This is actually in part an issue of a misunderstanding of the dynamics of one of the situation law enforcement and people forced into dangerous circumstances face. Ever played that game where you have your hands out and a person puts their hands under yours and you have to withdraw your hands before you get slapped? It’s the same principle. Reaction is slower than action. When someone states they have a weapon and they reach for it you could be dead in about a second, maybe two if they pull it and instead fire at you. This means your “safe” reaction space is about a second to a half second long.

If you duck out of the way you get a person with a weapon who can choose to turn it on bystanders or retaliate by getting you into another situation where you have even less reaction space. While it is realized that cops, particularly US ones tend to escalate situations more quickly in part that is because in the US there’s a higher chance someone is packing heat and in part because of a culture of standing one’s ground. When we are talking about ACAB events a lot of the time those deaths occur in circumstances where the cops either should not have been there at all, escalated far too quickly or the death happened when the person was restrained and no longer an active threat. In Canada for instance improper use of force applies to everyone. If you had to be violent as a citizen, including as a cop then you are vulnerable to legal reprocussions unless your use of force was judged appropriate to mitigate damage to life. Not property, only life. If you exhaust every other de-escalating option only then you are cleared to use violence but the initiation of this reaction window is the point of no return. People who experience this window basically operate strictly on instinct and often are traumatized to some degree after the fact.

In this instance the officer’s life was at risk the moment the gun was indicated to be in the vehicle and the person in question stated they would use it. Could the entire traffic stop have been a series of inappropriate escalations on behalf of the officer, yes. Is there zero justification for an officer shooting this guy? No. We don’t know the first part, you would have to pick apart the senario starting from when he stopped the car. But if you end up in a situation where you have a gun trained on you and you escalate the situation further by saying you are reaching for a gun then basically this is effectively how you suicide.

In the articles I have read the terms “raised alarms” does a lot of work. Yes a lot of Christian groups “raise alarms” but that’s a little toothless when there is a history of a lot of sects believing that suicide, regardless of it’s circumstances, is a gateway to hell. The median age of people taking up the offer on assisted suicide is at age 78.

We as a country have a massive die off occurring as the youngest of the Baby Boomers, one of the biggest ever generations in our country’s history… Is now reaching retirement age. There is a steep change in how the body ages and metabolizes things around age 60 and there’s a bit of an expected die off that accompanies that change. Considering the Canadian government and population is particularly sensitive to watchdoging any potential genocide or eugenics programs the system is designed with a lot of checks and balances. You need two doctors who are unrelated to each other’s practice to sign off on even starting the process which takes about a year to complete if you are not terminally ill. Any particular spikes in pairs of potentially colluding doctors who sign off together on the paperwork too often trigger an investigation.

Part of the cultural development of the last two decades has been fallout from the government admiting that they and the Catholic Church were jointly responsible for a genocide of the indigenous peoples. While keeping a weather eye on the program is merited a lot of the controversy is more towards the end of people wanting a scary bogeyman to point to in order to erode faith in the Government when really the system is one that was heavily advocated for and was very carefully designed. While concern is natural… It’s also good to do the reading to explore the depths of the system’s design and implementation and know that it was from the get go in conversation with ethical watchdogs and is under review since it’s inception to monitor the effect it is having. “Somebody warns scary numbers are scary” is basically the imperative of the media who only gets paid when you pay attention to them and scary, half explained things is one of the noisemakers that is effective.

As a Canadian who has watched a loved one die very slowly and spent a fair amount of time in hospice I changed my mind about wanting to fight to the bitter end.

My mother in law was a lovely lady, but unable to really face her death. Seeing what others were going through she begged us to not let that be her but the rules are she and she alone needed to sign off on the paperwork while she was lucid. We couldn’t set that up for her, she needed to do it herself… And she couldn’t face it and she missed her window.

The last week of her life was hell. She was so weak from not eating due to her cancer that she fell and hurt her hip. Thing people don’t really tell you about wasting away is your brain essentially becomes too energy expensive to run. She lost the ability to understand what was going on around her and had to be restrained in the bed so she wouldn’t try to get up and she, unable to interpret what was happening, started making escape attempts throughout the day and night frequently crying in pain. She begged like a small child for us to help her and looked at us like monsters because we couldn’t. She had been one of the most staunchly independent people I had known and she spent her last week in agony and all of us were powerless watching knowing it was the last thing she wanted.

