Blog
Why there’s still an argument about NYT coverage of trans people
The New York Times is digging in its heels on institutional transphobia. The NYT open letter has been signed by ‘over 1,200 New York Times contributors and over 34,000 media workers, Times readers, and subscribers.’
A trans person is trans everywhere we go
We belong to the world. If he agrees with the ACLU statement that trans people belong everywhere, why is he arguing with it? What are ‘those heights’ that trans people cannot hit?
On trans kids, ask people who know
Try looking where the answers are. How does the New York Times know what it thinks it knows? Is it influenced by its peers? Is it what it says it is? Is it ever going to change?
When we don’t have Twitter, we’ll enjoy books again
Reading ‘Melancholic Parables’ as a parable of Twitter. Flash fiction by Dale Stromberg. One way to read it: who we are when we’re tweeting, who we think we are when we’re tweeting, and why we keep tweeting.
Gilbert Highet on censorship, 1954
A collage of his words. Cave man painting a running stag? Standards of good and evil? Transmuted into living flames? I’m in. Then I realize it’s an argument for censorship.
When you claim that experts don’t know their stuff
Jordan Peterson says climate scientists don’t define their terms. When a troll accuses someone else of bad-faith rhetoric, they’re usually only describing how they themselves operate. It’s spin. And it’s pure projection.
Project 2025 won’t listen to climate scientists
Non-scientists: Read beneath the surface. Climate scientists tell us we need to drop fossil fuels today. Project 2025 is trying to thwart this for what they see as U.S. economic interests.
Donald Trump’s corruption serves oil interests
The planet needs humans to protect it. Trump will destroy democracy for a dollar. It’s his position that everything he touches is his. The planet is on fire. Neither rich nor poor will survive.
If we left space for wild animals
An alternate reflection on the Binding of Isaac. Maybe you didn’t want this. On the other hand, it was an important step for you. On the third hand, you wouldn’t have been in this situation if—