#with concerning beliefs on bodily autonomy

[quetzalpapalotl]

Mikey: But yeah, so why Shockwave? OK, so Shockwave, you came up with this idea a good long while back, which means there was never an Onyx Prime, it was all a tissue of lies. But why? After every major villain in IDW has gone the redemptionist route, with the exception of stuff like Scorponok and Sentinel or whatever, why didn't you take Shockwave down that road? Do you just like him more as a villain or? John Barber: Uh… I do… again, he does not see himself as the villain. What I thought would be interesting is not that when he regains his emotions he suddenly realizes everything he's done has been wrong, as much as he realizes why everything he's done didn't work. Sure, maybe there's things he does, he thinks he did, were on the same way. Optimus probably feels that. But he doesn't, but it isn't necessarily 4 million years of his life were just mind control or were just something that he can walk away from, because it was still part of him. You know, that was still a thing he did. And the idea of it being more of a synthesis than a recovery. And when you pull back on it, like, he was still manipulating stuff. I don't know if James has the same take on the character, on Senator Shockwave, but he was still manipulating things. He was still conspiring, he was still working in the background to have his vision of what was right become the dominant vision. You know, that's what he was always doing, that's what he got in trouble for. And maybe he was right then, but there was still what he was doing, you know. So  even getting his emotions back kind of continues that. "OK, well, I'll be in the shadows pulling strings and conspiring to make Cybertron what I think Cybertron should be." So that's my take on the character.

I love this take on Shockwave. I love Onyx!Shockwave so much.

#also yeah #things he does things he did were the same way #doesn't make sense #but i had other people listen and that's what they heard too so #but yeah the idea that he could just go through all that and remain unchanged #that he could get his emotions back and be like a switch that turns him back exactly to who he was #that just wouldn't do for me #and again he was always a sketchy dude #with concerning beliefs on bodily autonomy

[genderkoolaid]

How do you respond to people who try to argue against various gender affirming surgeries with anorexic people wanting liposuction? I tried to point out that theres a lot of gender affirming surgeries for cis people who dont feel feminine/masculine enough, but my sister said that those people need therapy too. I feel that there's a difference between trans people and anorexic people but idk how to put it into words, im scared i accidentally made her more transphobic bc i didnt have arguments :(

Good question! It's important to question and critique our ideas of what separates "good, natural desires which should not be changed" from "bad, unnatural desires which should be changed," and I think sometimes trans people are too quick to reaffirm this binary in our attempts to defend transness.

I would say that the difference here is based in anxieties. Anorexia is born out of anxiety- which is to say, a persist concern over something that triggers strong emotional reactions and which you keep returning to over and over and over without resolution. Dysphoria can and does cause anxiety, but you can be dysphoric without having anxiety over it. You can have dysphoria, find relief, and be satisfied with your body, while there is never any satisfaction point with eating disorders. There is always a feeling of "not enough" because the desire to be skinnier is born out of anxiety over what it means to be fat & fatness' place in society (lesser value, moral weakness, medical abuse, etc.).

Like I said, dysphoria can and does cause anxiety. There are trans people who obsess over their bodies being too masculine/feminine because they are concerned with what it means for them to be too masculine/feminine: it means they aren't real, they are ugly, they're failure. And this is why its important for trans people to sit with our dysphoria and analyze it. If you are constantly worrying about your body being "real" enough, no amount of surgery or HRT will fix that (although it may fix many things).

Now, I am generally against any solution thats like "we should stop Those People from doing x because We know whats best for them!" because autonomy is a vital part of my beliefs, and I think that people rarely ever react well to being banned from doing something Because Mother Knows Best. The real goal with, say, EDs, is to get rid of the artificial desire for thinness by combating fatphobia (ah, if only all the anti-ED campaigns out there did this). The same with plastic surgery: I would much rather we focus on dismantling the system that makes people (esp. perceived women) feel they need to make their bodies fulfill the beauty standard, than saying that plastic surgery is Evil and we should stop anyone from ever getting it, because those little people aren't capable of using their basic right to bodily autonomy correctly. When we ban something, what we really want is to change people's desires. But that requires cultural change, and laws don't create cultural change out of thin air. Its like how yelling at your kids doesn't make them more honest or better people, it just makes them better liars.

Given that trans people exist in every society, potentially going back to the Stone Age, even after we unwork systemic misogyny & homophobia, trans people are still gonna want surgeries. So we should just work on combating those things instead of trying to control people's bodies.

#m. #ask box #ed tw #anorexia tw #also unrelated but smth smth the way that link calls the presumed AMAB person trans #but the presumed AFAB person buried as a man is just. a woman who was likely a warrior. okay

[menalez]

Hi! Do you think you could explain how gender critical people can support body autonomy in cases like abortion but not transition? I know you believe that medical transition doesn't change someone's gender. But under the ideals of body autonomy, would you support a woman taking T if she still called herself a woman instead of a calling herself a trans man?

And in general, I know radfems are anti-plastic surgery, but wouldn't that too fall under one's body autonomy?

I'm just trying to figure out radfem and gc ideas but I'm running into some inconsistencies.

honestly i was a bit baffled by this ask and couldn't help but feel like its bait bc ... how is cosmetic surgery that is harming your body, incredibly expensive, and done as a result of self-hatred the same as not wanting to carry a baby & go thru the risks of pregnancy for 9 months? to me these are such blatantly, fundamentally different things. but let me assume this isn't bait and you're asking in good faith and address your points.

I know you believe that medical transition doesn't change someone's gender.

this shows a complete lack of understanding on what beliefs i even hold. i don't think medical transition "doesn't change someone's gender" i know it doesn't change a person's *SEX*. this difference is very crucial. gender = gender roles, gendered expectations, etc. it is a social construct. it has nothing to do with anything medical nor biological, its a social contruct that varies across time and cultures.

