what a dramatic bitch i love him

@mikestabile.bsky.social‬: Decades of study and as best as science can determine, pornography has basically no effect on sexual aggression. Turns out porn is just a fucking movie. It does not cause sex crimes, and may in fact reduce them.

BIG TRANS RIGHTS UK TO DO LIST POST. PLEASE READ, DISSEMINATE, AND DO THE SHIT IN IT.

Trans Actual: We heard last week that the anti-trans lot write to Keir Starmer very regularly, some write at least once a week. And that’s all he’s hearing. He needs to hear from us. Write to him today, then put a note in your diary to write to him again next week, and the next...

Read our guide: buff.ly/4D2xGXs

@natacha.bsky.social

The best advice right now, from @janefae.bsky.social; If you're trans or non-binary, If you're a cis ally, If you oppose stripping an entire demographic of their human rights, Write; Use theyworkforyou.comcontact.no10.gov.uk Be polite, but WRITE. NOW.

Comedian @brainmage.bsky.social:

A bit rambly, but I think I got my point across. Cis folks! Write to your MP! It's real easy to do www.writetothem.com And important! Try to also ask specific things so you actually get a specific answer instead of a boilerplate one!

[TEXT:

Dear Fleur Anderson,

I am writing to you today to once again express concern at how trans rights are being eroded by the Labour government. I have previously written to you before about this (see case ref FA, FA &c.).

Today's letter is about the recent Supreme Court ruling which included in it a judgement about the definition of "women" under the Equality Act 2010.

This ruling is appalling. I am a cisgender man. I have trans friends and family, as I also have cis friends and family. The rhetoric whipped up around trans people is not a belief held by the vast majority of the UK population, and there is good evidence that it is pushed from extreme sectors of the American Evalgelical Christian right, who wish to use it as the thin end of the wedge to erode women's rights to contraceptive medications and abortions, as well as the rights of gay people to get married (see this piece in the Guardian, for example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/09/us-religious-right-lgbtq-global-culture-fronts). Crucially, even were this not the thin end of a wedge, it would still be a cruel, harmful and unjustifiable attack on a minority group who are just trying to live their lives.

With regard to the ruling that trans women cannot use women's toilets, this ruling is both unenforcable, and will only result in more women, trans and cis, being attacked for not looking "sufficiently feminine". This will not protect anyone. I have a dear friend who is a cisgender woman who is over six feet tall. She has, since the "trans issue" has been pushed further into the national conversation, faced increasing holsility and fear when using toilets in public. My wife, who is also a cis woman and has previously had short hair and dressed in a gender non-conforming way, also been met with harassment when using toilets. I am not saying this to suggest that cis women's experiences are more important than trans women's - I also have many trans friends who have reported experiences of public transphobia - I am instead saying this to emphasis that, in spite of the anti-trans activists' insistance that they wish to "protect women", the results of their actions lead to exactly the opposite outcome.

All this ruling will do is empower people to harass women - both cis and trans - who are just going about their day.

The ruling is also unenforcable. Will there be an attendent checking the genitals of people using these bathrooms? If so, by what basis will they check? Will they check everyone, or only women deemed "insufficiently feminine"? If that is the case, please explain how this is anything other than a regressive, patriarchal step that will set back women's rights.

It has also been widely-reported the the Supreme Court did not consult with any transgender people in its ruling, but five dedicated anti-trans organisations were permitted to submit lengthy arguments. I find that staggering.

In summary, please directly address the following points in your reply:

1) Do you support this ruling? 2) Do you agree with Kier Starmer, whose spokesperson recently confirmed that he no longer agrees that trans women are women, and that trans women should use men's bathrooms? 3) If you do support the ruling, or agree with the Prime Minister that trans women should use men's bathrooms, please clearly state how this will be enforced, including the criteria that would deem a person insufficiently feminine, and therefore require intervention, as well as the scope of the intervention 4) If this ruling is upheld, and trans women cannot use female toilets, and feel unsafe in male toilets, where do you expect them to go when in public, given the relative infrequency of mixed-gender toilets? 5) If you do NOT support the ruling, what do you intend to do to push back against this, given your letter to me on December 15th 2023, case ref FA, where you said "I am a strong supporter of trans and LGBTQIA+ rights and I am disappointed that we still have such a long way to go. The safety, dignity, personal freedom and equal opportunity of all people is very important to me."?

