Sounds like that alternative to Ublock that I can't think of the name of right now that not only blocks ads but also gives a click-through input to every single one, poisoning any ad metrics for the ads as well as any targeted ad profiling on you.
A plastic shell could be even worse, too. Using plastic and glass for shrapnel (I think ceramic as well?) is considered a war crime because they don't show up on x-rays, which makes it very hard to find - practically impossible in the case of small glass shards.
Ironically, I think we're starting to hit the point of recreating the substance of the meme.
To me, gender is all performative anyway, so you might as well take the parts that make you feel comfortable/happy and ignore all the rest. What is or isn't considered "gendered" - especially in the binary - changes almost as often as fashion. What we might consider a very traditionally femme presentation and mannerisms might be considered radical in 10 or 20 years time. In the 80s, fashion in the Middle East looked just like America, and long before that it was culturally considered attractive for women to have a bit of facial hair on the upper lip. Today, we have radical Islam that has set a cultural standard that is on the level of Puritanism. In the 2000s, men created a new term - metrosexual - to describe straight men who like to dress nicely and take a shower because they were afraid of being mistaken for being gay. It's all so silly.
Expression of the self and your own free will is the most divine act humanity can perform, and labels are to be used to aid in that expression. I see no difference between somebody using a nonbinary gender label for themselves because it makes them feel happy than a trans woman who won't/can't transition. People are their own wholly unique beings and any label we make won't fit the same from one person to the next. Also, we should make more genders just for the simple reason that it pisses off the transphobes. That's always a win in my book.
Honestly, the answer is still yes. I don't consider there to be some prerequisite quota of defying gender norms that you need to accomplish before you can identify as nonbinary. "You must be this gender queer to use this pronoun" seems as stupid to me as "you can't be trans unless you have an official gender dysphoria diagnosis."
I wouldn't consider a femboy or a he/him lesbian to be nonbinary, but I would consider somebody who looks like a femboy or a femme woman to be nonbinary if they identify as nonbinary. How somebody dresses or acts is not indicative of their gender identity. Otherwise we're just recreating the patriarchal gender binary again with new categories.
So, to be clear, you're saying that someone who is happy to present as their gender assigned at birth, behave like their gender assigned at birth, who doesn't feel dysphoria, and is socialised as their gender assigned at birth can be non-binary?
Where are you getting all this info from? From the perspective of the comic, ignoring that it's a meme comic, there's no way to tell what gender either character was assigned at birth, let alone any of the other details. Either one could've been AMAB, and the second one is at least a former cutter based on the scars (the shoulder is a popular location because it doesn't show when you wear a t-shirt). Was that from dysphoria? Who knows, they didn't tell us. Edit: just went back and realized those are folds in the sleeve of their shirt, not scars. This image needs more pixels.
From a broader perspective: ...yes? To be considered a certain gender you only need to identify as that gender. There are no other requirements. You don't need to act a certain way, look a certain way, or even have dysphoria. Is a trans woman who's in the closet not a woman? If they identify as a woman, they're a woman. If they identify as nonbinary, then they're nonbinary.
The dysphoria one is also a big one for me, so I'm gonna talk about it specifically just in case it helps someone who happens to read this: you don't need to have dysphoria in order to be trans. You don't. If you're happy as your AGAB but feel like you'd be happier as another gender, then go ahead and transition. Or don't. Or only go as far as makes you happy. Because at the end of the day, it's about being comfortable in your own skin.
So many trans people think "well, I didn't have dysphoria as a kid so I can't be trans" or some variation of that thought, only to transition and either find out that, yes, they did experience dysphoria and just couldn't tell because it was their normal everyday experience, or experience the more important gender euphoria after they transition.
It's a word, with a specific meaning. It was created to describe the sexist act of a man explaining something to a woman who either already knows, or is an expert in that field, as if she isn't smart enough to understand the subject. And frequently when a man is confidently wrong on the subject in question.
Without that sexist connotation, it's not "mansplaining." It's just being condescending. Like you.
Since you have the help of a therapist, you should use them as a resource to help formulate any plans and put them into motion. Therapists aren't just there to talk to, they're good for sound boarding ideas like this off of because they have access to resources that other people might not necessarily have. A therapist's word or signature can get you access to medical care or services that would otherwise be more difficult to get, and they know the ins and outs of systems like social security or aid programs. Their job is to help you, and by telling them straight up that you need help getting a plan together to get out of your living situation they can focus on that.
In the short term, I would recommend putting together a "bug out" bag that you can stash somewhere safe in case you need to leave quickly. Ideally, you should have copies of important documents such as social security cards and stuff that you might not be able to go back for later, but it should at least be just enough stuff to get you by for a couple of days if you need to drop everything and leave. Stuff like a change of clothes, a water bottle, and some cash.
I really think the argument that "people who go into stores are the reason the store is open" is kind of dumb.
The reason the store is open is because the owners want to make more money, and they think they can do that by staying open.
