muffin tins gotta be one of the top five worst dishes to wash by hand. right up there with them fuckass blender blades. all those nooks and crannies like… don’t piss me off

the people have spoken. also included in that list are whisks, cheese graters, champagne glasses, and apple corers. fuck these kitchen utensils!!! 

Former housekeeper here:

A lot of people in the notes giving the very good advice of getting yourself a bottle brush to deal with several of these pain-in-the-ass dishes, and also to promptly run soapy water through your blender or food processor after use. I will also note: if you don’t manage to clean all these things promptly – leave your dishes with the annoying nooks and crannies to soak in hot, soapy water. After a couple of hours, take em out, rinse em, change out the soapy water, put em back. Changing the water for stuck-on gunk is the magic step no old person ever told me about how to make that process work, but two changes of hot, soapy water over the course of 4-24 hours completely unglues most things from, for example, whisks and graters.

Muffin tins with the awful little metal grooved bits inside the muffin cups? Apple corers? Buy a toothbrush with firm bristles and make it part of your sink’s dishwashing tools. Use it on these things. For the blades on the two-handed version of apple corers, a toothbrush keeps your fingers out of the blades; for the tube style apple corers, it lets you reach the sticky bullshit a sponge or cloth can’t normally get to.

Also, if you have surface rust on your (not cast-iron, and not teflon-coated) metal stuff and you want it gone before it turns into proper rust damage? Toothpaste and a scouring pad. Add baking soda if you feel like it. No water at first, just scrub a pea-sized amount of that minty bullshit in there for a bit, wipe it off with a cloth or paper towel, repeat.

Also, blender blades? Shortly after you’ve finished with the blender, quickly rinse it out (don’t worry about doing a good job). Then fill it up about halfway with water and add a squirt or two of soap. Now, put it back on the stand, put the lid on, and TURN IT ON FOR A FEW SECONDS. That brief spin in soapy water is going to do more for your blender blades than any time spent soaking or scrubbing.

In most cases, you can then just rinse it out with hot water and you’re done. If there’s any scrubbing left to do, it’s usually minor. This trick has made me willing to make smoothies again.

You can use denture cleaning tablets for tea, coffee, and pasta sauce stains in ceramic mugs & bowls.

My penpal Shine White is in solitary confinement and does not have access to the prison library. He has requested books so that he can learn and stay busy. All of the books on his wishlist are paperbacks due to prison regulations. Both buying one of the books and reblogging this post are very helpful.

i gotta say i agree that exposing children to algorithmic content feeds is going to make them grow up with one billion new kinds of mental illnesses and it's a serious societal problem that urgently needs addressing but it makes me v. v. v. uneasy when i see posts going around that identify this issue and come to the conclusion 'this is why it's important for parents to know what their kid is doing online' and uh girls there are a lot of kids out there who would be dead if their parents knew what they were doing online

"yeah this aspect of capitalism is extremely alienating and traumatizing" and im nodding and smiling and then they add "which is why we must retreat to the safety of the family" and i start abruptly high-pitched screaming like a fire alarm

the philosophy of “as long as they’re reading” as it is currently practiced has been disastrous for humanity and one of the reasons why we’re seeing a rise in pseudo-anti-intellectualism

Okay, so think of books like food. It is very important that we eat food, and if we don’t eat anything we will die. So if you have a kid who’s not eating anything, but suddenly takes a shine to chocolate bars or sugar cereal, by gosh and by golly you let that kid eat it.

Then you start getting him to try new foods, healthier foods. Some he’ll like, some he won’t, and that’s okay. The point is you’re actively trying to expand his diet and make it healthier now that he’s not actively opposed to eating.

And it’s not that there’s anything wrong with candy! In moderate amounts, when it’s a treat, it’s perfectly okay! But when that’s your entire diet that’s a problem.

And I think a huge part of that problem is that we don’t expose kids early enough. We recognize that there’s a difference between Les Miserables and a YA fantasy novel, but we don’t recognize a difference between The Day My Butt Went Psycho and My Father’s Dragon, or at least we pretend not to because “at least they’re reading!”

I’m not saying your kid needs to be out here reading Les Miserables, but there are classic children’s books! Winnie the Pooh, Paddington, Henry Huggins, Homer Price, Anne of Green Gables all come to mind! Yes, they’re not the most challenging books out there, but a) the kid has to start building skills somewhere and b) it helps them begin to develop a taste for something that has stood the test of time and not just a mass produced paperback from Scholastic.

