The Dream Act of 2017 has been introduced in the Senate to protect DACA recipients. It has four sponsors: Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY). United We Dream asks for peole to telephone their Attorney General. The number they give is (832) 610-3896.
Their suggested message is "I am calling to ask the Attorney General to come out publicly to defend the DACA program. This program has changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of immigrant youth across the country and it must be protected. I expect my attorney general to support the immigrant community and protect DACA."
The failed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a lesson in what happens when trade agreements are negotiated in secret. Powerful corporations can lobby for dangerous, restrictive measures, and the public can't effectively bring balance to the process. Now, some members of Congress are seeking to make sure that future trade agreements, such as the renegotiated version of NAFTA, are no longer written behind closed doors. We urge you to write your representative and ask them to demand transparency in trade.
Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI) has today introduced the Promoting Transparency in Trade Act (H.R. 3339) [PDF], with co-sponsorship by Representatives Laura DeLauro (D-CT), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Keith Ellison (D-MI), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), John Conyers (D-MI), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rick Nolan (D-MN), and Mark Pocan (D-WI). Representative Dingell describes the bill as follows:
The Promoting Transparency in Trade Act would require the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to publicly release the proposed text of trade deals prior to each negotiating round and publish the considered text at the conclusion of each round. This will help bring clarity to a process that is currently off limits to the American people. Actively releasing the text of trade proposals will ensure that the American public will be able to see what is being negotiated and who is advocating on behalf of policies that impact their lives and economic well-being.
We wholeheartedly agree. Indeed, these are among the recommendations that EFF has been pushing for for some time, most recently at a January 2017 roundtable on trade transparency that we held with stakeholders from industry, civil society, and government. That event resulted in a set of five recommendations on the reform of trade negotiation processes that were endorsed by the Sunlight Foundation the Association of Research Libraries, and OpenTheGovernment.org.
A previous version of the Promoting Transparency in Trade Act was introduced into the previous session of Congress, but died in committee. Compared with that version, this latest bill is an improvement because it requires the publication of consolidated draft texts of trade agreements after each round of negotiations, which the previous bill did not.
Another of our recommendations that is reflected in the bill is to require the appointment of an independent Transparency Officer to the USTR. Currently, the Transparency Officer is the USTR's own General Counsel, which creates an conflict of interest between the incumbent's duty to defend the office's current transparency practices, and his or her duties to the public to reform those practices. An independent officer would be far more effective at pushing necessary reforms at the office.
The Promoting Transparency in Trade Act faces challenging odds to make it through Congress. Its next step towards passage into law will be its referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means, and probably its Subcommittee on Trade, which will decide whether the bill will be sent to the House of Representatives for a vote. The Senate will also have to vote on the bill before it becomes law. The more support that we can build for the bill now, the better its chances for surviving this perilous process.
Passage of this bill may be the best opportunity that we'll have to avoid a repetition of the closed, secretive process that led to the TPP. With the renegotiation of NAFTA commencing with the first official round of meetings in Washington, D.C. next month, it's urgent that these transparency reforms be adopted soon. You can help by writing to your representative in Congress and asking them to support the bill in committee.
Meatball doing his best pirate impression.
Every morning I take Meatball out to our vegetable garden. He likes to explore and chew bits of long grass. It's a good outdoor spot for him because it's fenced; I worry without some kind of boundary he'll run off after a chipmunk and get lost (or worse).
But today, there was a rabbit in the garden--almost full grown--and he went for it. (He was not pleased with me when I hauled him back inside.)
I know some cats are more confrontational than others, but is it common for cats to chase animals as big as they are? Does your cat do this?
It's challenge time!
Comment with Just One Thing you've accomplished in the last 24 hours or so. It doesn't have to be a hard thing, or even a thing that you think is particularly awesome. Just a thing that you did.
Feel free to share more than one thing if you're feeling particularly accomplished!
Extra credit: find someone in the comments and give them props for what they achieved!
