i love when a song is an acquired taste. you can listen to something once and go huh. there’s something here even if im not quite ready for it yet. and you listen a couple more times. and then bam a couple weeks or months or years later you listen, youve finally worn the song in and it’s the most beautiful thing you’ve ever heard
In ~these times~ it is important for queer people to be reminded of what “coming out” originally meant. “Coming out” did not mean telling all of your co-workers something super stigmatized and vulnerable about you, wearing your queer status on your sleeve in public, informing the police or government institutions about your sexuality, or even telling your parents. “Coming out” meant venturing out into the queer community; being among other queers as a queer yourself.
Coming out isn’t about telling the entire world when doing so is not safe for you, it’s not about arming your enemies with information they could use against you. No, coming out is about making a fulfilling queer life possible for yourself through participation in the queer community. It is about escaping the restrictions and dangers of the cisgender heterosexual world by rooting oneself more deeply into the queer one.
And you can always do that. No matter how oppressed we are. No matter how much the culture shifts and policies are enacted to terrorize us. We are always able to be ourselves when we are amongst each other. And living our queerness has always been a collective social project, not just a matter of personal exposure.
ahhhh finally the weekend is beautiful and wide open ahead of me. surely this will be the weekend I finally get my whole life in order and do the twenty-seven things I’ve been putting off and fix my sleep schedule and make memories with friends and discover my purpose in this world. surely
I’ve told this story before but the non-negotiable in allyship really reminded me of my gaming group. So one of my best friends is a twin and while I know *her* pretty well I don’t really know her brother as well despite knowing him for roughly same length of time. We play videogames together and her brother asked to join us so at some point I took him aside and had The Talk with him because we at that point had a recently out trans fem within the group and she had just barely started hormones and hadn’t done any voice training etc so I fully intended to head any trouble off at the pass.
So I basically had the “respect my friend’s pronouns or die by my sword” discussion because while he knows I’m a trans guy and had so far been chill, I didn’t know if that extended to all trans people.
What I did not expect was for him to pull an uno reverse on me and invite his two trans woman friends to game with us as well and did a “no no, *you* respect *my* friends’ pronouns or die by *my* sword”.
When I was working at Petco, one of my coworkers came to me having a total panic and anxiety meltdown and when I finally got them to tell me what was going on, the revealed they had sought me out because they were having Transgender Feelings and wanted advice. I ended up giving them my old binders that were too small for me but a perfect fit for them, and one of my roommates gave them their first masc haircut.
A few weeks later a customer speaking Spanish was saying many nasty things about my coworker and reacting with disgust. Another coworker- a cis gay man who speaks fluent Spanish- came to get me first so I could pull the other coworker away while he effectively cussed them out in Spanish. He told us the sparknotes version of the English translation and it was mostly horrifically transphobic drivel. My coworker had responded mostly neutrally to me being trans, but for him to be visibly steamed the rest of the day over my other coworker definitely bumped my respect for him.
And I’ve talked about how a cis lesbian friend of mine visibly bristles at anyone she even thinks is being shitty to me about being trans to the point of making them splutter and back down.
A cishet woman I am only sort of acquaintances with once caught me wincing at being she/her’d at a trial and asked if that had been happening all day. When I responded the affirmative, she stormed off and I didn’t see her the rest of the day. The next day, any time anyone referred to me there was an audible pause before a deliberate choice to choose masc versions.
Another trans woman who is a friend of mine once beat up a bully for calling her trans boyfriend a heshe when they were in schooling together.
It’s about holding the line. It’s about making the active choice to show up for each other. And it’s about linking hands and refusing to budge.
If you cannot hold the line with me by your side, then we are not moving together.
You write thorough analyses of concepts and events, so I thought I would ask for your take on Senator Booker's speech today. Some people say it was disrespectful. What do you think? Thank you in advance for your opinion.
I think what Booker did was extraordinary on several levels. First, the sheer physical endurance it takes to speak for that long, almost uninterrupted, while remaining cogent, is absolutely incredible. Second, the actual content of what he said, based on what I’ve seen, was fantastic; he was impassioned, engaging and incisive, and the extent to which he kept on topic over that many hours is staggering. Third, the fact that he broke the record for the longest speech on the Senate floor, which is not only an achievement in its own right, but doubly meaningful given his status as a Black man when the previous record was set by a segregationist, Strom Thurmond, protesting the Civil Rights Act in 1957. And last but not least, the moral clarity inherent in rebuking, loudly and at length, the myriad abuses of a historically corrupt, fascist government while working to delay their business.