Because otherwise that’s all they have a taste for! That’s all they know how to consume! They don’t have the skills, you never helped them develop them!

And then these kids, and we’ve got nearly two generations of them at this point, who’ve eaten candy their whole lives, and have been told that it’s perfectly okay and healthy, and don’t have the palate or the skills to eat anything get into the real world and start shaping it.

And unless we can break this mentality that all little kid books have the same value, it’s only going to get worse.

Nah.

There is 100% a problem of disinformation and massive bias when it comes to what people have access to. But I think it’s conflating two very distinct things.

“At least they’re reading!” is an approach you use to break through a roadblock in a child’s willingness or ability to learn. You encourage them to read more of whatever it is they’re interested in, because what matters is not the content, per se, it’s the act of reading. Reading is like riding a bike, you’re awful when you start and the more you do it, the more instinctual it feels. “At least they’re reading!” is, coincidentally, the approach that least penalizes neurodivergent children for their fixations and their inability to focus on the curriculum. It’s a well-know, well-worn tool to dispel the ghost of “reading is boring” and “reading is hard”, and it also provides a good sense of agency for kids to realize that knowledge is something that’s (ideally) available and accessible.

What you’re talking about is content moderation and overall educational support to teach and train in critical thinking.

You’re repackaging “think of the children!” censorship talking points that are currently, right now being used to ban books from libraries all over the world, with the fact the loudest country about this shit, the US, has an abysmal public education system. Like, education in the US is a joke, but the sort that isn’t funny, the kind that makes you laugh because you’re so horrified.

Children who are seeking out reading material proactively are 100% not the problem in and of themselves. It’s the fact their parents are not there to help them manage the content and what the content has made them feel. It’s the fact that in the 21st Century, there’s entire industries around exploiting the fact we still have a 20th Century understanding of authority (if it is printed, it must be true!) when it comes to books.

Kids who have the appetite to learn and explore and question and read above their age level? Those kids will probably be alright. The literal adults who cannot fathom reading anything that isn’t true, because they were brought up in the age where print was inaccessible to anyone who couldn’t game the system? Those are the ones who are sitting trial for their one letter cult nonsense today.

You’re pinning the blame to individuals and the content itself, instead of targeting institutions. That feels good, emotionally, but it doesn’t get anything done. You want to improve reading literacy? Volunteer at a local library. Volunteer online to create literacy resources. Donate to organizations who are doing the work, like your local library.

The books aren’t the problem. The kids aren’t the problem. The continued campaign to dismantle education and force religious compliance spreading across christian dominated countries, though. That’s a problem.

I also question the logic of, “if they read ‘mass produced paperback from Scholastic’” children will never develop the taste for “something that has stood the test of time”?

First, I strongly disagree the inherent logic of valuing books as “good” or “bad” depending on whether they conform to a literary cannon. Like, look at how you dismiss the entire YA fantasy genre as meaningless crap. (Because that’s what your doing - saying it is the literary speaking, it is nutritious and Bad for Your Health.) Who gets to decide what books are good are bad? (And whose cultural tradition gets to declare what is “classic” children’s lit? Look again at your freaking list.) Is it because they are old “enough”? Popular enough (but only with the “right” people - if they are popular with kids they are “mass produced” crap?) Because they aren’t sold at scholastic? Because you personally think they are good? (Or because some kids enjoy them and find meaning in them that you personally don’t and therefore it must be the Kids Who Are Wrong.)

Secondly, the idea that anti-intellectualism and critical thinking are built by what people read (esp. fiction) instead of how they read is puritanical (and ironically) anti-intellectual bs. Its saying that the way you get smart and informed and “good” people is that you feed “good” fiction (instead of “bad” fiction) into their little machine brains. Education and reading ability is about what kids get out of the books they are reading - are they connecting to the characters and practicing empathy, are they learning how to understand structure and argument, are they learning to see the world in a different way, are they seeing their own experiences and feeling reflected, are they experiencing joy? And it’s about critical thinking, which has nothing to do with the quality of the book - hell, it’s a running joke on this site that people write long, critical, university-level essays about their fandom interests, regardless of the quality of those interests, just for the joy of doing so!

