Debunked

electricliterature.com
Librarians Are Secretly the Funnest People Alive – Electric Literature
If you think all they do is shush you, you’re in for a treat
By Jo Lou

Last week, librarians from Invercargill, New Zealand had a “totally impromptu, definitely not planned” photo shoot spoofing The Hollywood Reporter’s The Kardashian Decade cover, and everyone is losing their minds. But did you know that librarians have always been lowkey the most fun people on the planet? Here are seven times that librarians have debunked the stereotype that they are uptight scolds ready to shush those who dare to have fun in their sacred institution.

Caution: These musical tributes to libraries and the amazing people who run them will have you wanting to break out in song and dance at your nearest library. And then you really might get shushed.

Whoa guys, I just got a wild idea. I’m just putting this out there…

what if it can fold up to fit inside?

WHOA LOOK AT THAT IT CAN FOLD IN HALF TO FIT INSIDE THE LM AND THEN ALL THEY HAVE TO DO WHEN THEY GET TO THE MOON IS PULL THIS THING TO UNFOLD IT AND GET IT OUT AT THE SAME TIME THIS IS SO CLEVER I’M  S H O O K 

Yana’s comment on Vincent and Frances (+ clarification of the family tree in ch103)

2017/09/18

Kuroshitsuji chapter 132. It was fun to draw the conversation of the Phantomhive siblings. -Toboso

Come to speak of it, I was asked whether Frances isn’t blood-related (to Ciel) since she wasn’t mentioned in Ciel’s family tree that appeared (in the manga) a while ago, however, it was a family tree that featured “Ciel’s [direct] roots”, that’s why Frances, his aunt, wasn’t mentioned. [Vincent and Frances] are real siblings. -Toboso

There seem to be different versions of family trees, the big ones that show the [whole] lineage of the family, and the ones that only show one’s [direct] roots. But I think even if it were supposed to be a family tree with the whole lineage, Frances probably wouldn’t be shown in the family tree of the Phantomhives since she married out of the family. There’s not much detailed material on this though, so it’s just my guess. -Toboso

The Phantomhive siblings, Vincent and Frances, share the same concept as the Midfords siblings, Edward and Lizzie, i.e. I draw them with the typical image of “girls take after their father, boys after their mother” in mind. So maybe Ciel’s grandfather looks like Edward :) -Toboso  


Here’s  the family tree Yana is talking about (ch103)


Breaking NEWS: Guys, Cedric *maybe* looks like Edward!!!

Sexuality in TFP: The Key to Knowing Whose Head We’re In

I know that the TFP = John’s TAB Theory has gained a lot of popularity, but it doesn’t fit fully with the surface narrative or even a large majority of the subtext. I’ve talked about the surface narrative inconsistencies a couple of times already, but here’s a subtextual point I’d like to make about it: This theory hinges on the idea that John is suppressing his sexuality and sees it as villainous (all the villains being queer coded), and that he wants to “Break Free” from that mentality.

But John was the one who openly flirted with Sherlock at Angelo’s in ASiP and blatantly asked him out. He’s the one who very obviously checks out Corporal Lyons in THoB. And then in TSoT, we see the way he looks at Sholto at the wedding, along with a confirmation from both Mary (textually) and Sherlock (subtextually) that they have reason to be jealous of John’s history with Sholto. 

This man has no trouble reconciling himself to his sexuality, and he doesn’t see it as a problem. The only reason he hasn’t openly come out yet (on screen; his sister, Mike, Mary, and Sholto all obviously know he’s bi) is because of how other people, especially Sherlock, would potentially react. He’s not repressed, he’s just cautious and private. He’s afraid of harming his friendship with Sherlock because of what Sherlock will think/say/do, not because John himself is at all ashamed.

Sherlock, on the other hand, has always viewed sexuality in general, and his own sexual desires in particular, as distractions. Things to be avoided. An inconvenience. And the fact that those desires, specifically in relation to John but also in general, are getting harder to ignore is still something Sherlock is struggling with. We’ve had it explicitly stated by both Mycroft and Irene that Sherlock has never had sex, and he didn’t deny the assessment either time. Even in his mind palace in TAB, Sherlock couldn’t talk to John about sex, even in the most vague terminology.