But under the ideals of body autonomy, would you support a woman taking T if she still called herself a woman instead of a calling herself a trans man?

why would i support the act of taking synthetic hormones which are actively harming your health just as long as you Identify a certain way? it doesn't matter to me what you call yourself. i'm critical of medical transition because it is costly, harmful, and rooted in questionable beliefs. i'm critical of how readily it is promoted. i am critical of how profitable it is to pharmaceutical and medical industries. i am critical of how little research is being put into ensuring the safety of it as well as research into other methods of dealing with sex dysphoria. whether you call yourself a man or a woman is the least of my concerns.

you use the term bodily autonomy, but you seem to be under the belief that bodily autonomy = a person gets to do whatever they want with their body and their choices are always above any criticism or analysis and it does not matter how much their choices are harming them or others. by that logic, if you don't support an anorexic woman starving herself or getting a liposuction, you are against her bodily autonomy because you are not allowing her full agency over her body. by that logic, if a woman tells you she wants to get a BBL or have implants put in, you need to validate and encourage that choice because to question harming your body is to oppose bodily autonomy. but that is not what bodily autonomy is. here is a definition:

Body autonomy is defined as the ability of one person to demonstrate power and agency over choices concerning their own bodies. These choices must be made without fear, threat, violence or coercion from others.

Body autonomy allows individuals the freedom to make their own choices about their bodies. This is significant to a person’s health and wellbeing.

now, if there is a group of people being told that they need to transition ASAP and being told constantly that without transition they will kill themselves, is that or is that not going to instill fear? because if i was told that i need to take an action as early as possible, lest my life be miserable and doomed, then im going to want to urgently take such an action out of fear. if parents are being told "do you prefer to have a dead daughter or a living son?" or w/e, is that not coercion and threats?

moreover, we know taking synthetic hormones for cosmetic purposes can be extremely harmful for one's health. women with high levels of testosterone naturally suffer from a lot of health consequences as a result, nevermind people who alter their body's hormones. this is fundamentally different from a woman choosing to get an abortion because a pregnancy is costly, risky, has health consequences, and will impact her entire life for at least the next 18 years of her life.

that said, i'm not blaming people who do pursue cosmetic procedures or artificial hormones and i'm not against them. i am against the industries promoting this and making it difficult to even have a conversation on this, even pushing against research that does not benefit their financial interests. i am against the promotion of cosmetic surgery as necessary, healthy, and somehow healthcare. i think that there NEEDS to be more research into medical transition, the impacts it has on health, its usefulness and helpfulness, and alternative treatments. the lack of such research and the lack of constructive conversation on this topic is where my concerns lie. not with identity politics like what someone calls themselves while harming their bodies.

so ultimately, i'm not understanding what you think is an inconsistency here. questioning profitable industries and cosmetic surgery which are modern inventions rooted in amplifying people's, namely women's, insecurities for the sake of profit is not at all the same as an abortion and it's worrying to me that you don't see the difference. providing blind affirmation to every choice an individual makes is not bodily autonomy, its individualism and liberalism to another degree. bodily autonomy is allowing individuals the right to make informed, healthy, decisions for themselves. a woman deciding she does not want to go through 9 months of pregnancy and 18 years of child-rearing is not the same as a woman deciding she hates her body and thus MUST get a boob job (which ultimately harms this person's health rather than helping), or someone deciding they hate their sex and thus MUST get surgeries to pass for a different sex (which also ultimately negatively impacts the person's health, even if it provides some psychological relief which potentially could've been gained via a different approach like therapy).

#some1 harming themselves isnt above criticism simply bc we can argue its bodily autonomy usin the most individualist definition of the term #anonymous

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

I recently reblogged this thread recently and I have to say, it's mind blowing to me. This is a great thread but looking through the replies is mind numbing. Women have children. Aside from RARE exceptions this is a biological fact. The thing that causes this to happen? Sexual Intercourse. The thread is shown here:

Now. Let me start this off by saying that I don't have solid beliefs when it comes to Pro Life or Pro Choice. I really don't. I know several people I follow are pro life and would not be happy with me saying that but I mostly sit on the fence for this one. I lean more towards the Pro Life side of things but I'm honestly not 100% pro life. And I'm not good at articulating why. But that's something I personally have to live with.

However the reason I'm making this post is because of some comments I saw. Specifically from one person. Now, I didn't see the things they were replying too, but I can still approach what was said in the comments as they were statements that need no context to understand. I'll address them kind of together but also separately.

Here are the comments:

So let me make this blatantly clear. All of this is bullshit. All of it.

A fetus is a HUMAN fetus first and foremost. Meaning it is human from conception. And yes. Children have more rights than adults. Why? Because you can get charged for neglect towards a child. As well as other things. Kids have varying protections under the law that adults do not. So it's not, "More rights than a regular person". It's "More legal rights and protections than an adult."

A fetus is NOT a corpse. And even in the case of a miscarriage, there should still be a level of dignity given to the lost life.

"By allowing people to chose to terminate a pregnancy, that ensures both the parent and the child have equal human rights" No it doesn't. It means that the child has no right to life and the mother has a right to destroy said child before it is delivered. Even after said child is viable. When functionally a fetus is viable after a point in time where it can survive outside the womb. If it has to come out either way at that point, why kill it? Oh right, because you don't view it as a living human.

This here is a load of shit. Bodily autonomy stops the moment another life is added to the equation. "It means no one can use your body without your consent."