There’s also a real concerning streak of, “the masses are inherently dumb sheep who uncritically consume media without getting anything valuable out of it,” with a healthy undertone of “these uneducated poors just can’t think for themselves.”

You say, “And then these kids, and we’ve got nearly two generations of them at this point, who’ve eaten candy their whole lives, and have been told that it’s perfectly okay and healthy, and don’t have the palate or the skills to eat anything get into the real world and start shaping it.

And unless we can break this mentality that all little kid books have the same value, it’s only going to get worse.”

This is a vile thing to say. You mean, “we should ban and prevent and shame kids for reading things they enjoy, because reading shouldn’t be about “fun,” it it is not ok and “unhealthy” for kids to read things they enjoy, reading should be about molding people who like the same things I do and agree with me.“

You know what? I’m pulling out the personal experience card.

I volunteered (and was later employed) to work in the children’s room at my local library. There were plenty of children’s classics on the shelves, but those were never the books that got promoted. They weren’t the ones that ended up in displays where kids could just pick them up, you had to make a little more of an effort to find them.

Sometimes, when I was running the free book giveaway, kids or parents would come up to me and ask what books I liked. For the kids, I would tell them how I really liked Blueberries for Sal or Winnie the Pooh or A Wrinkle in Time or whatever the older books in the room were at the time (which is a number that dwindled severely over the time I worked that event) while tailoring it to their age. Sometimes if a kid seemed to be having a hard time deciding, I’d step in and make a suggestion. I’d also suggest to the parents that while both books might get them to read, this is a book they would be taking home to keep and I know we have Upside Down Magic on the shelf, but they’ll probably outgrow it and I know from growing up with it and watching little siblings grow up with it that they’ll still like this one when they’re older. Usually the parents would get what I was saying (having loved some things as a kid and outgrown then while continuing still to love others) and most people who I talked to left the room with something a little older.

And for all you are saying I am attempting to ban books, saying that some are inherently evil, and keep children from reading books they enjoy, I will point you as well to my metaphor, which is one I used plenty when working that job.

Tell me, is chocolate evil? Is Cinnamon Toast Crunch evil? Clearly not. Would you let a child eat exclusively chocolate or Lucky Charms? I should hope not. We both know that’s not healthy.

And I agree, how we read is important, but the books I am referring to are not meant to be read that way. Do you really think something like The Babysitter’s Club or The 39 Clues (both of which were series I thoroughly enjoyed) was written with anything more in mind than getting books off the shelves? The latest book that TikTok is going nuts for (which is what I was referring to when I said YA) is comparable to Louisa May Alcott?

And for the part where you say I am trying to take joy from children, every single book I have listed is a book that has brought me immeasurable joy. How can you not smile when Paddington gets into a other scrape? How can you not smile when Pooh sings one of his little songs? When Sal mixes up a bear with her mother, and the little bear follows Sal’s mother?

I’m sorry you think older books somehow lack joy and fun, and that offering them to children as options is evil, but maybe go read Mrs. Piggle Wiggle and then you’ll calm down.

Ok then, let’s do this.

Putting this below the cut because I am very angry and this is very long. (But as a preview for the end: boy did you pick the wrong person to double down on your bullshit candy metaphor with.)

OP, you’re getting kind of weirdly morally prescriptivist about this. I’m serious, you sound like some Victorian complaining that the youths don’t want to read Improving Literature and are instead consuming Lurid Novels. It’s all very silly.

I believe the most recent statistics I saw indicated that the average US Adult could read a novel at a 6th grade level.  Before No Children Left Behind, it was 8th grade.

So yeah, if a kid is voluntarily reading books, just let them.

Moreover, I think it’s kind of weird to set up this dichotomy where modern books are written just to sell books, whereas “classic” books were written … presumably out of the goodness of the author’s heart? I guess? Authors have got to eat, too. The VAST majority of books (unless you’re already independently wealthy, I guess) are written to sell books, and publishers publish them because they hope it’ll sell. This isn’t new. It’s not the ONLY reason people write them, but it’s a definite factor for most authors.

I also think it’s weird to suggest that if you outgrow a book, it was somehow less important to you. I have fond memories of reading Fox in Socks and Pat the Bunny - both frequently regarded as “classics”. I - being 35 - no longer read Fox in Socks and Pat the Bunny. It’s fine if you enjoy a book for a while and then outgrow it. You’re supposed to change as a person. Dr. Seuss isn’t better or more morally correct than “And Tango Makes Three” or “My Two Moms and Me”.