Okay, hear me out. I know this sounds crazy, but if the owner wants to make money, they do so when people come into the store and purchase things.
So if people didn't come into the store, then they wouldn't purchase things, right?
So if there's nobody purchasing things, the store isn't making money. Which means that if there's a reason that people aren't coming into the store and spending money, the owners of the stores will possibly try to avoid wasting money by being open. Not instantly, of course, but over time - say, the course of a year - a pattern showing a lack of customers because of a specific cause will make a business reconsider their policy if it impacts their bottom line.
I grew up in a tourist town, and outside of 3 months of the year 50% of businesses were closed. And probably 25% reduced the hours that they're open. Because no tourists meant fewer customers and who cares about the locals. It was cheaper to close and for the owners to go to their second houses in Florida for the winter than stay open all year. But I knew of 1 restaurant that expected the entire staff to be there regardless of the weather - rain, snow, or shine. One time the owner was going to let his staff go home because of a blizzard so bad that the state declared a state of emergency and was closing down the roads, and some guy came in for dinner. And this was in New England, so we're talking snow accumulation measured in inches per hour and whiteout conditions - not some southern state where an inch of snow grinds everything to a halt. The entire staff had to risk being snowed in at work and unable to get home until the state got the snow cleared because 1 guy decided to go out in a once in a decade winter storm.
This isn't a "grrr, Russians r bad and evil 😡 USA number 1! 😲🥵🍆💦" statement, it's a "we know he's on one payroll, but just exactly how many is he really on" statement. Because it's been known for ages that he has connections to Russian organized crime. The FBI has been trying to get charges to stick on it since the 80s.
They own a lot of Trump property and he's been given tons of "gifts" by them over the years - including boats, airplanes, and cars. It's believed that a lot of his failed businesses were money laundering schemes for Russian crime syndicates (every single one of his businesses except his father's real estate empire have gone bankrupt). How else do you explain bankrupting not just one, but two casinos? They're practically designed to print money! And then there was the whole "Trump Beauty Pageant" thing. You know, the one where he would fly around the country in his private jet, just him and a bunch of underage girls. Oh, and Jeffrey Epstein. I almost forgot that he went along for the rides, too. Can't forget that his favorite part was "when he would open the door on the girls while they were in the dressing room getting ready."
Anyway, getting a bit off topic there. Not only would it benefit Russia to have an egomaniac leading the country (don't correct your enemy while they're making a mistake and all that), but it would be of great use to have a man willing to smuggle confidential documents to Mar A Lago and sell them for the right price in that seat.
The one thing that I disagree with is that most people don't care about AI being shoved into everything. Studies are consistently showing that the vast majority of people don't use/hate AI being shoved into everything. 80% of phones users in one study, 90% on another study for DuckDuckGo IIRC, etc.
Guns McGee, who has a bed made of 10,000 AK-47s with 20 more hidden underneath it, is a statistical outlier and should not have been counted.
The average American owns roughly 1.5 guns, with 40-50% of all households owning at least one gun. Of those households, those who own 2 or more guns account for about 89% of all guns in the US. (Fucking absurd)
Too bad the half of Americans with too many guns and not enough common sense are the ones who love fascism. Of course, if they had more common sense, they'd probably have less guns. A real catch-22 there...
As of July 2025, 40.1% or 120,400 trans youth aged 13-17 are living in the 27 states that have passed bans on gender-affirming care. This includes 2,300 youth living in the two states–Arkansas and Montana–where bans are currently on hold or blocked from enforcement through court orders.
While our map focuses solely on high school-aged youth (age 13-17), some states, such as Oklahoma, Texas, and South Carolina, have considered banning care for transgender people up to 26 years of age. Additionally, several states prohibit public funds from being used to provide transgender health care for anyone, so adults are also unable to access critical health services if they receive their healthcare through Medicaid, if they work in the public sector, or are incarcerated.
Trans people were already reporting their identifying documents like passports, birth certificates, driver's licenses, and social security cards were being confiscated in the period after the election and before Trump got into office.
We haven't "won" trans rights, we've only had them because the fascists hadn't yet gotten around to destroying them. Violence in one form or another is a requirement for successful change, whether that violence be economic or otherwise. The oppressor isn't going to give you justice simply because you demand it. It wasn't until after MLK was murdered and billions of dollars in property damage were done that Civil Rights were drafted, voted on, and signed into law - one week of rioting after his death.
I've heard basically the same story before from a local incident, but with the added bonus of the other side: they used a metal bat and the kid dislocated his arm and was almost pulled right out of the car.
She has publicly stated that she considers purchasing or consuming Harry Potter stuff as support for her ideology, and she donates a portion of what she makes off of it to political organizations that include right-wing Christian extremist groups.
Don't forget that she also has publicly said that she considers consumption of Harry Potter media as support for her political ideology. She herself literally made it a political stance.
That's the one, thanks.