Sherlock has pushed away that part of himself in his attempts to become the sociopath - unaffected by emotion and therefore invulnerable - that he has always wished he could be. He’s getting to the point where he can’t ignore that any more; the pull of his love and desire for John is too strong, and his mind is starting to accept that it would be better for him to embrace it. That’s why Eurus, embodiment of someone who feels no sentiment but wants/needs to understand it anyway (for science - they are her lab rats), is, in fact, just in need of a hug. No matter how much Sherlock wishes he could be the intellectually-superior being who never feels attachment and thus never experiences pain (“Which one’s pain?”), he can’t. Because that’s not who he is. 

TFP is all about Sherlock finally deciding to embrace the very human parts of himself that he’s been ignoring for so long; that’s why his subconscious uses the imagery of a sister he doesn’t remember who has not been a part of his life since childhood.

@multifandom-madnesss @impatient14

Debunking Serano’s “Debunking”

Julia Serano believes he has “debunked” radical feminists in this article published on his blog yesterday. I would like to take some time to deconstruct Serano’s arguments and debunk trans activism’s “debunking.” Because of all the fallacies and straw men in the article, this post will be a long one. Grab a snack and join me. Serano, this is rhetorically addressed to you.

Your second sentence in this article:

From pre-interview conversations we shared, I knew that my interviewer planned to ask me about Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s comments from earlier this year wherein she claimed that trans women are not women.

And in the article you link to for a source:

Adichie, who is not transgender, responded: “So when people talk about, you know, ‘Are trans women women?’ — my feeling is trans women are trans women.”

Notice how you’re dishonest in the second sentence of this article? You begin by touting yourself and your interview for the New York Times, and then immediately, falsely, cast skeptical feminists like Adichie as the villains. While I wouldn’t disagree with Adichie if she had said trans women aren’t women, she didn’t say that and you begin your piece by framing “popular” feminists (Adichie and women like her) as a natural enemy.

Moving on, you talk about your own book for a while, and then:

Women who insist that trans women are not women often object to being called “cis women” under the false assumption that it somehow undermines their femaleness — this is not at all the purpose of this language….In other words, referring to someone as “cisgender” simply means that they have not had a transgender experience.

You do not get to determine other people’s analysis of your writing, especially if you want to falsely put words in Adichie’s mouth. If you are going to claim that trans feelings are what matter over other people speaking, then you cannot simultaneously tell anyone who feels undermined by putting a prefix on our oppression that we are wrong.

I could say “In other words, referring to someone as ‘he’ simply means he was born with a penis and has been treated accordingly by society” and you’d call me a bigot. You cannot support, for instance, the idea that misgendering a trans person is violence if the alleged offender meant no harm because according to your logic, the intent of words matters more than the effect.

How many times have women heard men tell us not to take their words negatively? “Calm down!” “Relax!” “It’s a compliment!” This is tired.

While some cisgender people refuse to take our experiences seriously, the fact of the matter is that transgender people can be found in virtually every culture and throughout history.

This is not an argument. Sexism has occurred in virtually every culture and throughout history. So has rape, murder, and child abuse. Longevity is not relevant. You cannot argue that it lends legitimacy or validates your claims.

While cis feminists who claim that trans women are not women obsess over questions of identity (“How can a ‘man’ possibly call ‘himself’ a woman?”), they purposefully overlook or play down the fact that we have very real life experiences as women.

Actually, we don’t obsess over your identity. You do. Radical feminists are focused on material problems whereas you are the one constantly blowing about identity validation. I have never asked how a man can call himself a woman because society allows men to call themselves anything they want, including the biologically impossible.

You do not have experiences as a woman. You have experiences as a man masquerading as a woman. They will never be the same as our experiences.

Forcing trans women into a separate group that is distinct from cis women does not in any way help achieve feminism’s central goal of ending sexism.

Spaces free from men does help our goal by allowing us to organize women like you to come and tell us who we are and what our goals should be. Men forcing themselves into women’s spaces is sexism.

Other common appeals to biology center on reproduction — e.g., stating that trans women have not experienced menstruation, or cannot become pregnant. This ignores the fact that some cisgender women never menstruate and/or are unable to become pregnant.