Nothing is too big, too small, too strange or too cryptic. And in case you'd rather do this in private, anonymous comments are screened. I will only unscreen if you ask me to.
Source: Jewel in the Sky by ElementalFX AKA Fluttershyhiker.
What time is it? Ponies Around the World time. Adventr!
It's easy. Take picture of pony toy/drawing/shirt/whatever near something recognizable in your neighbourhood. (♪ ♫ A landmark is something in your neighborhood, in your neighborhood, in your neigh-bor-hood. Would. You be. My neighbor? ♫ ♬ ♩) Upload to a working online gallery (not Photobucket, ha ha ha ha, ha. humph). Snag the URL to a copy of your picture that is less than 2,000 pixels wide or high. If that's complicated, just resize it to less than 2,000 pixels on the longest side on your computer before uploading it to a gallery. Now go here and fill in the fields.
Source: Lyra at Big Ben, London by Cabraloca.
First field: link to your image on the web, the URL has gotta end in .jpg, .png or .gif or it's no good.
Next field: link to the blog where you get all chatty about your picture. I just link to the gallery where my pictures are. I think you can leave this blank.
Next: Give your picture a name.
Next: "your name". Ha ha ha. Use an online name or make something up.
Email: Make something up but put an @ in it. I use Flickr.com as a domain. Works every time.
Next: Gallery. Right. I link to my Dreamwidth blog. Why not? I think you can leave this blank too.
Next: La description. Be descriptive. Tell us about the context or something. You gots a 1,000 character limit. It's better than Twitter.
And then, dance the Captcha-cha-cha, press submit, et voilà. Enfin terminé. Unless you want to do it again for four more pictures. You totally could. You have 24 hours left. Go go go!
Source: Draw me like one of your french girls by Adlynh
All the pictures end up here. I know this because I'm older than dirt and I've seen stuff. Go take a look!
( Look, I did it! What do I win? )
it's free, they even give you supplies necessary to take care of the kitten.
all you have to to is feed them, care for them & clean up after then for a few weeks.
not sure how to take care of a kitten? humane society silicon valley has a 2-hour orientation & will give you the phone number of someone that will answer your questions.
this article has all the info, including links the the HSSV page & calendar with the next scheduled orientation.
if you're not near this place, check with your local shelter, they might have a foster program of some sort.
I'm going to be trying to figure out what city I should be setting my urban fantasy in. (Or at least, what it should be an analogue to, geography-wise.)
I'll be on Discord for a couple of hours, if anyone wants to join me:
(This time I'll remember to edit the post to say when I log off Discord!)
Imagine trying to do online research on breast cancer, or William S. Burroughs’ famous novel Naked Lunch, only to find that your search results keep coming up blank. This is the confounding situation that faced Microsoft Bing users in the Middle East and North Africa for years, made especially confusing by the fact that if you tried the same searches on Google, it did offer results for these terms.
Problems caused by the voluntary blocking of certain terms by intermediaries are well-known; just last week, we wrote about how payment processors like Venmo are blocking payments from users who describe the payments using certain terms—like Isis, a common first name and name of a heavy metal band, in addition to its usage as an acronym for the Islamic State. Such keyword-based filtering algorithms will inevitably results in overblocking and false positives because of their disregard for the context in which the words are used.
Search engines also engage in this type of censorship—in 2010, I co-authored a paper [PDF] documenting how Microsoft Bing (brand new at the time) engaged in filtering of sex-related terms in the Middle East and North Africa, China, India, and several other locations by not allowing users to turn off “safe search”. Despite the paper and various advocacy efforts over the years, Microsoft refused to budge on this—until recently.
At RightsCon this year, I led a panel discussion about the censorship of sexuality online, covering a variety of topics from Facebook’s prudish ideas about the female body to the UK’s restrictions on “non-conventional” sex acts in pornography to Iceland’s various attempts to ban online pornography. During the panel, I also raised the issue of Microsoft’s long-term ban on sexual search terms in the Middle East, noting specifically that the company’s blanket ban on the entire region seemed more a result of bad market research than government interference, based on the fact that a majority of countries in the MENA region do not block pornography, let alone other sexual content.