I was so thankful for the Hospice care. I realized it could have been so much worse if her care was expensive or wasn’t handled with such an incredible standard of compassion… But the experience left all of us close to my MIL more than a little traumatized.

It’s important to realize that these decisions are intensely personal. I would not wish what happened to my MIL on my worst enemy. Depictions of death in media do not adequately prepare you for the potential realities of every situation. That perceived duty to live as long as you can isn’t always a kindness.

So he’s fine if we remove all toilet paper from bathrooms. How he wipes his ass is his parent’s responsibility right?

Oh it happens. We as a community aren’t all angels. Some of us get very VERY warped by religious or cultural trauma where because the base assumption is that we are monsters already by virtue of being something shameful there is a lowered boundary to other shamed behaviours…

But what stops that shame spiral is normalizing queer identities and creating good community with good praxis. Consent is king in so many queer spaces where I am because we’ve all basically had to imbibe the lessons of therapy to rescue people out of the dark. We discuss gold standards of sexual health and behaviour and conduct with frankness and lack of shame because generations of us were abandoned to places where we were vulnerable to exploitation. To become a pdf file is to lose your community as nothing is so disgusting to people in queer spaces as someone who would cause that kind of damage as it is expected that you know exactly what the knock on effects of that act are.

There is a fair amount of speculation that being bi is actually way more common than is generally thought but because current cultural rules of compulsory heterosexuallity codes being bi as being something you must act on to actually be considered that identity a lot of people believe that they are straight simply because they never acted on the attraction.

For guys the comp-het mindset also tends to discount basically any situation where they feel dominant because “straight” and “masculine” to them basically means that as long as they are the petetrative element in a place of absolute control via power dynamics or violence then it doesn’t count as “gay”. Essentially since as long as it holds no emotional attachment to them it doesn’t count. As long as they can’t code their behaviour as “feminine” it doesn’t count.

Which to the rest of us is fucking bonkers…

Do they just figure the brainwashing has stuck by now? Is that it?

Like if they draw a connection between whatever weird thing they can possibly shoestring to trans women all of the conditioning will kick in and they will go "Brrr Trans woman BAD, me no trans! Me hate bad thing that will make me trans! "

Some laws are clarifications of overlaps of other laws that create wiggle room. In this instance the queer panic defense is still being used in court rooms and whether or not it passes as legit is basically up to whichever judge you get, how eloquent the defense lawyer is and how sympathetic to queerphobia the jury is.

If this firestorm of factors does occur you get a situation where there is ruled a legitimate self defense claim because a queer person existed near you.

Trans women experience this way more often than they should just more often then not there’s no charges pressed. A cis straight guy approaches them to hit on them (oft times unwanted), they get clocked as trans during the encounter, the guy freaks out and no matter what the trans person does be it reject, deflect or reciprocate, the guy becomes abusive or violent. The thing that the guy is reacting to is his own homo/transphobia, not the behaviour of the trans person he approached. They could be the nicest, meekest trans woman alive who is just trying to escape the awkward situation and the abuse would still happen. There’s a lot of people out there who would find the cis guy’s reaction way more relatable than the trans woman’s experience so that recipe for the trans panic defense still sometimes finds all the nessisary ingredients. The law leaves much less room for interpretation of what constitutes a valid point to argue self defense narratives.

Yeah… And I am saying that is bullshit.

I work film and am outraged at the dismissal. What a lot of people neglected to grasp is because they were focused on whether or not Baldwin pulled the trigger is that the trigger wasn’t completely relevant to the crime.

Even if Baldwin wasn’t the one holding the gun, even if was in the hands of a completely different actor, he should have been charged as part of the Producers for failing to provide a safe work environment. When these sort of things happen we should be asking who was in charge of providing a safe environment, were they made aware of the dangers and why didn’t they stop them. If you are fronting the money, have creative control and hiring and firing power and are cced on safety issues your crew brings up as concerns it’s your duty to make sure your crew is safe… And there were so many red flags on Rust you could have seen them from fucking space. People were leaving the show because they didn’t feel safe. Saying a seasoned actor / Producer would have been unaware while not just being on set but directly interfacing with the process is complete ludacris.

We talk about Brandon Lee but we should be talking about Sarah Jones. When she was killed by unsafe choices made by Production three out of four Producers on the project, everyone who could not claim complete perfect ignorance of the choices made, were charged criminally.

This is a sad day for American film labor. Appearantly bosses have no direct liability to keep us safe anymore.