I read Homer Price in 3rd grade - I was sent to the 4th grade classes for reading, where it was an assigned book. It was … fine? I guess? I didn’t hate it, but I was annoyed we read so many books about boys. I remember discussing in class what a motor court was - which was mildly interesting, because I adored the American Girl and Dear America books, and I liked learning about history -  but I don’t remember much else about it.

Also read Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle because my mom had told me she’d read it as a kid. It wasn’t bad or anything, but I only read the series the once. It didn’t really grab me.

I read a shitload of Louisa May Alcott when I was 10.  Sure never learned what a “quadroon” was until I was in my 20s, though. Sure never forgot the line “Poor little Dick was dead, so was Billy; and no one could mourn for them, since life would never be happy, afflicted as they were in mind and body.“. Super awesome that she killed off the disabled characters and called it a happy ending. It was written in the 1880s, but there were members of my family - people I loved very much - who would have been described as a “feeble idiot” or having “a crooked back” in another time.  (Hell, when my mom was a kid, her classmates used to tell her “Your mother’s a crippled hunchback!” and laugh at her, and I was aware of this.) So I definitely don’t think it’s a bad thing that a lot of modern books are better and more sensitive about these issues.

I liked L’Engle’s Time Quartet, but I was extremely not cool with the Christian elements and was really relieved when I found YA fantasy books without that.

I actually adored A Little Princess, but it’s got some pretty significant issues with race and class which - while typical of the time period it was written in - aren’t something I’d hand to a kid without having some pretty significant conversations about context.

I liked Samantha Slade. I liked Bunnicula. Wayside School shaped my sense of humor tremendously. Animorphs shaped a lot of my worldview as a kid coming into political awareness just before 9/11. The American Girl and Dear America books fostered a love of history. The majority of these are the “Scholastic paperbacks” OP doesn’t like. (And most of the rest I still got through the school Book Order.)

The whole “old, ‘classic’ books are Good and Pure, new books are trashy junk food“ thing just comes off as very reactionary.

It is totally fine if you liked reading “classics”, but your experiences aren’t universal.

It’s important for people to learn information literacy, but - as others have noted, that’s a completely separate issue from Reading the Classiscs, and I do not give one single shit if someone chooses to read nothing but romance novels for fun or nothing but YA, if it makes them happy.

… Also. Having written all of that, it occurred to me to poke around OP’s blog a little. OP’s reblogging posts like this and this one and this one, which I think probably reveal some things. I don’t think OP is unintentionally repackaging “think of the children” talking points, I think they just straight-up believe them.  It also occurs to me that I’ve heard the “if you read bad things it’s like junk food for your brain thing from other people - entirely from people who were either conservative Christians or had grown up that way and hadn’t unpacked some shit.

It further occurs to me that I can’t find one mention of their stance on queer rights or same sex marriage or anything. So I think they may well just agree with the people trying to ban books for exposing kids to the idea queer people exist.

So. There’s that.

I do kind of feel like the original post promoting “classics” reads differently in light of that. Maybe feels a little bit more “if only kids had read Good and Upstanding books, we wouldn’t have been plunged into Moral Turpitude where people want reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy.”

minecraft is a game about adopting as many llamas as you can

this is exactly how my 6-year-old child plays. nothing can stop her from adopting every single tamable animal

blah blah aging tumblr population etc etc if you are ever visiting a family that just had a baby, and you know that they have other small children, bring a little toy for each of the other kids. it doesn’t have to be anything fancy, but even the most charitable, well-behaved child starts feeling left out after the nth visitor brings gifts and attention for their parents and baby sibling and isn’t there for them at all, especially since their parents have probably been completely consumed with the new baby. make their day and they will remember that bit of kindness and attention from you forever.

hiiii followers 🥰 it's my 25th birthday coming up on November 28th, so if you appreciate this blog & wanted to give me a little birthday thanks for helping to run it, then you can buy something off my wishlist here! i'm also not doing super well for money rn, so if you prefer you can donate me money on Paypal or Kofi to make sure i have enough for hormones, medication, food etc over the next few months. thank you so much 💓💓

"My autistic child is one of the smartest people I know."