Surprisingly, not long after the conference, I did a routine check of Bing and was pleased to discover that “Middle East” had disappeared from the search engine’s location settings, replaced with “Saudi Arabia.” The search terms are still restricted in Saudi Arabia (likely at the request of the government), but users in other countries across the diverse region are no longer subject to Microsoft’s safe search. Coincidence? It's hard to say; just as we didn't know Microsoft's motivations for blacklisting sexual terms to begin with, it was no more transparent about its change of heart.
Standing up against this kind of overbroad private censorship is important—companies shouldn’t be making decisions based on assumptions about a given market, and without transparency and accountability. Decisions to restrict content for a particular reason should be made only when legally required, and with the highest degree of transparency possible. We commend Microsoft for rectifying their error, and would like to see them continue to make their search filtering policies and practices more open and transparent.
In need of a little challenge to get you to start something? My challenge to you today is to check on the fridge. Depending on your energy levels and time allowance, select what's most appropriate for you. Remember if you do want to break it up or end up having more energy/time that you initially expected, you can always come back and do another step later today (or tomorrow).
Step 1 - Open the fridge and do a quick check for anything out of date and needing to go.
Step 2 - Spend a bit more time and do a thorough check to the back of shelves/bottom of drawers etc and make sure that you've checked everything in there - take mental note of anything that needs using quickly.
Step 3 - Starting with the top shelf, take everything out, lift out the shelf and clean it, dry it, replace it and put back in a more organised fashion - you may at this point realise that some things would ideally be in a different fridge location, whether it can be moved may depend upon there being space in its ideal location.
Step 4 - If you've still got energy/time, repeat with next shelf
Repeat Step 3 if you wish, until all shelves/drawers and the little door shelves have been checked and cleaned. If you can, as you go, wipe down the inside top and walls of the fridge as well with a cloth and some sort of light cleaner to get rid of any lurking invisible unwanted life forms. If you are tackling just a shelf at a time, don't get the top/walls too wet so that no cleaner runs down onto food stored lower in the fridge.
Remember that there is no obligation to do this challenge and also even if you do start it, it doesn't have to be done all in one go - a shelf a day for the week would be just as wonderful if you wanted to tackle it that way.
So with that I shall say goodbye (I'm not back until fairly late tonight, so please do cheer each other along), good luck with whatever you decide to tackle and a reminder that the optional challenge is OPTIONAL and also does not have to be completed as the WHOLE task - step 1 is a success, as is any other step. Look after yourselves, remember to think of your rewards for completing any personal pain in the tuckus tasks and let us know how you get along.
The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) has called on the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to reconsider its decision to incorporate digital locks into official HTML standards. Last week, W3C announced its decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)—a standard for applying locks to web video—in its HTML specifications.
IFLA urges W3C to consider the impact that EME will have on the work of libraries and archives:
While recognising both the potential for technological protection measures to hinder infringing uses, as well as the additional simplicity offered by this solution, IFLA is concerned that it will become easier to apply such measures to digital content without also making it easier for libraries and their users to remove measures that prevent legitimate uses of works.
Technological protection measures […] do not always stop at preventing illicit activities, and can often serve to stop libraries and their users from making fair uses of works. This can affect activities such as preservation, or inter-library document supply. To make it easier to apply TPMs, regardless of the nature of activities they are preventing, is to risk unbalancing copyright itself.
IFLA’s concerns are an excellent example of the dangers of digital locks (sometimes referred to as digital rights management or simply DRM): under the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and similar copyright laws in many other countries, it’s illegal to circumvent those locks or to provide others with the means of doing so. That provision puts librarians in legal danger when they come across DRM in the course of their work—not to mention educators, historians, security researchers, journalists, and any number of other people who work with copyrighted material in completely lawful ways.
