments, many with track records of public corruption, human rights abuses, and human trafficking, into accepting immigrants sent from the US, who are not their own citizens. This is a key part of the administration’s broader mass deportation efforts, which have repeatedly even seen US citizens deported to other countries.

“Who's to know where the money goes because there's no real monitoring, or any kind of accountability attached to these payments,” the source familiar with the work at the Office of Remigration tells WIRED. “In fact, it was made pretty explicit to us by our leadership that they weren't interested in applying the same levels of accountability as we had traditionally applied to any kind of federal funding that we were responsible for managing to international organizations or NGOs.”

In response to specific questions from WIRED, the State Department provided the following statement: “President Trump promised to reverse the Biden-era invasion of illegal aliens and once again make America a country for Americans. Remigration puts these words into action," the State Department wrote in an emailed statement not attributed to a named spokesperson. “The Office of Remigration directly addresses the top priorities of the National Security Strategy: reinstating border security as the primary element of national security and ending mass migration.”

Got a Tip?

Are you an government worker with insight into what's happening? We’d like to hear from you. Using a nonwork phone or computer, contact David Gilbert at [email protected] or securely on Signal on DavidGilbert.01.

Remigration is an extremist idea that has taken hold among far right groups in many European countries in recent years. It falsely posits that Western countries can regain their former glory by deporting all immigrants, including citizens who have failed to assimilate to western values.

For critics, the term is synonymous with ethnic cleansing. “The Trump Administration’s so-called ‘remigration’ efforts are part of an inhumane and coercive agenda, one that targets undocumented immigrants, most of whom have no criminal record, and coerces other countries to accept deportees through threats of tariffs, visa restrictions, and cuts to health and economic assistance,” says congresswoman Lois Frankel, a ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on national security, Department of State, and related programs. “Migrants are being sent to these countries where they have no local ties and often do not speak the language.”

President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller, one of his key immigration advisers, both used the term in social media posts ahead of the 2024 election. “THE TRUMP PLAN TO END THE INVASION OF SMALL TOWN AMERICA: REMIGRATION,” Miller wrote on X in September 2024, sharing a screenshot of a Trump Truth Social post that mentions the term.

While Trump did not use the word again in the early days of his second term in office, in May 2025, a congressional notification from the State Department revealed that the Trump administration was planning to create an Office of Remigration within the department’s Bureau of Population, Migration, and Refugees.

The congressional notification said that the Office of Remigration would be initially staffed by personnel reassigned from the bureau’s Office of Western Hemisphere Affairs. “Those of us in the Office of Western Hemisphere didn't know what that language meant for us, and despite all of our questions, our leadership would not or could not clarify that for us,” says the source, who worked in the State Department for years. “We didn't know what was going to happen.”

The decision was praised by far right groups and leaders in the US and Europe. Martin Sellner, an Austrian activist and former member of a neo-Nazi group, told WIRED at the time that Trump’s policy “ticks many of the boxes” when asked if he believes remigration was already in action in the US.

In June and July, Trump mentioned the term remigration three times on his Truth Social platform, linking it to the work ICE was doing in relation to mass deportations. “It’s called “REMIGRATION” and, it will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN,” Trump wrote in a July 4 post on Truth Social.

Meanwhile, employees were apparently trying to get the new office name changed.

“Our office leadership told us they had asked to have this terminology changed many, many, many times, and that they were repeatedly told no,” says the source familiar with the office’s work. “At the time there was a thought of whether this a mistake, do they know what they're talking about, do they even understand what remigration means. But clearly they did.”

By the end of 2025, staff began processing government-to-government payments for deals negotiated by the Trump administration. The money was meant to be used to ensure deportees were housed in conditions that meet basic humanitarian needs, but, according to the source, there was no oversight or transparency about how that money was used after it was sent.

While the Office of Remigration is not mentioned on the State Department’s website, a document published in January shed further light on the agency’s mission.

“Remigration and border security are central to our diplomatic engagements, especially to those in our hemisphere,” the State Department wrote in a strategic planning document published in January and covering 2026 to 2030. “That includes ensuring foreign countries facilitate the repatriation of their nationals who have no right to remain in the United States; negotiating arrangements with other countries to accept the transfer of asylum claimants and illegal aliens removed from American communities; and working with DHS to support voluntary remigration.”

In February, the Democrat minority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee published a report that outlined the dramatic expansion of the use of third party deportations and their cost. “The total costs of the Trump Administration’s third country deportations through January 2026 are unknown but are likely upward of $40 million,” the report states. “Much of the funds were provided as lump sum payments, often before any third country nationals arrived.”

"Remigration, touted by neo-Nazis, and now our own government, is nothing more than an ethnic cleansing plan to remove migrants and people of color from the US, with no oversight and no concern for human rights,” Wendy Via, cofounder and president of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, tells WIRED.

WIRED’s source said they originally joined the State Department to help refugees. But now, they were being forced to do the opposite. Many employees have left the office in recent months. Tarrajna Dorsey had worked at the State Department for nearly seven years and left the new Office of Remigration this spring.

“I spent many years aspiring to join and contribute to [the bureau of population, refugees, and migration’s] humanitarian mission to save lives, ease suffering, and offer protection to the most vulnerable among us as a key piece of U.S. foreign policy,” Dorsey wrote in an April LinkedIn post. “As much as I will miss serving alongside such passionate, resilient, and hardworking colleagues, I do not see the current work of the Office of Remigration as aligned with that mission.”

Last month, Frankel introduced an amendment to the National Security and Department of State Appropriations bill to stop the use of federal funds to be used for third-country deportations. The amendment was defeated along party lines.

And in recent weeks, the Trump administration has once again begun promoting the idea of remigration. On May 11, the State Department released a statement about the administration’s refusal to sign up to the UN’s Global Compact on Migration, which included the line, “Our goal is not to ‘manage’ migration, but to foster remigration.”

The next day, the official X account of the White House shared a picture of Trump with the words ‘replacement migration’ crossed out and substituted with the word ‘remigration.’”—Wired

If video games are an art form, then playing the game is how you engage with that art. Watching someone else play the game is not the same as playing it yourself.

But that's not what this post is about—this post is about being a fan of the video game. And that's why I think the "book vs. movie" comparison is apt.

You can see a distinction in different fandoms of books that have been turned into movies. For some, movie fans and book fans stand hand in hand as fans of the same story, but in others, movie fans and book fans form separate fandoms, because the movie was so different from the book.

happy pride or something