At the same time Stonehenge has some delicate evidence of ancient painted designs that requires special imaging equipment to detect that may have been wiped out bu this. There’s a reason why they tend to keep people at a distance from the thing.

While some of the posters are tackling the loss of constitutional rights through judicial limitations of those rights… Which is part of the design of those rights… I would like to highlight that you are correct in pointing out some unique flaws in the American system. Utilizing non-violent drug convictions to deny voting rights targets vulnerable populations and make your voting base generally comprised of wealthier individuals and exaggerates the power of racialized police targeting. Both the US and the UK have this… But not all democracies practice this. Many countries have zero restrictions based on felony conviction or imprisonment. The intersection of drug use, rights and the churches involvement in 12 step programs are also not living up to a lot of modern discussions of ethics or the separation of church and state implied in the design of the US.

Practice and design are two different things. Canada does not have a specific division of Church and state anywhere in the body of law. On paper its got an official religion. In practice however it is incredibly secular and most of the citizens believe whole heartedly that religion has no business in government which is backed by a constitutional freedom of religion. The use of 12 step programs is being challenged and dismantled as a breech of these rights. ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5391650 )

The 2A rights particularly are more difficult to engage with using international comparison because there are only four democratic countries that have a specific constitutional right to bear arms and two impose further restrictions and deference to law inside the body of right itself. The only countries with so broad a written constitutional right to bear arms is the US and Guatemala. Other countries that guarantee those rights do so inside their body of regular law which means that right is not elevated. It can be more easily ammended and changed by sitting bodies and it interacts with criminal law and licencing programs more fluidly.

This structural difference is important. It is supposed to provide additional protections. However the cultural nature of guns is under public challenge. The US isn’t nessisarily playing by it’s intended design because in part from a written standpoint the 2A is a mess. The issue with old democracies is that they were kind of in Beta and the wording of those laws do not match the modern standardized code that comprises the body of active civil and criminal law and that leaves more than normal room for personal interpretation. The cultural nature to hold the constitution as a holy document that cannot be updated for function sake for mostly sentimental reasons means that you basically don’t get the last word on these things or a solid grasp of whether something is constitutional until a Supreme Court majority interprets the archaic document in basically whichever way they please. There are logistical issues with treating law like a precious artwork instead of a practical tool.

Mostly paint. Once you get that sweet sweet high pigment paint and all the fun technical paints it’s hard to go back. One little bottle will set you back like 8 bucks. 3D prints generally don’t have the detail of the character models and while lots of people use prints for terrain the actual models exist under severe copywrite and you can’t participate in tournament events unless you have official models fully painted at least three colors (This exists basically to keep the core a painting based community and funnel more people towards the part of the hobby where gamestores make more money).

Like I said… Gaslands or if you really must - Mordheim. If you go Gaslands your local Toys R Us will supply you with everything you need for a game for 5 bucks. Your entry level Killteam is about 70 bucks just for the models.

I’ve played my share of MTG but dripped out of it pre covid. I could only ultimately afford one money sink at a time. Warhammer is very good at creating an addiction to paint. I would warn you off it if you wish to safeguard your funds. There’s ways to go about it responsibility supposedly. Necromunda or Killteam are toted as such options… Probably just a gateway drug though.

Dollar for dollar though Gaslands is where it’s at. Way more fun at the table and you play with whatever Hot Wheels and Matchbox you want to mod into Mad Max nonsense. Game takes about the same time to play as a Warhammer game but is way more entertaining.

Diplomatic Immunity is granted by a host country and by the country the diplomat came from. It’s not automatically extended. The US historically automatically grants a President diplomat authority but a country can refuse even the highest ranked ambassador if they so choose.

I might be mistaken but whether or not Trump would be admitted to a country with one of these policies it would likely go to a individual vote or decision making authority of whatever governing body runs the country whether or not to grant him a personal exemption due to his political position.

It is also worth mentioning that Trump made some really petty and genuinely awful political decisions that created a lot of hardship for some of the countries on this list. A lot of his wheeling and dealing has been picked apart in courts and actually caused the US some issues since in international trade courts. It may be entirely possible that a country with a grudge would disallow a US president entry which could be quite the setback for the US in multinational bargaining and soft diplomacy.

