C'est avec grand plaisir que j'ai collaboré à cette première anthologie francophone portant sur l'approche trans-affirmative en santé des jeunes trans. Mon chapitre porte sur l'aspect légal des approche thérapeutiques.
J'y explique comment l'approche correctrice viole les principes de la responsabilité professionnel, sort aussi voué à l'approche vigilante dans un futur rapproché. En fin de compte, seule l'approche trans-affirmative respecte tant l'esprit que la lettre du droit de la santé.
Alright, everyone! I have decided that today is “Florence shows off papers and tries to get cited” day. Buckle up! All of the papers listed can be accessed for free on my website:
This is my very first publication, which inspired the first special issue on trans law in Canadian history. It talks about how hate crime laws fail to protect trans people because they are based on misconceptions about the nature of transphobic violence.
Some places like the UK make it a crime not to tell someone you’re trans before having sex. This paper argues that thick conceptions of privacy rooted in equality do a better job against these laws than ‘trans men are real men’.
Power doesn’t extend free speech to marginalized groups. I have a friend who’s facing multiple forms of academic punishment including a year of delay in their studies for standing up to transphobia. Why? Because apparently vocal self-advocacy is “disrespectful.”
Those using slurs and spreading discriminatory views are constantly defended as merely exercising their free speech, but when marginalized people complain about their oppression, merely raising one’s voice becomes disrespectful, unprofessional aggression that warrants a sanction.
Power has structured freedom of expression around tone, ensuring that those who harm can get off scot-free so long as they dehumanize with a smile. But if you are rightfully angry towards those who harass, discriminate, and harm? That falls outside the purview of free speech.
How nerdy are you? I can tell you race, class, spec, and profession of this character as well as which raid it’s from. I can also identify the classes of 19 of the 25 players, and I know the specs of a few of them. Might be 20, but I’m not sure about one of the icons.
Let's flex. From the spells we can tell it's a Tauren elemental shaman that plays engineering. War stomp on the bars, elemental-only spells, and there's boots, cloak, and belt in bar which means on-use engineering enchants.
The raid is easy. We can tell it's Twin Val'kyr fight from Trial of the Crusader in Wrath of the Lich King (2009), and it's in 25-person mode based on how many people there are in the raid frames.
And I think it’s so punny. It’s probing at ‘X’ gender markers, asking if they’re inclusive enough and why we don’t have access to more options. So the title is asking: why ‘X’?
But it’s also a reference to XY chromosomes, because the paper concludes that gender markers’ existence is fundamentally rooted in bioessentialism.
As I conclude: “There are no good gender markers, because gender markers will always be tainted by their cisnormative past. If we are committed to material equality, we must imagine a future without them.”
All this to say, my title is very punny and I’m very amused.
Polyamory taught me to pick apart jealousy and process it. Jealousy isn’t one thing, but a multitude.
Am I envious the other person is going on dates more than me? Am I feeling insecure about our relationship and fearful the person might leave me or deprioritize me?
Do I feel like they haven’t been going on dates with me enough and am resentful they’re going on dates with others instead? Do I feel possessive and like their having sex with others is making our sex less special or socially valued?
Jealousy comes in many forms and being able to pause and identify what it’s about is an immensely valuable skill in life, one that everyone should develop. Once you know where your feeling comes from, you can challenge it or communicate how your needs aren’t being met.
One thing I learned studying law is that a lot of what people do every day is illegal and much of our ability to live in society is predicated on the discretionary non-application of laws.
Now ask yourself: how scary would it be if people started religiously enforcing every single law against you? How quickly would your life crumble?
What if we add laws of sufficiently vague and case-by-case application that you need to go through a whole trial before the claim against you fails?
What if we add claims that are ludicrous enough to be rapidly dismissed—but not before you’ve sent tens of thousands of dollars?