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Guy Kelly

P.S. If you are a staffer reading, categorising, and responding to these on behalf of my MP, please think very carefully about the role you are playing, how can you can take an opportunity to stand up for and help protect a marginalised group, and do your part to be on the right side of history.

@nancymk.bsky.social‬

Want to contact your MP about the Supreme Court ruling?

@transsolidarity.bsky.social has created an MP letter template to help get you started:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17g6X6jR2Xa6mPXY0hTib089xIdzmu5Y_2t6fVfHiDKQ/mobilebasic

if you're not either in the uk or from the uk, please feel free to just reblog. if you're bri'ish or resident here: get writing.

"But I've already written."

Girl (non-gender specific), the TERFs are writing every day. they have an uncontested field. Outweigh their bullshit. There's more of us than there are of them. Make it LOOK like that.

Three Swords 2024. Pencil, Photoshop.

Prints and Taperstries available at CoeyAndShy.com

It should go without saying but IF YOU ARE GOING TO FUCK IN THE FITTING ROOMS THEN PLEASE AT LEAST DON'T TAKE TWO FUCKING HOURS AND HAND CLOTHING WITH SUSPICIOUS STAINS TO ME AFTERWARDS.

This probably shouldn't be necessary to post but given that it happened to me today at work apparently it is. Please keep your exhibitionism to areas people don't have to deal with it when they're working and not getting paid enough for this shit.

I know I sound like your mom but you kids need to stop fucking vaping

1) Vaping is confirmed to cause cancer. Vaping coats the lungs with toxic substances, such as heavy metals and benzene, which are known to cause cancer

2) Many vapes contain diacetyl, which, when inhaled causes popcorn lung, or scarring of the lung

3) Ultrafine particles, when being inhaled, can be lodged in the trachea (not good!)

4) Ultrafine particles can also constrict the arteries in the lungs potentially causing A HEART ATTACK

5) Vaping is relatively new. Not much studies have been done in comparison to tobacco. Plus, the vaping companies are powerful people. There is a large chance that they are purposely downplaying and even burying any evidence that vaping is harmful - just like the tobacco companies before them. They do not care about you, or your health, or the truth. They only care for money

Also STOP VAPING INDOORS AROUND OTHER PEOPLE. Holy shit, if you're gonna wreck your lungs at least give me the option not to wreck mine.

It’s such an issue that the MTA had to run a campaign about it

yeah okay ill reblog that

Please I’m begging yall as an asthmatic, your fruit-flavored vapor will still give people around you who are smoke-sensitive attacks. So will weed. Don’t do it inside; if you’re at a bus stop or something try to not stand right next to people or move downwind of them if you can.

✨ Please reblog the polls to make them reach out to as many people as possible, but KEEP IT SPOILER-FREE to make people listen to the music with an open mind 💖 Artists and titles will be revealed after the poll's conclusion, check the original post for an update! ✨

Joshua James Hutchings - photo by Darren Black

Are u even having fun on tumblr if u don't gain a slight crush on a mutual. Are u even using it right. Let's be honest

girl on tiktok was saying that getting cosmetic surgery is about women taking back their bodily autonomy in a time where our rights to our bodies are being taken away

Girl on tiktok not being wrong?

Why are you swinging at the child-woman advocating for bodily autonomy through elective surgery instead of at The Beauty Industry that gaslights/gatekeeps/girlbosses certain surgeries and procedures as being desirable and (crucially) attainable?

An adult human person should find it exactly as easy to get an elective double mastectomy as to get 4000cc breast implants because an adult human person should have autonomy over thier own body and be allowed to modify it in any way.