Technically speaking the wickedness of the cities that were under divine review were because they were narcissistic, enjoyed excess and “prosperous ease” without considering properly the poor and did “abominable acts” before God. Those abominable acts could have been anything. We get the homosexuality related misconception because the test involved hosting two angelic dignitaries disguised as humans whom a mob decended on an demanded they let them “know”…

Funny trick here. The original Hebrew text used for the angels was anashim and the OG word Lot uses for them when he greets the dignitaries is non-gendered as analogous to “master”. Anashim is a non-gendered term, it encompasses specifically both the terms woman and man and means “of mankind”. However, the English translations of the Bible use male gendered terms like “Lords” “Gentlemen” and “Men” for the angels… Meaning the lust for the angels in the original story was probably not gendered. The angels in the original are not named nor gender coded in any way but there were specifically two of them. We might interpret this to mean there were either angels that appeared to be of both genders or that the genders were deliberately not important because the pluralism means they are never gendered by any other mention in the story. Just as in English when a plural is used it disguises the individual nature of the particular makeup of the group. The crowd calls to know “them”.

The test was ultimately a litmus test failure of the town to show it lived up to the laws of hospitality and morality but there’s nothing specifically outlining gay sexuallity in the original text of that story moreso than any other sexuallity. The abominations could have been anything and the horny onslaught against the angels was potentially supposed to be coded as lust to defile or possess the divine or even just a lack of consent. The crowd isn’t asking if the angels want to come out and play, they are demanding it.

In the end it was a bunch of English translators who had very specific cultural ideas about who was worthy of the term “Master” that occluded any potential of the feminine potential reading and were the ones who through the cultural game of telephone made it a story about gay sex. It kind of benefited the Church to make it less a story about hoarding wealth and comfort because a lot of individual Churches were very VERY wealthy.

Ah, I was being glib. It’s from the Warhammer modelling community. Basically where you take multiple models types and meld them into unique configurations. Some of us in the more geeky enby community use it to mean ideal physical transition goals that do not align to a strict binary sex phenotype.

I am not rolling my eyes about a shift to a more non-binary society. I think absolute destigmatization and democratization of gender roles, stereotypes and culture at large would be a boon to a lot of different groups. Heck they/them pronouns being the norm until you know someone’s preference actually benefits non-binary and non-gender conforming people and put to bed more toxic femininity and toxic masculinity. Allowing humans to just be whatever appeals to them personally would allow us to better appreciate the individual natures of people. It also will reduce the pressures that do exist for some people which will stop some people from feeling the need to aggressively align with the sexual binary for the sake of survival or who have to keep their identity quietly under wraps at present. It would be ultimately a good and healthier place to gravitate towards. Ultimately treating gender more flippantly does allow people to feel less like it’s a chain around their neck and more of a toy that can be engaged with for the sheer fun of it. Because gender euphoria is just that - joy. Trans narratives often center around pain and dispair but it’s one half of the equation. The other half is just experiencing at it’s most extreme a very wild almost drug-like illogical emotional high. People like to play and a lot of people deny themselves play because of these cultural narratives of shame and tradition. It’s in part why the gay community has ballroom culture and drag. A lot of that doesn’t from a place of transness, they are just doing it because once you’re considered a failure of the standard it’s easier to transgress other rules. If they are gunna hate you anyway for the thing that you can’t change why care what they think?

Just as political lesbianism was a thing in the 80’s we are seeing I think a rise in political non-binary identities. If you think a more non-binary society is a good thing than I agree!

But conversely I think gender affirming care that deals with physical transition is probably going to remain a nessesity even in that kind of senario and we’ll probably see more instances of gender “kit bashing” as the walls around sexual stigmas are further challenged.

The society you mention already is having it’s trial run. Where I live there’s a much wider swath of the community that participates in the genderqueer social conventions of society. It is of course seeing pushback from Conservative groups as they are trialing things like gender neutral bathrooms in K-12 schools but as far as the conversations around LGBTQIA+ issues we’ve always been about a decade ahead of the States.

The whole “women do not feel alien to cis men” is part of my point about internal gender preference. Though I do think some cis men do experience it through a “I do not understand women” mindset or treat them as they are fundamentally and irreconcilably different than men. It’s difficult to untangle that from the male supremacist cultural understanding of women in practice but I think the sentiment also exists in part neutrally as part of the experience of cis men with internal gender preference.