All that being so, I think there are only three plausible reasons for someone finding Booker’s speech disrespectful. The first is predicated on agreeing so completely with the Trump administration’s policies that disrupting their operation via a lawful, established form of political protest is cast as inherently bad - which would be very much in keeping with the logic of those who, to take just one example, see nothing illegal or indeed remarkable about Trump’s insistence that the executive branch should be able to unilaterally overrule both the Senate and the judiciary. The second is predicated on being such a spineless appeasenik milquetoast that some nebulous concept of “civility” is considered more important, and thus more urgent, than doing literally anything to protest an administration so nakedly corrupt that the president is publicly shilling for crypto and Tesla in order to line his own pockets. And the third is, simply, racism, whether subconscious or overt, which here translates to the reflexive assumption that a Black man being loud and disruptive must of course be inherently bad, and certainly a worse offense than whatever he might be protesting.
So, in conclusion, no, I do not think Booker’s speech was disrespectful - but even if it could be fairly labelled as such, as I don’t believe this current administration is remotely deserving of anyone’s respect, I’d still be cheering him on.
There was a moment, early in the Trump presidency, when many of us made a critical mistake. We looked at the cruelty on display, the kidnapping of legal residents, the abortion bans, the dismantling of environmental protections, and assumed we were witnessing competence. Not moral competence, of course, but a kind of ruthless, calculating efficiency. We treated the administration like a well-oiled fascist machine, analyzing every tweet and press conference as if they were chess moves in some grand authoritarian strategy.
We were wrong.
What we were actually witnessing was something far more dumber: the elevation of mediocrity as a governing principle. The Trump White House isn’t some sinister cabal of geniuses. It’s a jobs program for the profoundly unqualified, a four-year experiment in what happens when you hand the keys of government to men who peaked in high school. Their only real qualification? The ability to coddle the most insecure man in America.
These aren’t masterminds. They’re the dumbest guys in the room, and that’s why they got promoted. Because their political project has never been about governing. It’s about preserving a system where men like them succeed not through talent, but through entitlement.
This is what patriarchy looks like in practice. It doesn’t just privilege men, it selects for the worst among them. The loudest, the angriest, the most insecure. It rewards obedience over insight, loyalty over leadership, ego over ethics. And while it absolutely hurts women, it also traps good men in a world where they are forced to answer to worse ones. A world where being thoughtful, decent, or competent makes you less likely, not more, to rise.
That’s the paradox at the heart of patriarchy: it promises men power, but only if they agree to give up everything that makes power worth having: integrity, growth, connection, purpose. It’s not just bad for women. It’s bad for men. And it’s terrible for democracy.
And no scandal reveals this better than signalgate, a blunder so humiliating it makes Veep look like a pbs documentary. Michael Waltz (the actual National Security Advisor) accidentally added Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, to a signal group chat discussing bombing Yemen.
Yes. A journalist. In a signal chat. About Yemen.
And when that incompetence inevitably implodes, the women who helped elevate these men are often the first to fall. Just look at Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who is having a really bad 48 hours after trying to cover for the boys’ fiasco by claiming that “no classified or intelligence equities were included.” But her statement was quickly contradicted by multiple sources, including a U.S. defense official who confirmed the information was “highly sensitive” and resembled material typically briefed to the president in secure settings. And then in the world’s greatest this you?The Atlantic published he texts showing “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.” You can read their stupid texts for yourself here. And subscribe to The Atlantic while you’re at it.
The MAGA movement isn’t a rebellion against elitism. It’s a tantrum against merit—a last-ditch effort by underqualified men to hold onto power by discrediting any system that might measure their actual abilities. They didn’t kill DEI because it was unfair. They killed it because it worked. And because they’re scared they’ll lose positions they were never qualified to have in the first place.
Equity meant their résumés would finally be judged on merit. Inclusion meant they could be replaced by someone, god forbid a woman or person of color. Or at the very least, someone who doesn’t leave their venmo public, like our brilliant National Security Advisor just did.
The Trump Administration is home to a different kind of DEI: where White male mediocrity is rewarded and merit is gone.
ALT
ALT