*SIGH*

YOU LITERALLY CONSENT TO THE CHANCE OF HAVING A CHILD THE MOMENT YOU DECIDE TO HAVE SEX. EVERY THING YOU DECIDE TO DO IN YOUR LIFE HAS CONSEQUENCES! IF YOU WANT TO HAVE SEX AND NOT HAVE KIDS GET FUCKING FIXED! And if you can't get fixed, the reason is because doctors have been SUED for letting people get fixed when they were too young to realized they'd eventually want kids. And after a LOT of legal issues most doctors will no longer fix people under a certain age without X amount of kids. Unless you opt to freeze your eggs first. However there are doctors that will still do it.

If you are so concerned, find those doctors. THEN when you decide ok now I'm ready, I hope you lose in court against the doctors or hospital you sue.

Nah. This is the sentiment of MOST pro choice advocates. It used to be "Safe, Legal, and Rare." Because back then, we understood life started at conception but very FEW exceptions were made. We did NOT call it "Just a clump of cells". We did not call it, "Just some tissue". It was, "As early as possible" "Not after a certain point" and "Put it up for adoption if you change your mind".

Now a days, it's "It's not a life at all, it's just some tissue, and it's only a baby when I PERSONALLY decide it is". <You all admitting you don't care about science or logical fact. It's human in it's developmental stages from the moment the egg is fertilized. And the only reason people DON'T want that to be the understanding is because people think it's their right to have consequence-less sex and have zero repercussions at all. It's people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions.

And here's the kicker. I have casual sex. I LOVE SEX. However, if I EVER got a girl preg and she kept it, I'd be a responsible adult and help take care of it. As the child would be half mine.

And contrary to the idea that denying a woman's ability do "Chose" is somehow, "Boiling women down to just their ability to give birth", No it's not. Not even remotely. It's just saying if you make a choice, and that choice results in a new life being created, you opted to make the choice that created it. It's not making women less than. It's holding men AND WOMEN accountable for their actions.

However, there is another element to this too. Which is another fun part of this WHOLE BS narrative. MEN are the only ones expected to have to be responsible. Both by society AND by law. They also, (in the west) do not have legal say over keeping the kid if the mother wants to get rid of it. So basically, your stance is probably, "Women should have carte blanche to have sex with NO consequences what so ever, but if the mother decides to keep her child the man has ZERO choice is if he has to pay child support in most of the western world. So again, we come back to this narrative of infantilizing women saying they can't be held to account for actions they themselves take. But others can be held to account for them.

How hard is it to stop having sex or don't have sex at all? Really though. Try being physically addicted to it to the point your mind actually gutter bombs into "It's fine I can stop living". A lot of Nymphomaniacs live that reality and often have to be on heavy medications to more or less kill their libido entirely. Except less than 5% of the world populace has that problem. It's a want that you are trying to pass off as a need.

This is an annoyed post mostly and probably moderately incoherent but honestly? This whole argument pissed me off. Women are not toddlers. Please stop pretending that being exempt from consequences is somehow "Empowering" and "A human right". It's not.

#discourse

[gatheringbones]

[“Historically, our law enforcement and criminal legal systems have fixated on fundamentally white-supremacist notions of protecting the virtue and innocence of white women and girls, primarily as justification for enacting horrifying acts of violence upon non-white, non-citizen men. Simultaneously, police and the prison system have always regarded women and girls of color with skepticism and hostility.

The VAWA was enacted within a context and legacy of women of color and especially Black and brown women experiencing such prevalent state and police violence in their communities that seeking help from law enforcement isn’t an option. In this sense, the law embodies white feminism. As author and activist Rafia Zakaria notes on the very first page of her 2021 book Against White Feminism, white feminists aren’t defined by their race but by their refusal “to consider the role that whiteness and the racial privilege attached to it have played . . . in universalizing white feminist concerns, agendas and beliefs as being those of all feminists.” It’s an ideology that universalizes white women as all women, and consequently harms women and femmes of color through the carceral “solutions” that it asserts will protect (white) women. Per the 2012 Rights4Girls study “The Sexual Abuse to Prison Pipeline,” 76 percent of incarcerated survivors in the Oregon prison system experienced sexual assault by the age of thirteen and are predominantly women and girls of color.11 The same study found criminalization and incarceration of those who had experienced early sexual traumas often stemmed from being unable to access crucial resources and supports to cope with their trauma.

In many communities, lack of resources for victims is a direct result of overinvestment in policing and incarceration. White women–led survivor justice movements exist in sharp contrast with historically Black women–led reproductive justice advocacy, which has always recognized how criminalization and incarceration are inherently anti-feminist. From policing the pregnancy outcomes and self-managed abortions of women of color, to the prevalence of Black families and families of color being torn apart by the prison system (one in nine Black children has an incarcerated parent, compared with one in twenty-eight white children), abolition is requisite to reproductive justice—and consequently, survivor justice.”]

kylie cheung, from survivor injustice: state-sanctioned abuse, domestic violence, and the fight for bodily autonomy, 2023

#kylie cheung #cw abuse #cw rape #cw racism #currently reading #history stuff

[johanna-swann]

I'll always find it... I'll say interesting, how Rockmond was fired because his medical/religious beliefs resulting in his refusal to be vaccinated because it was "a concern he'll harm others" (which understanding the industry regulations that's a tough one to fight... even though they still allowed him to film scenes so they could write him off "peacefully" 🤐) And in the same breath Ryan got to keep his job after his vaccination/N*zi comparisons/rants... 👀 Yeah okay I see y'all 🤨 Whether I agree/DISAGREE with Rockmond's personal beliefs, what the actual fuck! Fair treatment, my ass! They should've both been axed if they were both "contributing to antivax agendas" But again, someone who had religious reasons not to do it got canned while someone with uh questionable treatment of certain/multiple groups of people 👀 got to stay??? Fox was wild for that, but hey we got to know who fits their brand...

... his what now comparison??? Omg, somebody tell me Ryan Guzman did not compare pandemic regulations to the Third Reich. See, this is why I don't usually read up on actors. In the end it's just disappointing.