Of course, as IFLA’s statement notes, W3C doesn’t have the authority to change copyright law, but it should consider the implications of copyright law in its policy decisions: “While clearly it may not be in the purview of the W3C to change the laws and regulations regulating copyright around the world, they must take account of the implications of their decisions on the rights of the users of copyright works.”
EFF is in the process of appealing W3C’s controversial decision, and we’re urging the standards body to adopt a covenant protecting security researchers from anti-circumvention laws.
Three European Parliament Committees met during the week of July 10, to give their input on the European Commission's proposal for a new Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market. We previewed those meetings last week, expressing our hope that they would not adopt the Commission's harmful proposals. The meetings did not go well.
All of the compromise amendments to the Directive proposed by the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) that we previously catalogued were accepted in a vote of that committee, including the upload filtering mechanism, the link tax, the unwaivable right for artists, and the new tax on search engines that index images. Throwing gasoline on the dumpster fire of the upload filtering proposal, CULT would like to see cloud storage services added to the online platforms that are required to filter user uploads. As for the link tax, they have offered up a non-commercial personal use exemption as a sop to the measure's critics, though it is hard to imagine how this would soften the measure in practice, since almost all news aggregation services are commercially supported.
The meeting of the Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee held in the same week didn't go much better than that of the CULT Committee. The good news, if we can call it that, is that they softened the upload filtering proposal a little. The ITRE language no longer explicitly refers to content recognition technologies as a measure to be agreed between copyright holders and platforms that host "significant amounts" (the Commission proposal had said "large amounts") of copyright protected works uploaded by users. On the other hand, such measures aren't ruled out, either; so the change is a minor one at best.
There is no similar saving grace in the ITRE's treatment of the link tax. Oddly for a committee dedicated to research, it proposed amendments to the link tax that would make life considerably harder for researchers, by extending the tax to become payable not only on snippets from news publications but also those taken from academic journals, and whether those publications are online or offline. The extension of the link tax to journals came by way of a single word amendment to recital 33 [PDF]:
Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should n̶o̶t̶ also be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive.
This deceptively small change would open up a whole new class of works for which publishers could demand payment for the use of small snippets, apparently including works that the author had released under an open access license (since it's the publisher, not the author, that is the beneficiary of the new link tax).
The JURI Committee also met during the week, although it did not vote on any amendments. Even so, the statements and discussions of the participants at this meeting are just as important as the votes of the other committees, given JURI's leadership of the dossier. The meeting (a recording of which is available online) was chaired by German MEP Axel Voss, who has recently replaced the previous chair Theresa Comodini as rapporteur. Whereas MEP Comodini's report for the committee had been praised for its balance, Voss has taken a much more hardline approach. Addressing him as Chair, Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda stated during the meeting:
I have never seen a Directive proposal from the Commission that has been met with such unanimous criticism from academia. Europe's leading IP law faculties have stated in an open letter, and I quote, "There is independent scientific consensus that Articles 11 and 13 cannot be allowed to stand," and that the proposal for a neighboring right is "unnecessary, undesirable, and unlikely to achieve anything other than adding to complexity and cost".
The developments in the CULT, ITRE and JURI committees last week were disappointing, but they do not determine the outcome of this battle. More decisive will be the votes of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee in September, followed by negotiations around the principal report in the JURI Committee and its final vote on October 10. Either way, by year's end we will know whether European politicians have been utterly captured by their powerful publishing lobby, or whether the European Parliament still effectively represents the voices of ordinary European citizens.
In a disappointing opinion issued on Monday, the Ninth Circuit upheld the national security letter (NSL) statute against a First Amendment challenge brought by EFF on behalf of our clients CREDO Mobile and Cloudflare. We applaud our clients’ courage as part of a years-long court battle, conducted largely under seal and in secret.
We strongly disagree with the opinion and are weighing how to proceed in the case. Even though this ruling is disappointing, together EFF and our clients achieved a great deal over the past six years. The lawsuit spurred Congress to amend the law, and our advocacy related to the case caused leading tech companies to also challenge NSLs. Along the way, the government went from fighting to keep every single NSL gag order in place to the point where many have been lifted, some in whole and many in part. That includes this case, of course, where we can now proudly tell the names of our clients to the world.
