(no subject)

In 2005, I saw an angry letter to a newspaper because their children's movie review didn't mention that one character called another character a "faggot." The movie critic was incensed over the idea of watching for individual bad words, saying it was antithetical to properly reviewing a movie. At the time, I recall thinking, "You'd have been just as up in arms as the letter-writer if he'd said 'nigger.' Your real objection is that you don't think 'faggot' is as bad."

When I see arguments today over "brain worms" or "blacklist" or whatever, I think back on that argument. You can argue over what words are or aren't as bad as "faggot." I don't have any problem with "blacklist" myself, and I don't avoid it or argue with anyone about it. But don't act like you don't have your list of bad words. You're only arguing over what's on it.

Originally posted in response to a post about medical trauma

There was this children’s movie once where one of the characters is a dog who hates being in dog shows because he hates when the judges touch his balls. His arc is about learning to dissociate and not be mentally “there” so he’s okay with having his balls touched. The general public reaction to this movie was shock and outrage. People were appalled that this movie was teaching children to ignore when their bodily autonomy was being violated.

So bodily autonomy is a “real” thing that the average person can be made to understand. It’s just that a lot of people have a very specific idea of what is and isn’t bodily autonomy, and they don’t take you seriously if your bodily autonomy needs are different from theirs. Those people are assholes.