(´･ω･`)

starting to suspect that tech bros actually just don’t know what reading is

there's a lot of people that have done things in the past that were bad, because they weren't taught any better, or they were in an overall toxic situation where EVERYONE was shitty (like a cult), or they were just at an especially low point and hurt others for it.

you don't have to forgive them. you don't have to ever speak to them again. you can be angry with them until you die if you want.

While that is true, a lot of parents will do that and fail to see how their own actions are the problem.

If you've spanked him, he's less likely to understand consent.

If you've forced him to sit on Santa's lap, he's less likely to understand consent.

If you've forced him to give hugs and kisses to family members, he's less likely to understand consent.

If you've grabbed him in order to force him to sit still, he's less likely to understand consent.

If you've labeled him as "too sensitive" for not wanting to be touched, he's less likely to understand consent.

If you've assumed he's okay with something because he technically allowed it even though he felt pressured, he's less likely to understand consent.

One of my sisters has young children, both of whom are some flavor of neurodivergent. She is too, and as a result she often lost patience quickly with some of their quirks. The biggest offender is that her kids are extremely wary around anyone they deem to be a stranger, making social connection very difficult for all participants.

When I first met her daughter, she was 3 or 4, and was extremely reluctant to come and meet me. My sister began to shame and push and pull her towards me and I stopped her. I said "don't force her, don't teach her that she has to let men she doesn't know touch her, she doesn't need to hug me"

My sister froze in place, processed it for a moment, and let her daughter go. She went back to hiding behind mom. We continued our conversation and her son slowly approached me, hugged me, and climbed up onto the chair I was in to sit beside me and partially in my lap. After a few minutes, her daughter joined him. She didn't hug me, but she came over to touch and talk to me.

My sister was speechless. Her kids DON'T do that. I've heard many complaints from many family members about how antisocial they are. All I did was stick up for their right to offer or withdraw consent- and really just her daughter's, as her son had met me pre-covid and had already gotten over the hurdle at 2 years old, but her daughter was born during covid and thus it made her severe distrust of strangers even worse.

Now her kids are in elementary school and making friends easily and I regularly get stories from her about how she witnesses them connect with other socially withdrawn kids and stand up for both themselves and their quieter friends. She took my advice to heart and started allowing them to voice whether they consented to something and now her little boy will approach a crying kid on the playground and say something like "do you want to play, or do you want me to just sit with you, or do you want to be alone?" and then actually listen to what the other kid tells him.

My niece has an incredibly traumatized boy in her class who escaped war with his family, and he doesn't talk to anyone. But he visibly relaxes when my niece goes to sit next to him when he's too scared and curled up in the classroom's Quiet Corner. She reads to him and shows him her toys and holds his hand on field trips and yells at anyone who is mean to him. I'm told she's the only person who can approach or touch him without causing a meltdown besides his family, and it started because the first time she sat with him she asked if it was okay if she did so and she waited several minutes for him to nod before she sat down.

But they still avoid the family members that forced them to interact even when they were uncomfortable. I still hear those complaints, hundreds of miles away, and the jealousy that I've only met the kids a few times but they talk incessantly about me. If I call one of my family members and the kids are over, I can hear them in the background trying to talk to me if they figure out it's me on the other line.

Like, “queer is a slur”: I get the impression that people saying this are like… oh, how I might react if I heard someone refer to all gay men as “f*gs”. Like, “Oh wow, that’s a super loaded word with a bunch of negative freight behind it, are you really sure you want to put that word on people who are still very raw and would be alarmed, upset, or offended if they heard you call them it, no matter what you intended?”

So they’re really surprised when self-described queers respond with a LOT of hostility to what feels like a well-intentioned reminder that some people might not like it. 

That’s because there’s a history of “political lesbians”, like Sheila Jeffreys, who believe that no matter their sexual orientation, women should cut off all social contact with men, who are fundamentally evil, and only date the “correct” sex, which is other women. Political lesbians claim that relationships between women, especially ones that don’t contain lust, are fundamentally pure, good, and  unproblematic. They therefore regard most of the LGBT community with deep suspicion, because its members are either way too into sex, into the wrong kind of sex, into sex with men, are men themselves, or somehow challenge the very definitions of sex and gender. 

When “queer theory” arrived in the 1980s and 1990s as an organized attempt by many diverse LGBT+ people in academia to sit down and talk about the social oppressions they face, political lesbians like Jeffreys attacked it harshly, publishing articles like “The Queer Disappearance of Lesbians”, arguing that because queer theory said it was okay to be a man or stop being a man or want to have sex with a man, it was fundamentally evil and destructive. And this attitude has echoed through the years; many LGBT+ people have experience being harshly criticized by radical feminists because being anything but a cis “gold star lesbian” (another phrase that gives me war flashbacks) was considered patriarchal, oppressive, and basically evil.

And when those arguments happened, “queer” was a good umbrella to shelter under, even when people didn’t know the intricacies of academic queer theory; people who identified as “queer” were more likely to be accepting and understanding, and “queer” was often the only label or community bisexual and nonbinary people didn’t get chased out of. If someone didn’t disagree that people got to call themselves queer, but didn’t want to be called queer themselves, they could just say “I don’t like being called queer” and that was that. Being “queer” was to being LGBT as being a “feminist” was to being a woman; it was opt-in.

But this history isn’t evident when these interactions happen. We don’t sit down and say, “Okay, so forty years ago there was this woman named Sheila, and…” Instead we queers go POP! like pufferfish, instantly on the defensive, a red haze descending over our vision, and bellow, “DO NOT TELL ME WHAT WORDS I CANNOT USE,” because we cannot find a way to say, “This word is so vital and precious to me, I wouldn’t be alive in the same way if I lost it.” And then the people who just pointed out that this word has a history, JEEZ, way to overreact, go away very confused and off-put, because they were just trying to say.