No matter what happens with these particular lawsuits, we are not done fighting unconstitutional use of NSLs and similar laws.
Making sense of a disappointing ruling
National security letters are a kind of subpoena issued by the FBI to communications service providers like our clients to force them to turn over customer records. NSLs nearly always contain gag orders preventing recipients from telling anyone about these surveillance requests, all without any mandatory court oversight. As a result, the Internet and communications companies that we all trust with our most sensitive information cannot be truthful with their customers and the public about the scope of government surveillance.
NSL gags are perfect examples of “prior restraints,” government orders prohibiting speech rather than punishing it after the fact. The First Amendment embodies the Founders’ strong distrust of prior restraints as powerful censorship tools, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said they are presumptively unconstitutional unless they meet the “most exacting” judicial scrutiny. Similarly, because NSLs prevent recipients from talking about the FBI’s request for customer data, they are content-based restrictions on speech, which are subject to strict scrutiny. So NSL gags ought to be put to the strictest of First Amendment tests.
Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit questioned whether NSLs are prior restraints at all. And although the court did acknowledge they are separately content-based restrictions on speech, it said the law is narrowly tailored even though it plainly allows censorship that is broader in scope and longer in duration than the government actually needs. As a result, the court held the government’s interest in national security overcomes any First Amendment interests at stake.
The ruling is seriously flawed.
In order to find that the law satisfied strict scrutiny, the court overlooked both the overinclusiveness and indefinite duration of NSL gag orders. Narrow tailoring requires that a restriction on speech be fitted carefully to just what the government needs to protect its investigation and that no less speech-restrictive alternatives are available.
But NSLs are often wildly overinclusive. For example, they prevent even a company with millions of users like Cloudflare from simply saying it has received an NSL, on the theory that individual users engaged in terrorism or espionage might somehow infer from that fact alone that the government is on their trail.
The court admitted that a blanket gag in this scenario might well be overinclusive, but it simply deferred to the FBI’s decisionmaking. But of course, under the First Amendment, decisions about censorship aren’t supposed to be left to officials whose "business is to censor.” And here, we know that NSLs routinely issue to big tech companies with large numbers of users like both Cloudflare and CREDO, and only in rare circumstances does the FBI allow these companies to report on specific NSLs they’ve received.
Similarly, the FBI often leaves NSL gags in place indefinitely, sometimes even permanently. Indeed, the FBI has told our client CREDO that one of the NSLs in the case is now permanent, and the Bureau will not further revisit the gag it imposed to determine whether it still serves national security. Here again, the court acknowledged that at the least, narrow tailoring requires a gag “must terminate when it no longer serves” the government’s national security interests. But instead of applying the First Amendment’s narrow tailoring requirement, the court declined to “quibble” with the censoring agency, the FBI, and its loophole-ridden internal procedures for reviewing NSLs. Nevertheless, these procedures “do not resolve the duration issue entirely,” as the Ninth Circuit understatedly put it, since they may still produce permanent gags, as with CREDO. As a result, the court suggested that NSL recipients can repeatedly challenge permanent gags until they’re finally lifted.
The problem of prior restraints and judicial review
However, that points to the other fundamental problem with NSLs: they are issued without any mandatory court oversight. As discussed above, prior restraints are almost never constitutional. The Supreme Court has said that even in the rare circumstance when prior restraints can be justified, they must be approved by a neutral court, not just an executive official. But the NSL statute doesn’t require a court to be involved in all cases; instead, judicial review takes place only if NSL recipients file a lawsuit, like our clients did, or if they ask the government to go to court to review the gag using a procedure known as “reciprocal notice.”
The Ninth Circuit had two responses to this lack of judicial oversight.