A man has never become pregnant. Where are women who do not menstruate or are unable to become pregnant complaining like you are? I have never become pregnant and never once did I doubt that I’m a woman. Society has treated me from birth as a female with the potential to become pregnant. You do not have that potential.

Women’s genitals vary greatly, and as with chromosomes and reproductive capabilities, we cannot readily see other people’s genitals in everyday encounters.

Women do not have penises. Diversity in vulvas and vaginas is not a penis. We can evaluate the sex of 99% of the people we come across at first glance. I PROMISE you that men know I have a vagina when they sexually harass me on the street even though they can’t see it.

When I lived in Spain as an Iraqi girl, I was sometimes mistaken for a person of Romani heritage and treated as such. (One specific incident comes to mind where I was patiently waiting to use a cash machine and the current user tried to shoo me away, believing I would try to rob her.) While my phenotype might appear to be that of a Roma girl to some people and I have had “real experiences” of being an Iraqi mistaken for a Roma person, that doesn’t make me Romani. It doesn’t give me the history of the Romani people or the struggle of their daily lives and common discrimination.

And frankly, what could possibly be more sexist than reducing a woman to what’s between her legs? Isn’t that precisely what sexist men have been doing to women for centuries on end?

Possibly the idea that a woman is a collection of stereotypes rather than a biologically oppressed class? Acknowledging I have a vagina and my life has been a certain way because of it is not reductive. I never said it defines me; it makes my life significantly different from yours and as a radical feminist I am trying to fight against that. You’re the only one using that argument.

So it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women.

Biology is directly tied to our oppression. We need to point that out to fight the oppression. Is it a black person playing into racism by pointing out that she is black? Is a Jew hypocritical for pointing out that antisemitism happens to her because she is Jewish? During the Holocaust, people with Jewish heritage who self-identified as atheists were STILL murdered along with practicing Jews. They couldn’t identify themselves out of the ghettos or the concentration camps because your identifarianism is made up.

The main thrust of this assertion is that women are women because of socialization and/or their experiences with sexism. But what about me then?


  1. It’s NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU.
  2. You’re not a woman. There is your answer.

Or what about young trans girls who socially transition early in life, and who never have the experience of being perceived or treated as a man?

Socialization literally starts in the uterus. There are cultures with superstitions that doing certain things will “curse” a pregnant woman with a female infant. I can see you don’t spend a lot of time with children (alhamdulillah–thank god) because you would see how early that socialization begins and reflects in their behavior. I’ve already written about how society disadvantages female infants.

A young girl is forced against her will to live as a boy. Upon reaching adulthood, after years of male socialization and privilege, she comes out about identifying as female and begins to live as a woman. Do you accept her as a woman?

Children are not forced against their will to live as their biological sex because biological sex is natural trait for human beings . Children are forced to conform to gender roles but your insistence that womanhood is just a collection of those roles is actually upholding the problem.

Saying “you are a boy” is not the same as being told what “boy” socially entails, or that you cannot do feminine-labeled things because you are a boy. You were NEVER a young girl so don’t act like a victim in that sense. I’m sorry society forces children to uphold gender roles but radical feminists are the ones out here fighting them.

More often than not, people who claim that trans women aren’t women make both the biology and socialization arguments simultaneously, even though they are seemingly contradictory (i.e., if biology is the predominant criteria, then one’s socialization shouldn’t matter, and vice versa).

Biology is the basis of that socialization. Radical feminists are not arguing conflicting ideologies. We acknowledge that socialization is assigned to us based on our material and unchangeable biological sex. This is not contradictory in any way.

Much like their homophobic counterparts who make appeals to biology (“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”)

Creationism is not biology. You’re trying to undermine biology and evolution with an example that you know is religious and not scientific at all.

The trans-women-aren’t-women crowd desperately throws the entire kitchen sink at us rather than attempting to make a coherent argument.

I think I’ve made a very coherent argument but trans activists ignore that argument and set up straw men, like you just did in the sentence immediately before this one. You’re the one who has it wrong.

While gender socialization is quite real, all of us are capable of overcoming or transcending the socialization that we experienced as children.

So now you’re acknowledging gender socialization but saying we can overcome it. This is blaming women for our own oppression because we cannot socialize or identify ourselves out of it. Even trans men cannot escape their socialization and the attacks against their female biology like anti-abortion laws.

