Listen, I know politics suck, but if your opponents play and you don't then people like Chaya Raichik get to decide your future for you. Talk with opponents, educate people, expose the manipulation of those who wish you harm, and do deep canvassing.
The point is more "You are not obligated to justify your own happiness for the bad faith (or even good faith) demands of shitheads" more than "We cannot have any discourse on the subject"
literally during a conversation with Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ben Shapiro brought up trans people because of course he did i mean he seems obsessed with them, and while Neil's take on everything was generally a verbal shrug of the shoulders, paraphrasing: "Trans people exist and we should work to understand and accept them and we shouldn't legislate to restrict people's rights especially based on fear and made up nonsense" and Ben Shapiro smiled and said "Well if people want rights they should beat me in a debate" I'm sure he'd say he was joking but I'll probably never forget it, like wow Ben tell us how you really feel
"Henceforth no citizen shall enjoy any rights unless they are capable of defeating the self-appointed arbiter of personhood in a debate. But be warned, he will only ever argue in bad faith, has unmatched endurance when it comes to moving goalposts, and if he senses an impending defeat he will simply rattle off a haphazard list of logical fallacies before declaring himself the victor and storming off. Also he will only accept challenges from those who have yet to earn a high school diploma."
If Ben "DAP" Shapiro wants rights he should have to beat me in a cage match. If he's putting arbitrary limits on why people get rights then everyone else gets to do the same to him.
i'm afraid i just pulled an all nighter and am deliriously tired so i can't think of anything else to say except SELL THEM TO WHO, BEN? FUCKING AQUAMAN?
and on the other side of this, if you aren’t trans do your part to not be the one asking for justification. just because a conversation is adjacently trans related doesn’t mean you are owed an explanation for personal experience. make an effort to find an appropriate time and place. 🫶
The problem is that these idiots are rallied to vote conservative politicians, who then go onto passing laws that are harmful to trans people. You aren't obligated to justify your own existence (and I know first hand how painful and dehumanizing it is to feel pressured into that position), but as a cis ally I'm going to continue defending trans rights in the public discourse.
Laser death rays are probably effective at preventing them from voting, but also may lead to the laser death ray user to not being able to vote either. So probably not worth it.
Due low voter turnout, it should probably be at least 6 just to be safe if you're in the US or UK (95% confidence interval wouldn't include 0 or 1 voter, assuming 60% turnout)
IIRC she isn't exactly real. I don't think she ever interacted with anyone besides Madeline.
So I think it's more that she's a manifestation of self-criticism that evolves from harmful self-loathing into constructive thoughts that enable Madeline to reach heights she never could have at the beginning of her journey.
Can't find a name or make but the design is familiar.
In ye olden times before semiautomatic mechanisms were developed, it wasn't totally uncommon to essentially weld multiple guns together for increased "magazine capacity". Double-barrel shotguns are the only form of that which persists to this day, but back in the late 1700's to mid 1800's this was considered cutting-edge tech. By combining barrels of different calibers it was possible to make one gun that can serve multiple functions, as in this case which appears to be 4 rifle barrels and one shotgun.
Given the engraving it's most likely that this was intended to be a showpiece, but it might have been employed for hunting too. Having four rifle barrels means multiple chances for quick follow-up shots on large game, and the shotgun would be employed to take multiple birds from a single flock.
This is the stance I've decided to take. I get to be selfish about this, I get to decide what happiness is to me, and I don't have to justify it to anybody. They're not me and they don't have to live in my body. I'm just gonna transition without any input from anybody else because nothing any naysayer has ever said has been helpful.
Edit: and I don't need to explain or declare my transition, either. "Because I'm a woman," should be plenty explanation enough and I won't hear any word about it.
One day, hopefully soon, I'll take up my pitchfork and debate, argue, and fight for those among us without a voice or those not yet old enough. But I can't do that without the foundation of healthy mental choices that I'm still working on.
So until that day, yeah, they won't be getting anything other than aggressive eye contact.
Honestly, I can't say that I have the mental wherewithal to make it happen, either. Historically, I'll stutter, stammer, freeze, and repeat the same vague, useless, and open-ended answers in a few different ways before letting the other party think they've either won or that we've come to a compromise... and then I'll think of just what I would have wanted to say an hour or more later...
Someday, I'll be able to articulate these things in real-time. Someday, I hope that I will have the wisdom and courage necessary to competently dispute anyone who opposes my own personal freedoms. It's hard, though. We're social creatures and I've been cursed with a sensitivity to rejection, so... I've got some stuff to work out first, yeah.
Give yourself time in all things. Just because someone else appears to be adept or a natural, nothing of use can come from comparison.
Forgive yourself for your personal failure, and forgive others whose standards you weren't able to meet while you work together support each other wherever possible.
A stranger's rejection is only to themselves, and their failure to have a healthy open mind and heart.
Bravery is not a practiced fearlessness, but a persistence in spite of fear.