First, it wrongly suggested the law of prior restraints simply does not apply here. The theory is that unlike cases involving newspapers that are prevented from publishing, NSL recipients haven’t shown a preexisting desire to speak, and when they do, they’re asking to publish information they supposedly learned from the government. But as we pointed out, that’s inconsistent with case law that says, for instance, that witnesses at grand jury proceedings—which are historically both secret and subject to court oversight—cannot be indefinitely gagged from talking about their own testimony. NSL gags go much further.
Second, the court suggested that even though the burden is on NSL recipients to challenge gags, this is a “de minimis” burden that doesn’t violate the First Amendment. When Congress passed the USA FREEDOM Act in 2015, it gave recipients the option of invoking reciprocal notice and asking the government to go to court rather than filing their own lawsuit. That’s simply not good enough; the First Amendment requires the government be the one to go to court to prove to a judge it actually requires an NSL accompanied by a gag. Not to mention that forcing companies that receive NSLs to fight them in court and defend user privacy may actually be a heavy burden.
Big progress nonetheless
Despite these considerable errors in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, we shouldn’t lose sight of progress made along the way. Nearly all of the features of the NSL statute that the court pointed to as saving graces of the law—the FBI’s internal review procedures and the option for reciprocal notice most notably—exist only because Congress stepped in during our lawsuit to amend the law.
So what’s left to providers that receive NSLs? Push back on the gags early and often. The “reciprocal notice” process, which the government says only requires a short letter or a phone call, should be done as a matter of course for any company receiving an NSL. And since the Ninth Circuit said that courts retain the ability to re-evaluate the gags as long as they remain in place, gagged providers should ask a court to step in and make sure the FBI can still prove the need for the gag—potentially over and over—until the gag is finally lifted. EFF wants to help with this, and we’re happy to consult with anyone subject to an NSL gag.
We’ve also encouraged technology companies to make the best of the reciprocal notice procedure as part of our annual Who Has Your Back? report. If the government continues to argue that recipients don’t necessarily “want to speak” about NSLs, we can now point to the growing trend of major tech companies—Apple, Adobe, and Dropbox, among others—that have committed to invoking reciprocal notice and challenging every NSL they receive.
Finally, we’ve seen other courts question gag orders in related contexts, and we’ve supported companies like Facebook and Microsoft in these fights. We’re confident that in the long run, these prior restraints will be roundly rejected yet again.
The things I post are barely edited. They may have typos. They're not majorly-high-quality writing, in which I've lovingly labored over sentences and synonyms. They contain far too much punctuation and will probably systematically abuse italics. They're not going to be perfect.
What I want to see is if - and how well - I can build something interesting, something resembling a story, out of these incomplete ideas and fragmented entries. This is word-and-story brainstorming. It's an experiment. I want to try to make something really cool (or at least decently cool) from this nearly nonexistent framework, and see what happens, and where it takes me.
The process is simple: I open up DW during a break at work, and let my brain and fingers go. Whatever happens, I read it over once or twice to correct anything truly offensive, and then make myself post. It's casual, just to practice writing and practice creating to try to get back into the habit.
So, that's what's going on here.
( the shattering's world )
For readers of this journal: you are welcome to read and comment and interact, or ignore, as much as you would like. Feel free to ask questions, point things out, make suggestions - whatever, I will love any feedback.
I struck something invisible and ended up tumbling out of the magic onto the front lawn, landing in an awkward heap. Hey, it happens sometimes: in this case, May and Arston had probably changed the wards and I'd have to retune myself. Or, I thought, as I slowly sat up from my pile-of-trash pose and noticed the blinding glow, something more powerful is blocking puny magic like mine without thinking about it...
( blinding light )
“There is a common poor attempt at a joke … that consists purely in stringing together a series of marginalized identities and calling attention to it … as if the mere existence of someone like that would be so absurd it could only be laughable.”
Alliah is one of the contributors to Invisible 3, which came out on June 27 and includes 18 essays and poems about representation in science fiction and fantasy. You can order the collection at:
Any profits from the sale of the collection go to Con or Bust, helping fans of color to attend SF/F conventions.