Most likely, this is not a compliment. It's an unreasonable expectation. Your autistic child most likely is smart in a few areas because of a special interest or because of noticing patterns that most people don't. Calling them "smart" is often an excuse to expect them to be good at something just because they're good at something else, or to expect something while ignoring the effort needed to accomplish it, or to expect them to solve a problem without clearly explaining what the problem even is.

— my new favorite psychological study, done by Schnall, Harber, Stefanucci, and Proffitt and published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

It’s titled Social Support and the Perception of Geographical Slant

Someone did a follow up study…

AND??? What were the findings???

They were able to replicate the results of the original study and also show that the effect continues to hold true even if the social support is received via texting with a friend instead of the person’s physical presence

[Image description: headline to an online article from the journal “Technology Mind and Behavior,” volume 2, issue 2: Can Text Messaging Influence Perception of Geographical Slant? A Replication and Extension of Schnall, Harber, Stefanucci, Proffitt (2008). Published on Jul 28, 2021. Description ends]

See Also: Irish Proverb:

“Two people shorten a road.”

this is so wholesome 💞

I’ve probably said this before but having every good and service turn into a subscription model is one of the worst new developments of our era of capitalism. Like yeah, shit sucked before but it didn’t suck for 19.99 a month indefinitely. This some new shit.

Reblogging this again bc I can’t stop angrily thinking about how there should be laws in place so that when a company sells a product or service there is either a cap on how many years they can keep charging subscription for it or they have to name a price they decide the product is worth and either the buyer pays that upfront or by those weekly/monthly instalments. At least put laws in place on what legally qualifies as a subscription service.

Brb replacing "I should" with "I have the option/opportunity to" in my internal monologue re: beating myself up over shit that needs doing. Let's see if that works.

It actually really did help and I did the laundry and cat boxes. Guess I'll keep trying that one.

My psychiatrist told me this early on working with him. Every time I said "I should" he would be horrified and urge me to replace it with "I could." It took a lot of practice but my life is so much better for it because it replaces the pressure of external obligations with my own agency.

Sometimes it helps to replace “I have to” with “I get to”

Thinking “I have to water my houseplants” makes it a chore. But thinking “I get water my houseplants” reminds you that you keep houseplants for a reason and you can enjoy the time you spend with them

every time i'm caught on a "should" i try to reframe it as "if I want [a certain result], then doing [thing] can help me get there". It does double duty of taking the guilt out of the "should" while still reinforcing the motivation of WHY my brain pinged "should" in the first place. Or it even works to make me realize that i care less about the result than i think i'm """meant""" to and I can safely de-prioritize it

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZTdQuxw52/

I think I found my new favorite rabbit hole. This voice actor does Shakespeare scenes in a southern accent and I need to see the whole damn play. Absolutely beautiful

if you're not from the us american south, there's some amazing nuances to this you may have missed. i can't really describe all of them, because i've lived here my whole life and a lot of the body language is sort of a native tongue thing. the body language is its own language, and i am not so great at teaching language. i do know i instinctively sucked on my lower teeth at the same time as he did, and when he scratched the side of his face, i was ready to take up fucking arms with him.

but y'all. the way he said "brutus is an honourable man" - each and every time it changed just a little. it was the full condemnation Shakespeare wanted it to be. it started off slightly mock sincere. barely trying to cover the sarcasm. by the end...it wasn't a threat, it was a promise.

christ, he's good.

the eliding of “you all” to “y’all” while still maintaining 2 syllables is a deliberate and brilliant act of violence. “bear with me” said exactly like i’ve heard it at every funeral. the choices of breaking and re-establishing of eye contact. the balance of rehearsed and improvised tone. A+++ get this man a hollywood contract.

Get this man a starring role as Marc Antony in a southern adaptation of this show PLEASE.

This man is fantastic. 💕

The thing that just destroys me about this, though -- we think of Shakespearean language as being high-cultured, and intellectual, and somewhat inaccessible. And I know people think of Southerners as being ill-educated (which...let's be fair, most are, but not the way it's said). But that whole speech, unaltered, is so authentically Southern. And the thing is: Leaning into that language really amps the mood, in metalanguage. I'm not really sure how to explain it except... like... "Thrice" is not a word you hear in common speech...unless you're in the South and someone is trying to Make A Fucking Point.

Anyway. This was amazing and I want a revival of Shakespeare As Southern Gothic.

