Blog
‘Compensation is zero’ in the DOGE working group
It isn’t a real federal department anyway. You’d be the unpaid assistant and loyalist of the richest man in the world, who in turn is a loyalist of Donald Trump, who acts as though he’s the richest.
If you can’t campaign on it, how can you achieve it in office either?
You can’t shove aside an inconvenient group of people during a campaign and expect to be able to address their needs in office. My gender & body aren’t an ‘interest group’ nor ‘tactic,’ aren’t ‘rigid mores and vocabulary of college-educated elites,’ aren’t a ‘set of related issues.’
We’ll need to heal from this years-long torrent of insults
But we don’t need to fix or forgive those who continue to hurt us. It’s each person’s responsibility to choose good, and our choices are our own work to do. No one can redeem or heal anyone else. We can set boundaries.
Trans volta
I didn’t choose the word ‘trans’ to describe my unique life path, nor would I have chosen it, but these days, this word happens to be the umbrella that works in the rain. A word you can use alongside ‘trans’ is ‘volta’.
Assume humanity, then ask about happiness
Trans people‘s say-so is evidence of our happiness. But no one should ask for evidence that trans people are people. Previously, I used Lydia Polgreen’s opinion as an example, and I identified and extracted these writing tips for you. Please note this key distinction.
No one needs ‘evidence’ that transition improves trans people’s humanity
Let’s distinguish scientific uncertainty from value judgment. Anti-trans prejudice doesn’t justify demanding evidence about trans people’s humanity. When we let go of prejudice, some common ‘questions’ dissolve.
Can an identity be true and not true?
On ‘constitutive tension’ in our concepts. Picking apart someone else’s identity? First ask: Why do you want to? What would be gained? And lost? What happens to your own identity in the process?
Gödel is sure Bach, and trans people are sure their gender
Reflections on the Pulitzer-winning ‘Gödel, Escher, Bach’ (1979). Their objection is an infinite regress. They’re laying a trap. If we needed rules about rules about rules, none of us could ever use language at all.
How do we know who we are?
Do we learn it from a crystal ball—or from our guts? How do others state with certainty that they know who they are? Do they have a crystal ball? Of course, we’re jealous. How can we know ourselves, too?