If I could transcend my socialization, I wouldn’t wear makeup, but my job requires me to look “presentable” and this means wearing makeup in my society. If I could transcend my socialization, I would be much firmer with men who interrupt me but I know they will likely react with more hostility and I have to prioritize my safety over shedding stereotypes. It’s hardly an option really.

The “Male Energy” and “Male Privilege” Fallacies

The way you’ve put “male privilege” in quotation marks and followed with the word “fallacies” makes me extremely nervous for this next section because it sounds like you don’t believe male privilege exists. But I will read and judge fairly…

In my many years of being perceived by the world as a cisgender woman, I have never once had anyone claim to detect “male privilege” or “male energy” in me.

This is because your male socialization means you are more likely to react with hostility or violence when being criticized, and our female socialization makes us less likely to criticize men, out of fear or concern for your feelings over ours.

Do you think male-identified males have these conversations with women or with each other all the time? I have never told a man he exudes “male energy.” I’ve never even heard of this. It’s bizarre. It’s also unrealistic to believe people tell you every thought they have about you. I’m sure people have thought things about me—both flattering and unflattering—that they’ve kept to themselves.

Male privilege is a very real thing. In my booking Whipping Girl, I talk at length about my own personal experiences of having it, and subsequently losing it post-transition.

Why do you have male privilege in quotation marks in every previous line? It’s very obvious you don’t think it applies to you as you’ve stated this directly. That’s the same line of thinking I’ve heard from most male self-identified “feminists” who really just want to deny their own culpability. We’ve all heard it.

The fact that the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd constantly harp about trans women’s real or imagined male privilege, yet refuse to acknowledge or examine their own cisgender privilege, demonstrates that their concerns about privilege are disingenuous.

“Trans women’s real or imagined male privilege.” So which is it then? You aren’t putting forth a coherent argument.

Cisgender privilege is not real. Women are not privileged more than men in the world, and accepting the reality of your body and how it means you are treated in the world is not a privilege unless you argue that being transgender is a mental illness, in which case those without that mental illness do have some advantages. But the trans lobby takes offense to that.

There are numerous problems with this line of reasoning [that trans males are caricatures of women]:

1) It relies on a highly negative view of feminine gender expression (that I have debunked in my writings) and implies that conventionally feminine cisgender women are also behaving superficially and/or reinforcing stereotypes.

If you do believe that women are an oppressed group, then naturally if follows the oppressed group cannot be blamed for their participation in that system to the same extent as the oppressors.

I have been socialized from birth to act feminine according to my culture’s standards. You haven’t. When you imply that acting out my oppression make you oppressed too, it’s insulting. First, it makes a joke of what I am forced to do to live safely, and second, it implies if I acted differently, I wouldn’t be oppressed as a woman, which isn’t true.

2) It ignores the many trans women who are outspoken feminists and/or not conventionally feminine.

Lots of men call themselves feminists but it doesn’t make them feminists or make them women. Calling yourself a feminist doesn’t make you a feminist any more than calling yourself a woman makes you a woman. (It doesn’t make you those things at all.)

3) Trans women do not transition out of a desire to be feminine; we transition out of a self-understanding that we are or should be female (commonly referred to as gender identity).

If there is no discernible biological condition that defines someone as a woman, as you argue before, then what are you transitioning to?

You are just adopting feminine stereotypes (but picking and choosing, mind you) and saying that makes you a woman. It doesn’t. Womanhood isn’t a feeling or an inner identity and to imply this is anti-woman because it sets the foundation for blaming us for our own position within an oppressed class.

4) Trans women who are conventionally feminine are not in any way asserting or insinuating that all women should be conventionally feminine, or that femininity is all there is to being a woman. Like cis women, trans women dress the way we do in order to express ourselves, not to critique or caricature other women.

You are asserting that feminine stereotypes make you a woman instead of what you are: a feminine man. And, by your language “[imply that] femininity is all there is to being a woman” you are implying that femininity (which is a set of cultural stereotypes) is at least part of being a woman. This is in conflict with your “identification only” mantra and it is proven false by every proud gender non-conforming woman and man out there.

5) This line of reasoning accuses trans women of arrogantly presuming to know what cis women experience, when we do no such thing. In reality, it’s the cis women who forward this accusation that are the ones arrogantly presuming to know what trans women experience and what motivates us.