One of the lovely things about this, and one of the reasons it works so well, is that from what we can piece together of how Shakespeare was originally pronounced, it leans more towards an American southern accent than it does towards a modern British RP.

In addition, in the evolution of the English language in america, the south has retained many of the words, expressions, and cadences from the Renaissance/Elizabethan English spoken by the original British colonists.

One of the biggest examples of this is that the south still uses “O!”/“Oh!” In sentences, especially in multi-tone and multi-syllable varieties. We’ve lost that in other parts of the country (except in some specific pocket communities). But in the south on the whole? Still there. People in California or Chicago don’t generally say things like “why, oh why?” Or “oh bless your heart” or “Oh! Now why you gotta do a thing like that?!” But people from the south still do.

I teach, direct, and dramaturg Shakespeare for a living. When people are struggling with the “heightened” language, especially in “O” heavy plays like R&J and Hamlet, a frequent exercise I have them do is to run the scene once in a southern accent. You wouldn’t believe the way it opens them up and gives their contemporary brains an insight into ways to use that language without it being stiff and fake. Do the Balcony scene in a southern accent- you’ll never see it the same way again.

This guy is also doing two things that are absolutely spot-on for this speech:

First, he’s using the rhetorical figures Shakespeare gave him! The repetition of “ambition” and “Brutus is an honorable man”, the logos with which he presents his argument, the use of juxtaposition and antitheses (“poor have cried/caesar hath wept”, etc). You would not believe how many RADA/Carnegie/LAMDA/Yale trained actors blow past those, and how much of my career I spend pointing it out and making them put it back in.

Second, he’s playing the situation of the speech and character exactly right. This speech is hard not just because it’s famous, but because linguistically and rhetorically it’s a better speech than Brutus’ speech and in the context of the play, Brutus is the one who is considered a great orator. Brutus’ speech is fiery passion and grandstanding, working the crowd, etc. Anthony is not a man of speeches (“I am no orator, as Brutus is; But, as you know me all, a plain blunt man”) His toastmaster skills are not what Brutus’ are, but he speaks from his heart (his turn into verse in this scene from Brutus’ prose is brilliant) and lays out such a reasonable, logical argument that the people are moved anyway. I completely believe that in this guy’s performance. A plain, blunt, honest speaker. Exactly what Anthony should be.

TLDR: Shakespeare is my job and this is 100% a good take on this speech.

definitely one of the challenges I have with reading Shakespeare is that it sounds so weird to me. “The good is oft interr’d with their bones”?? Who talks like that?

Well,,, rednecks. Despite being Elizabethan English, none of this is really out of character for a man with that accent; southern american English has retained not only (I am told) the accent of Shakespeare, and the “Oh!” speech patterns, but also so many of the little linguistic patterns: parenthetic repetition (“so are they all - all honorable men”), speaking formally when deeply emotional, getting more and more sarcastic and passive-aggressive as time goes on, etc.

@sawasawako

@notajerusalemcricket

reblogging just so i can find it tomorrow

detransitioning stories that don’t need more publicity:

detransitioning stories that need to be boosted:

terfs prey on detransitioning people. detransitioning people are at great risk of getting sucked into terf echo chambers. we trans people need to support detransitioning people because they are not our enemies. the trauma of heteronormative gender roles can be difficult to tease apart from dysphoria, and we need to be sensitive to our fellow humans who just want to feel comfortable in their skin. we need to make it okay for people to change their identities, and try out identities to see if they work.

fearmongering directed at young trans people like “make sure you’re REALLY trans before you [medically] transition, because if you’re not it will give you dysphoria” introduces social pressure to prove to other trans people that you’re really trans, which actually increases the likelihood that a person will transition and regret it. because you’re holding validation of their current identity hostage. if someone eventually detransitions, you shouldn’t add to their trauma later by now giving them an inner “i told you so, you weren’t really trans” voice.

The fuck this las bit on bout?

How does tellin trans kids to not go on t or hrt until they’re sure they’re trans pushin them to medically transition? That’s deadass the exact opposite of what that does or at least what the goal is. Should we instead tell every 15 year old that started to socially transition last month to just go on hrt? What kinda anti educational bullshit is this? If a few assholes wanna take a common sense statement that is said to protect newly transitioned folk in what can be a confusin time an take it as a challenge then that on them. This is the equivalent of someone tellin a 15 year old that they ain’t ready to drive on their own yet then sayin that it’s that persons fault when some kid decides to prove that he can an crashes.