You are angry at the wrong target here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you make comments like this about "cosmetic" surgery, you are not a feminist. You are not a trans ally. You are not a disabled ally. Hell, you're not even fully supportive of healthcare for all. You're a simpering, Pick Me little snurge.

The designation of "cosmetic" vs "necessary" is a designation invented by insurance companies as an excuse to deny coverage.

This kills people.

This kills children.

I know, because I was one of those children. I have a condition so rare that there isn't a name for it, but it meant my entire jaw just did not grow to adult size, and was deforming all the tissue around it so badly that I would have died of lockjaw. My jaw was actively dislocating every time I opened my mouth toward the end of my teens. But because the surgery to correct this was for my face, and done by an orthognathic surgeon, insurance denied coverage at first, because they deemed it "cosmetic". My surgeon had to write a long letter laying out in very gory detail what would happen to me if I did not get this surgery, culminating in my dying of lockjaw by the age of thirty. Not a word of it was a lie.

The best we could get insurance to do was cover just enough correction not to kill me. They literally would not allow my surgeon to fully correct my face. Control over my body was taken away from me and given to AN INSURANCE COMPANY when I was SEVENTEEN YEARS OLD. I feel more trauma and violation from the insurance company than I do for the serial rapist that fucking hunted and raped me for sport around the same time. You call yourself a fucking feminist? Where's your fucking feminism for that traumatised seventeen year old girl then? Hm?

The designation of "cosmetic" takes people's autonomy away. If you have a whole category of MEDICAL PROCEDURES that are the ones you don't have to cover, you have LOTS of incentive to just class EVERYTHING into that category. Orthognathics, Plastics, and Dermatological surgeries are ROUTINELY DENIED COVERAGE. That ENTIRE speciality is deemed 'cosmetic'!

Do you know what lumpectomies on breasts are? Cosmetic. Do you know what removing questionable moles and skin tags is? Cosmetic. Do you know what literally ALL top surgeries for any genders are? Cosmetic. Do you know what genital reconstruction, or pretty much any surgery with the word "reconstruction" is? Cosmetic. Do you know what botox injections for migraine disorder are? Cosmetic. Breast reduction? Cosmetic. And guess what, the absolute garbage way people think of these MEDICAL PROCEDURES means SAFETY CONCERNS including MEDICAL MALPRACTISE is not taken seriously! Because fuck anyone getting "cosmetic" surgery! Because "cosmetic" makes people ignore the "surgery" or "procedure" part ENTIRELY, as though needles and scalpels and saws are somehow not the same ones as are used to perform organ transplants.

The way my FACE looks, and knowing that I will never be able to do NORMAL THINGS like chew hard/tough/sticky foods, participate in oral sex, or even experience speech and eating and swallowing with any comfort, BECAUSE OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY DECIDING CORRECTING IT ALL THE WAY WAS "COSMETIC". Every day I stare at the face an INSURANCE COMPANY decided I have to have for the rest of my life. I have to live with that Dickensian nightmare every fucking day of my life. Forever.

So sincerely and from the bottom of my heart:

I just laughed out loud

Reading comprehension questions:

"I don't want to think about the actual implications of the dystopia we exist in re healthcare; I just want to personally judge the validity of what another human being chooses to do with their own body. People should only be allowed to alter their own bodies for the reasons that I deem correct."

man imagine if it was possible to allow people the autonomy to make the choices that they want and at the same time take on a capitalist, misogynist industry which functions by belittling women and of which cosmetic surgical alteration is only a small piece of a greater whole?

thinking about the japanese racehorse who was such a failgirl she became a folk hero for losers

legitimately everything 2 me

Explaining to my Australian ex that ice cream trucks are in fact real and not made up for television.

For the purposes of this poll, I am referring only to migratory ice cream trucks. Stationary vehicles that serve ice cream are not included. No nuance because I ran out of options.

#but i owe my existence to theirs#because if they werent a thing my dad's biological father would never have knocked up my grandma on his rounds lmao

you cna't just say this