Like, I'm very pro-vaccination. I think the show rightfully decided to protect cast and crew by writing out an anti-vax cast member, but in the end you can't force him, bodily autonomy and all.

There's a difference between "I'm not getting vaccinated because of my faith" and "vaccination rules are like nazi germany" though.

Also fun fact, I don't know if you knew this @ anon, but I'm German and we had this huge scandal at an anti-vax protest where a student gave a speech on stage claiming to feel like the very famous resistance member Sophie Scholl. The backlash and media shitstorm was huge. That's not a thing to joke about and it's even worse if Ryan Guzman was serious.

Is that his MO? Go online, talk insensitive bullshit and apologise later so he can keep his job? But his stans are the ones running around calling other fans racist and homophobic?

#everyday i wake up #and i find out actors continue to be the weirdest fucking breed #911 abc #anon #ask #ryan guzman

[bioethicists]

hi i hope you dont mind this question. i assume because you are anti psych/mad liberation (me too) you probably also get the pro psych reaction of "thats dangerous" and "its not all like that" and the accusation that acknowledging the fact that psychiatric and therapy "care" is so bad will make people quit that care and they will inevitably get worse and it'll be your fault? im an anti psych blogger and this really messes me up because my whole thing is that i DONT want mentally ill ppl to suffer, and thats the whole reason i AM anti psych. and i am afraid ppl will somehow be harmed by me telling the truth or making (evil!) generalizations about psych professionals, etc.

to me it seems incredibly reactionary, usually comes with a moral panic flavor, and is chock full of victim blaming cliches. it seems to me that it hinges on the fear and threat of 1. a Crazy person rejecting treatment and 2. a Crazy person rejecting authority, so again, it seems to be based mostly in stigma. and yet it does seem true and possible that ppl will be influenced in ways that turn out poorly and i dont want that to happen either. and yet again, framing it like "dont tell ppl what health care to pursue" is a misnomer since psych care is simply about social control... and that facade of health care just protects them from criticism in a bad faith way cause it makes you look anti vax adjacent and telling ppl not to see doctors. im not really interested in telling ppl what to do when it comes to accessing psych care, but my general analysis is that: is refusing psych care possibly dangerous? yes. is getting psych care also possibly dangerous? yes.

anyway the main question is if/how you deal with this. both intellectually and emotionally. cause i think its possibly the hardest part of sharing anti psych views in public. it makes me feel guilty and afraid. and i think making splicing disclaimers sucks and is stupid. so idk. thanks for reading.

first of all, i absolutely do experience this + it used to piss me off more than it does now but now it mostly makes me sad. i think you summed it up so well when you said that both refusing + seeking psych care can be dangerous.

part of it is that, the deeper i root into my belief in bodily autonomy, the more i stop punishing myself if someone takes a good faith, well-phrased assertion i've made + spins that into something harmful which i never said or intended. i am very deliberate to only spread information that pushes for expanding + critiquing methods of healing, stressing that my goal is to free people from suffering, not compound it.

i know that some people who are struggling with paranoia or self-destructive impulses read mad liberation talking points (often finding their ways to the more conspiracy fueled or recklessly phrased ones) + respond in ways that end up harming them, like cold-turkey going off antipsychotics or firing their entire treatment teams to take sketchy supplements. it does make me very sad that this happens, because like you said, i want these people to be happy + not suffer.

however, i rarely see comparable conversation about how people take the logics of the psych system and use THOSE to harm themselves. many people with similar traits to those who do what you are describing are just as likely to use the logics of psychiatry to punish themselves or distance themselves from others. they use 'coping mechanisms' punitively by becoming obsessed with 'clean' eating/dieting, organization/academics, being the Perfect Patient. they tell others + themselves that they are neurologically incapable of love or healthy relationships or pleasure. they isolate themselves because they believe they are fundamentally toxic or abusive. they dismiss their emotions as "just symptoms" + actively chastise themselves or try to train themselves out of experiencing any anger towards others or even any negative emotions at all. they admit themselves to psych wards frequently not out of a reasonable concern that they will hurt themselves or others but because they believe they belong in a psych ward any time they are experiencing symptoms. the list goes on.

all of that being said, i do experience genuine concern that people might read what i write + because of self-hatred or intense paranoia, read some sort of mandate or advice that isn't there + end up in more pain. because this exact thing also happens with psychiatry, which the naysayers you describe above are not concerned with, i don't think they're actually worried about hurting people. they are worried about Crazy people Not Getting Help. it comes from a place of paternalism + fear.

another, more positive aspect of it is that i do genuinely believe that many people are not being helped by their treatment teams but think they Have To be in therapy or in a hospital or on meds despite them not helping because that's What You Do. so they have been sitting around waiting for five years of therapy or their seventh ssri to start doing something meaningful. some of them just needed to hear: you don't have to do this; it might not be the right thing for you. i actually think these people are really well-served by hearing about anti-psych/mad lib stuff + them quitting therapy/meds/treatment ends up allowing them to look for other pathways for dealing with emotional suffering.

ultimately, i think mad liberation that focuses on true autonomy + total liberation of all peoples provides a clearer path forward for people to return from these places of intense paranoia or self destruction. i think we are all so used to being deprived of autonomy that, when we first get it back, we often stumble with it or try to provoke someone into taking it away from us. that is just going to continue to happen if we respond to it by making autonomy conditional. a LOT of us feel like we're not allowed to heal if it's not a moral mandate, so hearing that it isn't feels like nobody cares. we have to find new ways of showing that we care which don't involve exerting power over others.