You literally said in your last point: “Like cis women, trans women dress the way we do in order to express ourselves.” I do not dress the way I do in order to express myself; I dress this way in order to avoid violence in an extremely patriarchal society where women are expected to be covered or attacked. You just claimed to know my experience and motivations and you got it completely wrong.

As a trans woman, I will be the first to admit that I cannot possibly know what any other woman experiences or feels on the inside.

Then why have you spent this entire article constructing straw man arguments and insisting radical feminists believe things that we simply don’t? Your second sentence was a lie about something feminist and woman Chimimanda Ngozi Adichie said. How could you assume you have anything in common with us?

But the thing is, the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd cannot possibly know what any other woman experiences or feels either!

Actually, I do know what other women experience and feel because I am a woman. We have a shared experience as an oppressed class that you are not a part of. I’m glad you are acknowledging that you don’t know how we feel, but women around the world have the common experience of our biology and our socialization as the lesser sex according to that biology.

It’s the cis women who attempt to exclude us who seem to have a singular superficial stereotypical notion of what constitutes a woman, or of what women experience.

When you call the shared experiences of women under patriarchy “a singular superficial notion” you are arguing that sexism does not exist. Sexism has to have a definition in order to fight against it and that definition is the oppression of women as a class of people based on our reproductive biology.

Some cis feminists will extrapolate from this [trans people’s claims of sexed brains] that all trans people must hold highly essentialist beliefs about female-versus-male brains, and therefore that we are an affront to feminism. Often, they will make this case while simultaneously making essentialist claims themselves (e.g., regarding reproductive capacities) in order to undermine our identities.

The idea of different male and female brains is an affront to feminism because we know scientifically that our brains house our personality traits, intelligence, and memory and thus significantly affects how we act within society. Arguing that women have fundamentally different brains from men supports sexism by allowing men to argue our social circumstances are actually brought about by biological determination and that our lower place within society is valid because we are less intelligent or naturally drawn to certain tasks.

As a biologist, you should know that genitals serve a completely different purpose than the brain and does lead to different lived experiences for men and women. Even without the social construct of gender, women have pregnancies and men do not. To point out that male and female genitals are different is acknowledging material reality, whereas you are trying to construct your arguments upon subjective “identities.”

Radical feminists argue this material reality should not place women at a lower position within society or designate certain roles for us that have nothing to do with biology. Radical feminists accept our realities as people with vaginas and uteruses and the biological consequences of those things. What we do not accept is the unnecessary and oppressive social roles that have been created based upon them.

But here’s the thing: Rachel Dolezal is one person. In sharp contrast (as I alluded to earlier), transgender people are a pan-cultural and trans-historical phenomenon, and comprise approximately 0.2 – 0.3% of the population.

Prevalence does not make something good or healthy. A lot more than 0.3% of the population is sexist and that doesn’t mean sexism should be accepted in society. Since you can’t undermine that Rachel Dolezal acted out stereotypes and then called herself a black person and how this is directly linked to the trans phenomenon, you’re trying to argue that the problem is small.

According to the American news networks, white people “identify” as people of color to check those boxes on university and job applications to take advantage of affirmative action all the time. People confess to doing it. So the problem of people moving into spaces designated for certain marginalized groups—including people of color and women—is not small like you make it out to be.

I am Iraqi and I plan to study in the United States which means I have to require a special visa and still face possible rejection as a result of Trump’s travel ban on my country. (I’m not a Muslim, but the ban targets Muslim-majority countries and I live in one.) Still, I checked “white” on my university applications because it clearly states Middle Eastern people are white during that process. Marginalized Americans worked hard for those distinctions and I will not undermine their work by claiming to be someone I’m not. Maybe we can discuss a separate Middle Eastern category in the future, but I’m not going to claim to be black or Pacific Islander.

I have never once in my life heard a trans woman claim that our experiences are 100 percent identical to those of cis women.

Then what is your article even about? Why does the idea of women having our own spaces without trans women bother you? What is under threat here? Your “identity,” as you state above?

The problem isn’t that we (i.e., trans women) refuse to acknowledge any differences, but rather that the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd refuses to acknowledge our many similarities.