No one should take any kind of MEDICATION unless they are 100%, without a doubt sure they need it. If that means waitin a year or two, seein a therapist, or experimentin with your identity then that’s great. It’s healthy. It has absolutely nothin to do with bein a “real” trans person or not. It has to do with long term physical an mental health.

i guarantee that people who realized that hormones were wrong for them had already been told “don’t transition unless you’re absolutely sure it’s the right choice” by multiple people. it is dismissive and doesn’t help anyone make the right choice.

we need to build a world where people are not demonized for changing their bodies and realizing that the change was wrong for them. we need to build a world where people can honestly tell their doctors “I’m not sure about hormones but I’d like to try” without the doctor judging it as conclusive evidence that the person would not benefit from hormones.

very very few trans people who medically transition and determine it was the right choice were 100% certain it was the correct decision at the time. because we live in a transphobic society that regards any sliver of fear or doubt as invalidating the possibility of a non-cis existence.

demanding absolute certainty and punishing mistakes is not how you build a world where everyone whose life is improved by medical transition can access it.

I’ve been thinking about this more and i have more to say. (reblogging myself because the person above doesn’t want further contact from me. this is not a response to that person.)

to give a more concrete example: i wasn’t 100% certain that being on testosterone was right for me until after I’d been on it for a while and resolved my very painful cystic acne. i was very lucky in that stopping testosterone was an option for me that didn’t cut off future access. most people do not have the ability to stop or be uncertain about hormones without their provider deciding that it means they don’t really “need” hormones.

if social validation of one’s discomfort with their pre-transition existence is held hostage like that, it takes much longer for someone to realize it if hormones turn out to be wrong for them. when i say punishing mistakes, i mean adding on to someone’s distress when they realize that transition was wrong for them by giving them an internal “i told you so.”

it doesn’t help people get their needs met to claim that absolute certainty is required before starting hormones. it’s an impossibly high bar for most people, and it creates social pressure to deny any doubt, which actually makes it harder to realize if hormones were wrong for them. it backfires, regardless of your good intentions.

i think I’ve met literally one trans person who was 100% certain about hormones before receiving them. and countless other trans people who were a little unsure about hormones when they started but became certain after starting. it’s typical to worry whether you’re making the right decision whenever you start a medication or otherwise make a big change in your life!!

hormone providers (and anyone) who divide the world neatly into “absolutely certain about wanting hormones” and “doesn’t ‘need’ hormones” help create a society where most people who would benefit from hormones can’t get them without lying, and where people who do detransition feel worse about themselves.

Doctors and other providers are even adopting these ideas. I thought procedures that would fall under “detransition” were completely off the table for me when they’re not, and my doctor even told me that the language in informed consent models and the like to access care are changing to accommodate the spectrum of identities to provide better gender care.

Doing all these things that op explained helps everybody! I wouldn’t even know about what I just mentioned if a bunch of people in my community hadn’t unanimously told me to ask my doctor about it, even though no one was really even sure what the standards were for care in that regard. It’s been encouraging for me as a person who still considers themself to be trans, and I’m sure it would be much the same for someone who figures out they were cis all along.

detransitioning stories that don’t need more publicity:

detransitioning stories that need to be boosted:

terfs prey on detransitioning people. detransitioning people are at great risk of getting sucked into terf echo chambers. we trans people need to support detransitioning people because they are not our enemies. the trauma of heteronormative gender roles can be difficult to tease apart from dysphoria, and we need to be sensitive to our fellow humans who just want to feel comfortable in their skin. we need to make it okay for people to change their identities, and try out identities to see if they work.

fearmongering directed at young trans people like “make sure you’re REALLY trans before you [medically] transition, because if you’re not it will give you dysphoria” introduces social pressure to prove to other trans people that you’re really trans, which actually increases the likelihood that a person will transition and regret it. because you’re holding validation of their current identity hostage. if someone eventually detransitions, you shouldn’t add to their trauma later by now giving them an inner “i told you so, you weren’t really trans” voice.

The fuck this las bit on bout?