#anti psychiatry #long n rambling sorryyy

[bi-kisses]

I cave. I was a radfem / am still one in theory but everyone is being ridiculously careless with their activism these days. I admit I rooted along for tighter regulations concerning transition particularly for children but it's apparent it doesn't stop there and whenever I tried voicing my concerns to other friends and groups I got belittled and told I was falling into the fearmongering of the TRA. And I also admit I believed that at first but now you can't ignore that the people advocating for the denial of the TRAs demands also cut into women's rights and that of homosexuals and protection rights. It's just too dangerous to play around like that - it doesn't feel like it's worth 'fighting' for if the result is this. Yeah I hurt when I think about the stories of TIMs slithering into our positions and spaces but compared to what is happening and planned to happen law-wise I hurt even more... So I no longer consider myself allied with radfems even though at core I have the same beliefs. I will not act on them. The execution of these are not progress in any way. So begrudgingly - in a two sides only system with no middle ground - I'll cave to their demands for the long run. Also I realise there are more moderate TRAs who acknowledge the two bio sexes (although they they still insist transitioning is possible) who also criticise the TRAs who are one the nonbinary trip (like you) but I honestly think we are all at a point where we can't refuse taking sides when the issue (to vote on) is black and white. Maybe that's just the election fear coming up. So my ask is to you as a kind of mediator/ person between the two sides: what's your take on this? Justified fear to have or baseless concerns? Is taking sides necessary?

Genuinely a really interesting thing to talk about!

I think that, the problem with "picking a side" in this case, is that beliefs aren't the same as actions. So when you hold opinions, they can be very nuanced and have layers regarding the validity of this or that identity, but when it comes to actually calling for societal change, that nuance is.... Flatter.

As a result, yeah, I think we *are* sort of forced to choose one extreme or the other, despite our beliefs falling somewhere in the middle, because there isn't any opportunity right now to push for those moderate views, legally speaking. The options are bodily autonomy for all, including transition, or restricting the rights of women and children.

I agree with a lot of tenants that radical feminists stand for, such as abortion rights, normalization of body hair, fighting porn culture/the sex industry, and being critical of the beauty industry (makeup, cosmetic surgeries, etc). But that doesn't mean I align myself with radical feminists, because ideologies don't own ideas outright, and I disagree with so many other core beliefs.

Radical feminists these days have prioritized their hatred for trans people, predominantly trans women, over the rights and autonomy of women in general. You're absolutely right and it's not an easy thing to admit, if you've been ascribed to a label and/or community for any length of time, that they're on the wrong side of things.

Because, circling back, it has become a matter of those two extreme sides, and radical feminism has chosen to fight for restricting everyone's rights out of hatred for <1% of the population.

To answer your questions directly, I do think there's justified concern. The UK is a great example of how poorly this is turning out. And if you plan on actually engaging in activism outside of the internet, I do think you have to choose a side, or at least a cause, to stake your effort into... Even if you aren't 100% on board with the cause as a whole.

I'll use my friend as an example. She's a trans woman living stealth and has been doing a lot of activist work advocating for Palestine. The committee she's a part of had a controversy because another member was accused of transphobia. This controversy was drawing away time and resources from their main cause, being Palestine. My friend honestly didn't give a shit if someone on the board had transphobic beliefs because that wasn't the point of what they were doing, so she tried to redirect that attention back to their work rather than internal conflict. She had to pick a side there, as a trans person, and she chose the pressing matter over the personal one.

I think it's something we can learn from and relate to.

I want to conclude by thanking you because your ask was really interesting as a fresh perspective. If you'd like to talk more, my DMs and ask box are open.

#anonymous #kisstalks #long post

[shinobicyrus]

After the mass shooting at a Nashville elementary school that killed three nine-year old children and three staff, Tennessee Rep Tim Burchett said of the tragedy, “It’s a horrible, horrible situation, and we’re not gonna fix it. Criminals are gonna be criminals.”

He went on to say: “My daddy fought in the Second World War, fought in the Pacific, fought the Japanese, and he told me … ‘Buddy, if somebody wants to take you out and doesn’t mind losing their life, there’s not a whole heck of a lot you can do about it.”

It’s striking how mass murderers with a gun is the sole thing that Conservatives are perfectly okay feigning powerlessness about. Imagine if this same principle was applied to other Conservative bugbears:

“Listen I know we’re all concerned about the gay agenda but there’s just no way to fix it. Gays are gonna be gay.”

“Abortion is a horrible, horrible thing, but if somebody wants to end a pregnancy there’s not a whole heck of a lot you can do to stop them.”

“We can’t really stop illegal immigrants coming over the border. Criminals are gonna be criminals!”

"If a jihadist wants to take you out and doesn’t mind losing their life, there’s not a whole heck of a lot you can do about it.”

But of course, they have no issue at all passing laws restricting bodily autonomy, forcing victims of sexual violence to remain pregnant, persecuting queer people, banning books, enacting draconian restrictions of free speech at schools and sending undercover cops to drag shows. Nor do they have any qualms about mass surveillance on US Citizens and immigrant communities, illegal incarceration and child separation of asylum seekers. Border walls and ICE raids and bans on people from Muslim-majority countries.

They will trample and restrict on every right except guns, because it’s the perfect fusion of violent American machismo, the profits of the Arms Industry, and their secret, romantic belief that someday they’re going to be Noble Revolutionaries fighting a Tyrannical government.

The tyranny, of course, not being all the things I mentioned above, but the government suggesting that maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be allowed to own a weapon that can kill a dozen people in a matter of seconds. That’s real tyranny.