And in regards to your assertion about it being externally motivated, while it took me awhile to untangle my feelings from internalized misogyny I really don’t think the two are at all related. I long ago came to the conclusions that yes culture tends to create narratives of female inferiority and that I was not immune to those narratives and questioned whether I was simply running away from that. I managed to neutralize my veiws on the matter in an attempt to self soothe and I lived in that space for a few years. It doesn’t touch dysphoria or euphoria but it does made it easier to spot it’s source, but the strength of aversion can only be passified by feeding it something else. In my case I have to continuously feed it a lot of logic. And I do mean a LOT of logic. This can be survivalist logic (if you let this stop you from participating in public you will eventually become miserable which will weaken the ties you have to other things ) the logic of my decisions (personal quick mantra - I would take a bullet to this person I am in love with I can make smaller daily sacrifices) or cultural logic (cis men exist who don’t fit this paradigm either) or ideological logic (you believe that society is shallow and your plight regarding your physicality echos prifoundly harmful beauty standards. You have the strength to manage and see the benefits inherent to being ugly, you can apply that as needed to your body)… But the thing is with that logic pool is it has to keep being applied as a coping mechanism. I can literally never stop. The source is never based in logic. It’s like trying to bail out a boat with a hole in the bottom. I can stay afloat but it takes continuous applied effort. I have embraced a stoic philosophy approach to try and weaken my reaction to external hits… But it the size of the hole in the bottom of the boat is a constant. Being reminded of my physicality by outside sources is just a wave that forces more water through the hole in the bottom. It’s a reaction below and not goverened by the conscious mind.

As to suicide. Touchy subject. My dad died in early 2019 and the way he managed it we will never find his body. It is a loss that continues to fuck my family up and the only reason I made it to adulthood at all was knowing that my family would never get over my loss. I have a friend right now who is at constant risk but after thinking about it pretty intensely I realize that there is no bulletproof logic to keep someone alive if their misery is intense enough. My lifeline relied on surgical fixes. I have never needed an abortion (thankfully. I do not want to think about what sort of panic I would be in if that was a reality) and it took me a long time to convince people medically that I was a candidate for sterilization… But that is in part gender related care for trans people. In a reasonably pro-choice country my chances of survival were not bad. In a post hysterectomy situation I closed off that loophole for good but holy hell did I need to fight for it. No one would give me one in my 20’s so I lived in constant fear for a decade even with the best contraceptives money could buy. I literally had to refuse to leave a gynecologist’s office peacefully and get emergency backup from my GP on the phone that I was hurting myself before they gave their signoff and I was 32 and still facing “But you’re still young you’ll probably regret it!” bullshit.

But it cannot be denied that the reason for that pushback is because a low percentage of cis women who have hysterectomies report a profound and constant sense of loss. Essentially they seem to me they are experiencing cis gender dysphoria. But the thing about that is the vast majority of cis women don’t experience that symptom. Only about 2-3% of the post surgical population surveyed expressed that particular symptom. It strikes me that might be a window into the number of cis people who actually experience true internalized gender preference…which would put it in the statistical ranges of other recognized populations of structural neurodivergence like Autism (1%) or ADHD. (3% - 5%). It is my belief that being transgender is a further subset of the population who experiences internalized gender preferences but with an additional complication of that internalized compass pointing other than what their physicality supports. However because cis people with internalized gender preferences supply no burden on the systems that exist and oftentimes the people themselves are unaware until something goes wrong with their sexual conception of themselves we have no recognized population to study.

Anti-suicidal lifelines can break if you don’t do what’s nessisary to keep yourself alive or if you are not provided with lifelines. A lot of trans people lose a lot of their lifelines when they come out as trans. If you find yourself out of a job with no close relationships what keeps you alive becomes precarious. Suicidal episodes can occur as periods of intense logic overriding hysteria. They can come over you very quickly at a heightened strength and it’s not everyone’s fault that they fall prey to it. Not everyone who commits suicide is anywhere near their right mind at the time. That said there are people for whom life isn’t ever going to get better. They have done all their thinking and the benefits of death outweigh the trouble of maintaining life. Their deaths almost always leave people behind who are traumatized by their passage by different degrees so while our cultural aversion to suicide is founded you can’t fix the problem by simply adding more social pressure through stigma to stay alive. If someone really wants to die they will do it. If someone has circumstances for a hard out then there’s not much you can do to stop them. You can imprison them and leave them no opportunities to easily kill themselves quickly and efficiently but you can’t really make them want to live long term. If you can’t fix the underlying problem you just leave a timebomb. Ultimately suicide is something we as a society should try and prevent. Individually the cause collateral damage, but you have to be active at addressing a bunch of personal issues.