But I’ve found that once this is explained, a lot of people go, “Oh wow, okay, I did NOT mean to insinuate that, I didn’t realize that I was also saying something with a lot of painful freight to it.”

When I speak to them, lesbians who say this seem to be under the impression that bisexuals must have our own history and culture and words that are all perfectly nice, so why can’t we just use those without poaching someone else’s?

And often, they’re really shocked when I tell them: We don’t. We can’t. I’d love to; it’s not possible.

“Lesbian” used to be a word that simply meant a woman who loved other women. And until feminism, very, very few women had the economic freedom to choose to live entirely away from men. Lesbian bars that began in the 1930s didn’t interrogate you about your history at the door; many of the women who went there seeking romantic or sexual relationships with other women were married to men at the time. When The Daughters of Bilitis formed in 1955 to work for the civil and political wellbeing of lesbians, the majority of its members were closeted, married women, and for those women, leaving their husbands and committing to lesbian partners was a risky and arduous process the organization helped them with. Women were admitted whether or not they’d at one point truly loved or desired their husbands or other men–the important thing was that they loved women and wanted to explore that desire.

Lesbian groups turned against bisexual and pansexual women as a class in the 1970s and 80s, when radical feminists began to teach that to escape the Patriarchy’s evil influence, women needed to cut themselves off from men entirely. Having relationships with men was “sleeping with the enemy” and colluding with oppression. Many lesbian radical feminists viewed, and still view, bisexuality as a fundamentally disordered condition that makes bisexuals unstable, abusive, anti-feminist, and untrustworthy.

(This despite the fact that radical feminists and political lesbians are actually a small fraction of lesbians and wlw, and lesbians do tend, overall, to have positive attitudes towards bisexuals.)

That process of expelling bi women from lesbian groups with immense prejudice continues to this day and leaves scars on a lot of bi/pan people. A lot of bisexuals, myself included, have an experience of “double discrimination”; we are made to feel unwelcome or invisible both in straight society, and in LGBT spaces. And part of this is because attempts to build a bisexual/pansexual community identity have met with strong resistance from gays and lesbians, so we have far fewer books, resources, histories, icons, organizations, events, and resources than gays and lesbians do, despite numerically outnumbering them..

So every time I hear that phrase, it’s another painful reminder for me of all the experiences I’ve had being rejected by the lesbian community. But bisexual experiences don’t get talked about or signalboosted much,so a lot of young/new lesbians literally haven’t learned this aspect of LGBT+ history.

Another good source here, also talking about aromanticism as well. Aspec people have been included in queer studies as long as queer studies have existed.

Also, just in my own experiences, the backlash against ‘queer’ is still really recent. When I was first working out my orientation at thirteen in 2000, there was absolutely zero issue with the term. I hung out on queer sites, looked for queer media, and was intrigued by queer studies. There were literally sections of bookstores in Glebe and Newtown labelled ‘Queer’. It was just… there, and so were we!

Yeah, okay, maybe older LGBTs use queer and fag and dyke…but they’re cringey, and you don’t want to be cringe, do you?

I’m not even joking. They strip the loud-and-proud aspects of our history out of all context, remove every bit of blood, sweat, and tears the queer community poured into things like anti-discrimination laws and AIDS research funding, and use those screams of rebellion to say we’re weird, and you wouldn’t want to be WEIRD.

Stop and think about that for a minute.

The trans campaigner, who did not wish to be named, told PinkNews that organisers of the ‘Let Women Speak’ event on Sunday (14 May) were “very keen” to have him speak after he posed as an anti-trans detransitioner. Instead, his intention was to get onto Parker’s ‘gender-critical’ livestream to share support for trans rights. He also wanted to send a message to genuine detransitioners to let them know they are “welcome” in the LGBTQ+ community. [...] During his speech, the speaker said he kept things specifically vague so that he could remain on mic for as long as possible to help spread the message of trans solidarity. But, after he said he attempted to “dismantle the mic”, Keen-Minshull, along with several of her supporters, forced him away from the stand. “The group crushed my hands, and arms, and left me with small cuts from the force they went in on me,” the speaker explained. “I have EDS and Nail Pattela Syndrome, hence the crutch, and have my joints pop out a lot when placed under force. My right hand is still in a lot of pain and I haven’t been able to use it that much after the incident. “But I had already gambled and knew that I would most likely get hurt trying to dismantle the mic.” Following the speech, he said he felt it important to note that, despite what anti-LGBTQ+ pundits may suggest, detransitioners are welcome in the community. “With detransitioners often being hit by fear-mongering, lies and hate … I needed to really hammer home that they are, in fact, welcome. “We want to support them, but falling into a cult such as the TERF movement is a sure fire way to really fall into a pit of self-hatred and loathing,” he said.

If you have more customers than your employees can handle and you're still not making enough, then you need to sort out your finances. Raise prices if necessary.

Right like. BLM centers black people. But the moral of the story is "police violence wrong" and "antiblackness wrong" and sorry but sometimes police violence and antiblackness does affect nonblack people because that's what systems of oppression do.

The United States of America has the highest prison population in the world

Black Americans and Latin people make up the majority of this population (many of whom are non-violent offenders)

Federal Prisons in America require that their state keeps their prisons at a maximum occupancy at all times.

If county-A has a population of 50 voters but no prisons, and county-B has a population of 50 voters and 50 prisoners, the county with the prisoners gets more government funding and more political represention. This is sometimes called “prison gerrymandering” and it is used in redistrictring.

These are the current female volleyball uniforms

The Norwegian team on the left got fined a ridiculous amount of money for wearing shorts to the games

When you compare the men and women, it becomes very clear how sexist the uniforms are.