#Guns #Gun Safety #Gun Control #Conservatives #American Gun Culture #Republicans #I actually found this thing in my drafts #actually dates back to that #Covenant School shooting #almost a year ago at this point #oh how literally nothing has changed #except the bodybounts

[aronarchy]

i was drafting this in my head a few days ago & I can’t remember the original text(s) I was responding to now (maybe it was CINA? plus some twitter threads I recently saw), but here goes—

I think it was something about abuse/abusers, and how the correct way to handle a situation of abuse is for the victim/supporters to “negotiate” with the abuser—that victims/supporters are obligated to go through some “negotiation” process rather than simply cutting contact, or doing things like removing the abuser from a position of power.

the idea of a negotiation is that two or more parties come together to discuss, because A has something B might want, and B has something A might want, and a compromise is reached with some sort of exchange—A gives something to B, B gives something to A. negotiations are used to determine what amount of things should be given by each party.

but when such negotiations are opened between victim and abuser, what is being “debated,” put up for sale or for exchange, is the victim’s right to their own bodily autonomy, to arrange their own life as they choose, to be safe to arrange their own life as they choose, to not have to experience constant assaults on themself. to demand a negotiation here means to imply a person’s autonomy can be up for grabs. that it can be okay, in any circumstance, to abuse another person.

the author also proposes a similar route when confronting bigots: “negotiate.” sit down and talk. explain. address concerns. comfort. convince. show you’re safe and trustworthy. prove you’re right and deserve rights. what is there to “prove”? why are marginalized people’s rights being put up for debate, as if losing equals deserving to be oppressed then?

to “meet in the middle” means both A and B take steps forward. trying to find common ground. when your pre-negotiation stance is “abuse is wrong,” when that is what you’re putting up in the marketplace of ideas to be changed, this just means you are unprincipled, and you are not willing to stand your ground on crucial issues of people’s rights. to prefer an A-B negotiation game rather than B just unilaterally excluding A / disseminating the belief that A is wrong without first ~considering the ~~merits~~ of A~ just means that you value “the existence of a negotiation/debate/consideration process,” in itself, more than you value liberation or victims’/marginalized people’s actual safety. more willing to sacrifice real human beings than to give up your edgelord-academic contrarian games.

out of a fear of misread situations, the above people completely overcorrect in a wildly different direction, deciding instead to never do anything to oppose abuse at all, because what if, what if that gets misdirected at an innocent person!! rather than doing any work to improve the accuracy of how people read situations, instead throwing out a whole vital urgently needed set of tools because fear of a hypothetical where they are misused or overreach.

“prove to me that you do not deserve to be abused” is a common dynamic in abusive situations. rather than 24/7 complete 100% dehumanization and hatred, abusers commonly present their abuse as conditional: I am only doing this because you are out of control, I am only doing this because you failed to complete all your work, I am only doing this because you were noncompliant, but prove to me you deserve respect by being like all the other people I interact with without abusing, control yourself and be productive and comply to show me/society that you don’t need to be abused.

rarely is the idea raised that perhaps A should not be abusing B anyway because B is a person and deserves to live their life freely and A is not entitled to B’s conformity or productivity or compliance in the first place, especially not at the expense of B’s autonomy.

victims living with abusers for years and years on end trying to understand what’s wrong with them what they’re doing wrong that is “making” their abuser abuse them, what they could just change about themselves or how they’re acting or who they are to make it stop, how they can “prove” that they’re trustworthy so they don’t “need” to be spied on, how they can “prove” that they can be efficient laborers so they don’t “need” to be threatened, how they can “prove” that they can take care of themselves so they don’t “need” to have their physical boundaries crossed constantly.

marginalized people living with internalized bigotry trying their entire lives to change themselves, to prove they’re “one of the good ones,” so that the privileged accept this thing they give up in this twisted negotiation, their autonomy their safety their self-expression their authenticity their mental health their freedom, waiting and waiting for some crumbs to be exchanged in return.

you don’t always have to “hear out both sides of the story.” some things are not up for debate and you only invite bad actors to take root and drag you further right, to further enable abuse, when you demand that there must be “discussions” to determine “the real truth” because you dislike that the truth has already been shown to you and you just don’t want to acknowledge it so you go instead for this pseudo-intellectual posturing, for the trials by state courts that do nothing but enable abusers and further victimize/steal the autonomy of survivors.

please have some conviction and stand up for your values when they’re more serious than arguments over the merits of pineapple on pizza. survivors aren’t just abstract concepts to be debated and picked over, we’re real people with real needs right now.

#OP #Enlightened Centrism #liberalism

[mariacallous]

In America, presidential election cycles are political beauty contests. Vying for the presidency requires candidates to schmooze their way through the heartland, and all roads run through Iowa. The Hawkeye State is ground zero for early-stage political maneuvering, and because January’s caucus often signals which candidate has the best chance of winning elections in other states, this past weekend was especially telling as politicians descended on the Iowa State Fair selling their specific brand of progress.

Although former president Donald Trump, twice impeached, faces multiple indictments in four criminal cases—the most recent, this week, charged him with racketeering and participation in a criminal enterprise in an effort to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia—he remains the front-runner for the Republican nomination. But his substantial lead in the polls has not deterred opponents.

That’s certainly the case for Trump’s main rival, Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, who was also in Iowa trying to corral votes and steer his campaign back on course. For the first time since campaigning commenced, an Emerson College poll has DeSantis in third place, lagging behind veteran political blowhard Chris Christie, with 8 percent of Republican primary voters in New Hampshire saying they intend to back him. Accompanied by his wife and three children, DeSantis roamed the fairgrounds with gusto: posing for photos, listening to voter concerns, grilling burgers. But the pageantry of presidential primaries is just that, a performance, and this is especially true of DeSantis. He gives the appearance of a better tomorrow, yet his political ideologies are anything but forward-thinking.

DeSantis is the poster boy for false progress. As the governor of Florida since 2019, he has impaired queer rights, restricted the teaching of race and gender in classrooms, curbed job creation, self-servingly removed two Democratic state attorneys from their elected positions, worked to tighten press freedoms, and passed a law that lets Florida residents carry a concealed firearm without a permit. “The same lawmakers who want to rob their constituents of the right to bodily autonomy have also begun to treat democracy as an obstacle to avoid, not a process to respect,” Jamelle Bouie observed this week in The New York Times. “Once you are in the business of degrading the citizenship of one group of people, it’s easy to extend that pattern of action to the citizenship of other groups of people.”