Feminism doesn’t focus on similarities because sexism doesn’t. “Why don’t we just all come together because we aren’t that different” says the person in a position of institutional power. Society tells people we are different and then as soon as you want something we have (that you have relegated us to) you claim to be just like us. Please.

There was a time in the 1960s and 1970s when many heterosexual feminists wanted to similarly exclude lesbians from women’s organizations and from feminism. The justifications that they forwarded were eerily similarly to trans-women-aren’t-women arguments: They accused lesbians of being “oppressively male” and of “reinforcing the sex class system.”

Lesbians are women and feminism is the movement to liberate women from sexism. Lesbians are biologically female and therefore women, whereas you are not. Many previous “feminists” have been racist and antisemitic as well, but people with common sense know black women and Jewish women are adult human females and therefore included in feminism. Biological males do not belong in feminism. Do not appropriate the struggles of lesbians.

Trans women are women. We may not be “exactly like” cis women, but then again, cis women are not all “exactly like” one another either. But what we do share is that we all identify and move through the world as women.

No, you are not women. You are biologically male and socialized as boys and then men. Not all women are exactly alike but we all have the shared experience of being biologically female and being treated accordingly. You do not have that experience. You do not move through the world as a woman, but as a man pretending he is a woman.

I said at the outset, forcing trans women into a separate group that is distinct from cis women does not in any way help achieve feminism’s central goal of ending sexism. In fact, it only serves to undermine our collective cause.

Sexism is rooted in biological sex. You are a biological male and in this way you are distinct from biological females and we do not have to include you in our mission to liberation ourselves from oppression by men.

What is our collective cause? What are your goals and how do you hope to achieve them? What are you doing to help women other than writing about how we exclude you because you are a man? How do you define sexism?

Your piece is riddled with incoherent arguments and you attempt to paint radical feminism as illogical when, in fact, radical feminism can be used to logically dismantle all your arguments and point to a clear foundation for women’s oppression.

This work starts with a falsehood and ends with a vague assertion that feminists, by asking for our own spaces free from men, are hurting ourselves when actually, you have only argued how these actions hurt you and men like you. You have blamed women for our own oppression throughout this article and yet you expect us to take you in with open arms and validate your identity because that is the only thing that you believe ties you to womanhood.

It doesn’t, and we’re not here to entertain you.

anonymous asked:

ok but can we pls see more of your gemsona and zircon together bc lord i love them already


OMD anon you make me happy aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Older, experienced officer/lawyer/technician gems are sometimes given young, recently made officer/lawyer/technician gems to babysit tutor, much like how Leggy Ruby was assigned into a bunch of older warrior Rubies. Just when Zircon’s hellish workload couldn’t become more stressing, she was ordered to be the babysit teacher for Sodalite, a law archiver gem

aka the stressed angry private teacher and ”LOL SO RANDOM XD” pupil dynamic 

Javan tiger sighted again? Nah, it’s a leopard

Earlier this month, a park ranger at the Ujung Kulon National Park reported seeing a Javan tiger in Ujung Kulon National Park. The press release included this photo:

The Javan tiger, Panthera tigris sondaica, was a small subspecies of tiger endemic to Java. By the 20th century, hunting and habitat destruction devastated Javan tiger populations. It was last seen in the 1970′s, and declared extinct in 1994. A few unofficial reports of Javan tigers have surfaced since, but none have been verified. Complicating matters is the presence of the Javan leopard, Panthera pardus melas, in the same location.

Let’s take a look at the photo, shall we?

When compared to a leopard [source] and a Sumatran tiger [source], it’s clearly a lot more like the leopard. The head is smaller and lacks the “fluffiness” of a tiger’s head. The body isn’t as deep as many tigers’. The tail is longer and more curved than that of a tiger, closer to that of the leopard. Even at that quality, the stripes of a tiger should be clear, and sharpening the image of the Javan cat makes it look more spotted. Javan leopards are known to inhabit Ujung Kulon National Park. And in motion, as noted by Wulan Pusparini of the Wildlife Conservation Society, it looks more like a leopard.

Even when trashed, the tiger still looks clearer than the cat in the photograph

In conclusion, instead of an extinct Javan tiger, this is a misidentified Javan leopard. This is still cool, though - Javan leopards are critically endangered, and seeing one is quite rare and exciting.