How does tellin trans kids to not go on t or hrt until they’re sure they’re trans pushin them to medically transition? That’s deadass the exact opposite of what that does or at least what the goal is. Should we instead tell every 15 year old that started to socially transition last month to just go on hrt? What kinda anti educational bullshit is this? If a few assholes wanna take a common sense statement that is said to protect newly transitioned folk in what can be a confusin time an take it as a challenge then that on them. This is the equivalent of someone tellin a 15 year old that they ain’t ready to drive on their own yet then sayin that it’s that persons fault when some kid decides to prove that he can an crashes.

No one should take any kind of MEDICATION unless they are 100%, without a doubt sure they need it. If that means waitin a year or two, seein a therapist, or experimentin with your identity then that’s great. It’s healthy. It has absolutely nothin to do with bein a “real” trans person or not. It has to do with long term physical an mental health.

i guarantee that people who realized that hormones were wrong for them had already been told “don’t transition unless you’re absolutely sure it’s the right choice” by multiple people. it is dismissive and doesn’t help anyone make the right choice.

we need to build a world where people are not demonized for changing their bodies and realizing that the change was wrong for them. we need to build a world where people can honestly tell their doctors “I’m not sure about hormones but I’d like to try” without the doctor judging it as conclusive evidence that the person would not benefit from hormones.

very very few trans people who medically transition and determine it was the right choice were 100% certain it was the correct decision at the time. because we live in a transphobic society that regards any sliver of fear or doubt as invalidating the possibility of a non-cis existence.

demanding absolute certainty and punishing mistakes is not how you build a world where everyone whose life is improved by medical transition can access it.

I’ve been thinking about this more and i have more to say. (reblogging myself because the person above doesn’t want further contact from me. this is not a response to that person.)

to give a more concrete example: i wasn’t 100% certain that being on testosterone was right for me until after I’d been on it for a while and resolved my very painful cystic acne. i was very lucky in that stopping testosterone was an option for me that didn’t cut off future access. most people do not have the ability to stop or be uncertain about hormones without their provider deciding that it means they don’t really “need” hormones.

if social validation of one’s discomfort with their pre-transition existence is held hostage like that, it takes much longer for someone to realize it if hormones turn out to be wrong for them. when i say punishing mistakes, i mean adding on to someone’s distress when they realize that transition was wrong for them by giving them an internal “i told you so.”

it doesn’t help people get their needs met to claim that absolute certainty is required before starting hormones. it’s an impossibly high bar for most people, and it creates social pressure to deny any doubt, which actually makes it harder to realize if hormones were wrong for them. it backfires, regardless of your good intentions.

i think I’ve met literally one trans person who was 100% certain about hormones before receiving them. and countless other trans people who were a little unsure about hormones when they started but became certain after starting. it’s typical to worry whether you’re making the right decision whenever you start a medication or otherwise make a big change in your life!!

hormone providers (and anyone) who divide the world neatly into “absolutely certain about wanting hormones” and “doesn’t ‘need’ hormones” help create a society where most people who would benefit from hormones can’t get them without lying, and where people who do detransition feel worse about themselves.

If you had to be 100% certain to make a decision instead of like 90% certain, nothing would ever get done! People are always going to be wondering “is this the best car/house/spouse/tattoo for me?” before making a decision, before deciding that a few minor worries are inconsequential and making (hopefully) the right decision and realizing “yep this was the right one for me”. And even then, who doesn’t wonder “what if things were different?”. I was a tiny bit worried literally as a I was going under for top surgery, that maybe getting rid of the boobs that had caused me so much disgust and had literally self harmed on a few occasions. But then I woke up and was so fucking elated those endorphins played a role in the reduction of post-surgical pain. Even when my entire chest area hurt, I was happy. The standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used in criminal cases, which is often described as “being 100% certain” still permits the possibility of jurors holding unreasonable doubts.

Also “you should be 100% certain that a medication is for you before you take it” is utter bullshit. Especially for mental illnesses, what you’re often prescribed by a doctor is what is most likely to work in your situation, but it could very well not. I started on an SSRI on Saturday specifically because serotonin sensitivity runs in my family. I could very well end up vomiting and incapacitated because SSRIs are incompatible with my neurology. Follow up appointments are primarily so a doctor can ask “so how are the meds? Are they working? What about side effects?” Someone starting on HRT and then becoming dsyphoric and stopping is probably a safer risk to take than giving people SSRIs or hormonal birth control, something that is incredibly routine.