In an image of DeSantis at the Iowa State Fair, taken by photographer Chip Somodevilla, we are meant to see the Florida governor not for who he really is but as he sees himself: towering and altruistic, a true-blue advocate for everyday Americans. But the angle of the camera’s eye suggests another truth, one closer to the panorama of our lived reality. DeSantis is only made big by making others small. With his right hand extended and his wide Chesire smile reminiscent of a 1990s Aphex Twin album cover, the camera tilts upward, giving DeSantis the impression of gross idolatry. The photo intends to suggest reverence but I can’t escape another thought: He stands tall at the expense of whole communities he steps on, people who are made into targets because of his dangerous beliefs and regressive policies.

In one possible America ahead, where DeSantis rules as president, that version of reality comes at the cost of people who refuse to give in to his masked cruelty, of people who find no benefit in wholesale repression. It’s like I said earlier. Presidential election cycles are nothing more than political beauty contests, and often the candidates who are the most successful—like DeSantis, like Trump—are keen on hiding just how monstrous they truly are.

[leftmusing]

americans,

please stay safe during this absolutely inhumane removal of your bodily autonomy and human rights. if you are in a state where there's an abortion ban, i want to offer this small, potential glimmer of hope

one of the only exceptions to the ban will be religious exemption. the satanic temple is a non-theistic recognised religion and is currently fighting tirelessly for religious reproductive rights. they don't believe in the supernatural or theistic entities like god, and their religious beliefs and tenets are centred around justice, science, autonomy, empathy, compassion and wisdom. to them, satan isn't a tangible being that they worship, but a symbol of the eternal rebel, and believe wholeheartedly and religiously in opposing arbitrary authority.

i feel like it's important that you're aware that you can use the satanic temple as a legal religious exemption to challenge the ban, and fight for your reproductive health care. membership is free, and they are currently fighting tooth and nail for the cause

please share this with your friends and peers who this ban will effect, and if you or people you know follow and believe in the moral practises that the satanic temple entails, i would highly recommend becoming a member.

here is a link to their official website and information page about what they stand for and believe in. through this website you can apply for membership, find out where your local congregation is, and read into their beliefs and causes they fight for

protect your bodily, medical autonomy at all costs. this isn't a fight you can afford to lose. this is an organisation that wants to help.

sincerely, a concerned uk citizen who wishes they could help more. please be safe

#monad.txt #abortion ban #roe vs. wade #the satanic temple #politics #bodily autonomy #abortion #america #roe v wade #TST #atheism #human rights

[anarchywoofwoof]

50 Immoral Anarchist Aphorisms

from Comrade Candle

One knows what one wants to.

Knowing oneself is a journey – presently.

Purposelessness grants many creative liberties; values and morals are nothing.

Prescribing oneself a pill to swallow – whose truth?

What can we accept as true, when even our language?

To speak and write fill the same void in our present; our existence always constructs a past; what do we record?

Pain has no value to it, for what purpose would arise the preference for pleasure?

Crime is not often enough recognized as the individual's defiance to the State's will.

The State controls, demanding subservience for the meager table scraps.

I am my own.

God has, for far too long, constrained the Ego.

The individual is forever at war with the State.

Cold and cruel detachment – A gleeful State; authority over the individual.

The cold can burn with the ferocity of a flame; And the heat?

You rid yourself of God – and his morals?

None is equal to another, for nature sorely lacks equals, yet none are free until no one is above another – hierarchy is not natural.

Society is nothing; And without the individual?

Crime and Law are a dichotomy.

Traditions forever damn the advent of a new.

A NEW DAWN – I am continuously becoming, much as I was.

Freedom & the State are opposites; Who is free when one must do as they are commanded?; A land of the Free would, truly, have far fewer borders.

The absence of authority grants the individual the most potential liberty.

What makes the criminal so deserving of your disdain – and your pity?

The exaltation of Good comes at the cost of all deemed naught.

Who knows better what masculinity expects than those so desperately trying to escape it?

Gender entails another to interpret it, no?

My femininity and yours may be distinct, yet we should decide yours, or mine, is unfeminine?

My self and the gender I weld remain two sides of the same coin.

The negation of everything is nothing; nothing lacks everything.

My existence, and through it my philosophy, are the supplement to my bodily senses. Also an interpretation. I am the only one to, physically, feel the pain if I were stabled; It may very well be that I am the only one who cares, too! In what way other than our own experience is the basis for our thought born?

Morals limit the creativity of one's actions and thoughts - “How else to not become some monster?” - And I suppose morals demand you respect your fellow individual? Respect of their autonomy? The arbiters of good and just may conclude your control as so. My thoughts are more readily concerned with my own experience than your morals. A more affirmative and creative existence – to thee who destroy, I also say yay!

God is a delusion of man to expound upon the the unexplainable, to lead those who hold true the belief, and to judge others that defy the authority. As a concept, it has far outlived any use.

We are all nothing; there is nothing substantive or of value to our wake. Every aspect of our world, of our person, is meaningless.

The criminal performs tirelessly what the State demands not be. An existence of crime will have the State desiring your end.

Am I to care what the State wants; needs?

Individual liberty comes at the cost of an exertion of one's power.

The individual is both nothing & everything; My entire existence, all of my power; My power compared to the State's?

My womanhood is precisely mine, and mine alone.

The way Kodak hits 'em with that drum; He's not making beats, the drum isn't making music – I can't wait to let him spray!

FritoLay was far more oppressive before it became a Broward County thing. Now – it is very cool.