On a completely separate note.

It is also probably worth correcting a misconception. I do not fully rationalize or identify myself as a man. Part of my coping mechanisms involve partial denial of fulfilling that role in it’s entirety and compromising utilizing a non-binary function. I recognize and conceptualize myself as existing lodged in a halfway state which allows me to manage my situation. My desire for physical maleness is pretty much on par with any binary trans man but I try logic my way into seeing myself as a complete being as I am now as a matter of the compromises I routinely make. I am a part of the trans masculine non-binary community if you want to be specific about it.

I think there is a misunderstanding there. Like I said gender incongruence is really hard to explain. You keep describing gender from the perspective I commonly see from cis people which treat both gender and physicality very flippantly. You said it yourself - you don’t think you feel or percieve gender but look at is as a series of universal characteristics and that genetalia are just body parts… But that is not how I experience gender nor does that explanation resonante with most trans people I have talked with. Within many of us dwells a deep preference to embody a certain physicality and cultural spot in it’s physical, mental and spiritual aspects.

When I am speaking with women there is a deep feeling that they are alien to me. I understand them from a place of having experienced their socialization and I may be friends and admire them but my brain registers them as distinctly not like me. The company of men, cis or trans, however there is a spark of recognition and feeling of likeness. With my body there is not just a preference but a sharp sense of repugnance for aspects that do not align. Pregnancy is not just off the table - the idea is abhorrent - like I used to routinely punch myself in the guts over and over again when such considerations arose to the point where I risked perforating organs and was told my my doctor that I needed to stop. But the idea of fulfilling the biological role of pregnancy or experiencing the faintest brush of motherhood was so alien to my sense of identity that I knew that if I were ever in a place where I was forced to go through that it wouldn’t matter what happened afterwards, even if things were to conclude with no lasting physical damage the result of that history in my experience would be so at odds with my sense of self that there is literally no force on earth that would keep me alive. I would find something very tall and jump.

I experience what some would term an extreme gender preference/aversion. My exterior secondary sex attributes are ultimately more tolerable. It is an understatement to say I do not like them but I can value them as things my partner likes. My main issue with them being that they create a distance between me and other men. My male friends who despite my wishes still subconsciously react to me as though I am “other” ranging from them treating me like a young boy or with the sort of physical touchy dynamic they reserve for their female friendships. They do not subconsciously react to my friends who have gone through HRT that way… Not even close.

I grew up in a household with lax gender norms. I fundamentally believe that being one sex or another should present no limitations. I live in one of the most trans friendly cities in the world where there is fairly widespread acceptance… But as much as the discussions of gender egalitarianism try and place things in the strict realm of being just performativity that is not my experience. I think actually the belief is way too optimistic and the invention resulting from null-gender genderblindness . It doesn’t matter how open minded people individually become at some level they still subconsciously react to perceived sex characteristics and we as trans people are hyper aware of this and whatever compells us comes from within. I have torn apart my own mind trying to pinpoint it’s source but it’s ineffable as much as it’s all consuming.

There’s something in the satisfaction rate of gender affirming surgeries for trans people which is incredibly unusual. The common satisfaction rate for run of the mill cosmetic surgeries is about 75% to 90%. With trans bottom surgery, the biggest scariest one most likely to have complications that effect your pelvic floor muscles and represent a potential loss of ability. A surgery where 15% of the total surgeries basically do not meet the requirements medical professionals have for considering it to be a success. That surgery has a regret rate of 2%. That’s an incredible statistical anomaly. I know people in the 15% one of them spent 2 years unable to walk more than two city blocks without crippling pain and will likely not ever recover her pelvic floor to full… She is emphatic that even if she got the guaranteed same outcome all over again she would not hesitate to have that surgery over again rather than live as she was. That is not how most surgeries are recieved. For contrast very safe fast procedures with no downtime fhat are strictly aesthetic in nature for both cis and trans patients even minor imperfections in results cause massive craters in the data.

It’s why we trans people tend to react aggressivively when people try to trivialize the issue. We regularly meet resistance by people who as far as we can tell are not capable of understanding the actual severity and experience of gender preference. We can explain it over and over again but 9/10 cis people will keep trying to tie it to your own experiences with self perception and it never works. It never accurately describes the journey we are on or our takeaways from our interactions with other people