Writing Mayhem

*(Read: Assertive of our boundaries and stood firm on the fact that our identities are deserving of respect)

We should be allowed to make a sour face or take a cold tone with someone when they carelessly misgender us for the fifth time in a row despite multiple corrections. We should be allowed to complain about erasure and ask where our needs and experiences come into play when we hear people reinforcing binary normativity in their discussions of gender related issues. We should be allowed to be visibly/audibly angry with other trans people when they try to forcibly categorize us as fem or masc, or imply that our enbyness is a mere phase that will eventually lead to "real/full" (binary to binary) transition.

A few unfriendly reminders:

1) This 1/4 and 1/3 they are talking about is only white people. Because falling birth rates always apply to white people, and so do abortions considered murders. And overpopulation is always about people of colour and immigrants.

2) It only applies to poor white people on top of that, or at least those that aren't stupid filthy rich. Because the upper class can have all the abortions they want. And keeping people in poverty is a great and effective way to control them. Forcing them to have kids they can't afford is one way to do it.

3) Many of those pregnancies were carried by teenagers, or rape victims, or would've died shortly after birth, died already, or would've killed the parent. The wellbeing of the pregnant person only matters to these people when it can be weaponised against them.

4) Many of these pregnancies wouldn't result in a happy family if carried to term. Many of them were unwanted and unplanned. Many of these pregnant people knew they wouldn't be good parents. But that's what anti-choice people want too. Because misery and trauma makes it easier to control people.

5) According to the Jewish tradition and the Bible in general, life starts at first breath, not at conception. And in the old testament there are instructions for an abortion potion that will only work if the wife is carrying the baby of a man different from her husband. So this anti-abortion view isn't biblical either.

6) Many churches were okay with abortion or neutral on it until desegregation of schools started in the fifties. Then many white Christians realised they needed more reasons than "I hate Black people" to keep their white kids from interacting with other cultures at school, so they decided to frame abortions as murder. And then they lobbied both the segregation and anti-choice bullshit.

Here are some basic primers. If someone is wearing what look like Meta glasses, they usually have a small circular camera in the outer corners of the lenses, like the one on your phone.

I would also regularly check their own product pages so you're on top of what the models look like. They tend to have larger frames, but come in a variety of shapes and colors.

A new hobbyist developed app warns if people nearby may be wearing smart glasses, such as Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses, which stalkers and harassers have repeatedly used to film people without their knowledge or consent. The app scans for smart glasses’ distinctive Bluetooth signatures and sends a push alert if it detects a potential pair of glasses in the local area.

The American Foundation for the Blind has said that "The Ray-Ban Meta glasses are an accessibility tool only by coincidence. That makes them more affordable and, in many ways, unaware of the needs of users with reduced vision" although they do have seemingly positive views on Meta Glasses as a whole. (source 10). It also seems like their marketing push as accessibility devices began last year (source 11).

But to add even more into the nonsense, Meta is now toying around with adding a "limit" to the functionality of their glasses unless their users pay for more access (source 12). AND, as stated above, Meta has officially added facial recognition code in their glasses and only admitted it after being called out, which is basically the death of privacy as we know it (source 13, source 14, source 15). And oh look another lawsuit because of it (source 16) THAT THEY LOST (source 17)!

Long story short: I don't begrudge someone using them as a disability aid overall, but ultimately both their privacy and other people's privacy are being disregarded by Meta and that is not and should not be acceptable by any means.

I understand there is no ethical consumption under capitalism but there is a level of personal responsibility someone has to take when using them if they truly truly need them, such as opting out of sharing information, not filming strangers without permission, not posting footage of strangers online, opting out of facial recognition if possible, etc.