A large propensity of the State's power lies in its admiration & respect, as undue as they may. The insurrection could start with you, merely, defying the State by recognizing yourself. When the coldest of all monsters erases your Ego, and would command, you follow, what could be more radical than this refusal? You are an individual.

Time is a measurement, one we can only ever measure finitely on our own; Our lives have a finite amount of time. There existed time before my existence, and there will probably be a time after my death. Yet my time before my death is scarce. The time the State chooses to rid me of, justified by its Law.

The State removes individuals of their liberty every moment.

I would rather affirm what I would like to be than grant control of my own existence to traditions & customs.

Control elicits submission; subjugation.

What is there that is voluntary of capitalism, when all alternatives provoke the State's icy wrath? Is it a choice, when the options presented amount to submit or survive violence? I am happy, I was able to lead my life. You, too.

Spice and flavor form the palette of a taste.

Crime is cool, too.

Women make me feel a special way – very gayly.

I am noble and virtuous, an immoralist. You shan't possess my Ego with your spectres – I alone create my will. Nothing matters to me; I see purposelessness as my liberator. Who am I? If perhaps anyone ever truly knows, it'll be myself; maybe.

You can write to Sofia Johnson (Comrade Candle) at:

Sofia Johnson

Coffee Creek Correctional Facility

24499 SW Grahams Ferry Road

Wilsonville, OR 97070

(( source ))

#anarchy #anarchism #text #socialism #politics

[boyghcst]

it’s rlly not a hard concept to grasp tht ull never get a say in someone else’s body. whether ur concern is around their clothes, tattoos, piercings, weight, abortion, hormones, whatever, it’s their body and not urs!!

idk but ppl rlly try to control / influence other ppls bodies so badly and it’s so clear they don’t believe other ppl have the free will to decide tht for themselves. they act as tho their own beliefs r greater than another’s own bodily autonomy. it’s abusive bs like tht i can’t stand esp when it’s guised as ‘’’concern’’’

#journal #like honestly focus on ur own body instead of tryna dictate others #idc whether u think ur being helpful if someone didn’t ask #then don’t open ur mouth ?

[shacklesburst]

Your reblog on that post about suicide was really upsetting to me. I can’t understand how you could possibly think “yes, telling someone who is struggling with their mental health that suicide is a valid solution to their problems is a totally acceptable thing to do”. It’s a violently anti-human thought. Most suicidal people don’t actually want to die - they just want a happier life and don’t know how to get there. Therapy isn’t always the solution, but it can be extremely helpful. Telling suicidal people that suicide is a valid option is not helpful. It is cruel. It is viciously cruel. You can call it “bodily autonomy”, but it is bodily autonomy in the same way getting into a hit and run would be bodily autonomy. Sure, you’re behind the wheel, but you’re not really in control. No one who is suicidal due to mental health struggles is in a good enough mental state to make that kind of decision. It is NOT the same as like, having cancer and wanting to die instead of battling it. I hope you reflect on this. Bc ur beliefs are concerning.

Most suicidal people don’t actually want to die - they just want a happier life and don’t know how to get there.

Yes, this is true. Most people are like this. That's why nobody I know of is saying "the very first thing a psychologist should suggest for any kind of trouble is suicide" -- and neither have I.

You can call it “bodily autonomy”, but it is bodily autonomy in the same way getting into a hit and run would be bodily autonomy. Sure, you’re behind the wheel, but you’re not really in control.

This part makes no sense and I will not try to steelman it.

No one who is suicidal due to mental health struggles is in a good enough mental state to make that kind of decision.

Who gets to decide that? You? You get to decide to use force on me, to put me into a type of confinement often described as more torturous than "mere" solitary to ensure my survival in the hopes that later on I will thank you for it? These are some dangerous grounds you tread on there, friend.

I've never been suicidal, as far as I can remember, but in the case that I were, obviously I would like somebody to just be there for me and help me get out of such an episode. But I can definitely imagine situations where this doesn't help, long term, and the fear of being put into an even worse situation, to experience even more suffering, surely has prevented some people to seek help in the first place. Even from the perspective of curtailing every other right in the service of mere survival, this does not seem like the truly human solution to me.

I understand this is a hard problem to deal with and that we both simply try err on different sides of caution or have preferences for different sets rights. Yet insisting there cannot be any such case diminishes the sheer amount of differing human experiences in a very paternalistic way.

It is NOT the same as like, having cancer and wanting to die instead of battling it.

And yet that too amounts to suicide, doesn't it? I think you're imagining a person who's suicidal purely because of mental health issues and they'll be happier and not suicidal anymore once the episode passes. But suicide is, sadly, a relatively common cause of death. There are a myriad reasons why people attempt or commit suicide and flat-out refusing to think any of these could hold any merit and that at no point a human being has the right to choose for themselves feels akin to religious dogma, which, incidentally, often enough considers suicide a 'sin', with many countries still outlawing suicide due to that tradition or even holding accountable family members and the like if it succeeds.

I have said my piece on this matter now. I personally find it equally horrifying as you do my opinion that so many people would not even consider the will of the only person that truly matters in discussions like these. I implore you to think about the true implications of taking bodily autonomy and the right to self-determination seriously and not shying away from the hard questions with cached thoughts in the future.

#ask #suicide cw #politics

[ivansergeyevichturgenev]

i am not and never will be a psychologist so i am only speaking from my perspective as certified traumatized woman who is critical of any mainstream narrative or modern psychiatry but i am genuinely concerned about the emerging narrative that suggests physical observable trauma is either 1. not common or 2. irrelevant and cannot coexist with other "chronic stress" however you would like to define it. i am concerned about removing the connection between the body and the self which in my belief are the same. i also think the downplaying of physical harm is horrifying for women in particular especially during a time in which we are losing our rights to bodily autonomy