As with Invisible and Invisible 2, the contributors to this third volume have shared work that’s heartfelt, eye-opening, honest, thoughtful, and important…not to mention relevant to so much of what we see happening in the genre today.
Our Hyperdimensional Mesh of Identities
Growing up in the 90s and early 00s in the south-east of Brazil, all I saw in mainstream media were the same repetitive, harmful and offensive stereotypes about travestis in telenovelas and badly written comedy TV shows, and the effeminate gay men and macho lesbian women token characters whose non-conforming gender expression was grossly caricatured for cheap laughs.
As an openly queer young girl in school, I learned that I could be queer, but not too much, not too visibly. I’ve heard those laughs, and I internalized through bullying and ridicule that I should change how I presented myself to the world—which I did really fast by becoming the stock image of a non-threatening feminine girl, although I never hid my sexuality. My first awkward attempts at a masculine gender expression didn’t have time to blossom. I shoved it down some unreachable recess of my mind and avoided it for 10 years, which (along with compulsive heterosexuality and a binary cisnormative culture) is why it took me so long to understand my bisexuality and figure out my transmasculine non-binary gender identity.
Once I did, I uncovered a gender euphoria I’ve been cultivating ever since.
It took me years to understand the ways in which I inhabit my queer transmasculine genderfluid neuroatypical body, and my most powerful illumination came unexpectedly through the stories of a queer non-binary neuroatypical green witch: Elphaba Thropp, the Wicked Witch of the West.
I first met her in the book series The Wicked Years by Gregory Maguire, where most aspects about her gender and sexuality were ambiguous or obscured between the lines, and later in fan fiction, where the depths of Elphaba’s intersectional identities (canon or not) could be explored to the fullest by writers that shared those same identities.
Despite being an avid reader of speculative fiction since childhood, it was only after these encounters with trans and non-binary characters in fan fiction during the first half of my twenties that I started researching these topics, that I found out where I belonged. I discovered a thriving community of authors from marginalized groups creating astonishing rebellious versions of every world I’ve ever dreamed of and countless others I couldn’t imagine would be paramount to my process of liberation.
I owe it mostly to the fictional characters and their creators that illuminated me—from early readings like Virginia Woolf’s Orlando to the most recent fan fiction stories about a non-binary autistic Elphaba, a genderfluid bisexual Korra (from The Legend of Korra), and an agender transhumanist Root (from Person of Interest). I wish I could’ve met them sooner. Along the way to self-discovery, I had to collect all sorts of missing pieces with jagged edges and weird fractal shapes, and figure out a way to put them together myself. I was lucky to stumble upon the stories that I did and then to be able to find the communities that I needed. That’s why representation is vital. You cannot search for something you don’t even know exists.
There is a common poor attempt at a joke (that I’ve seen in both Anglophone and Brazilian online spaces), often directed at dehumanizing non-binary people and mocking activists working at the multidimensional core of intersections, that consists purely in stringing together a series of marginalized identities and calling attention to it, using the accumulation of these identities as a joke in and of itself, as if the mere existence of someone like that would be so absurd it could only be laughable.
One of the things fantasy author Jim Anotsu and I wanted to acknowledge when we wrote the Manifesto Irradiativo—our call to diversity and representation in Brazilian speculative fiction—is that our lives cannot be reduced to an isolated shelf in a bookstore or a niche market, thus we cannot be constrained to discussing the realities of our identities in those compartmentalized terms. We’re so much more than single-issue stories, than the same old one-dimensional narratives constructed to serve the gaze of the oppressor without making them examine their privileges and dismantle their systems of violence.
Those single-issue stories exist and persist for several reasons concerning the maintenance of racial, economic, and social power, amongst them because there is a fear of “too much” diversity. As if a book about a bipolar asexual bigender Afro-Brazilian person, for example, would scare away or alienate the common reader—who is always presumed to be the neurotypical cis straight white default that can handle only one unit of diversity at a time, served lukewarm, unseasoned. But as Audre Lorde said in a 1982 speech at Harvard University: “There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.”
Stories matter. And we shouldn’t have the full extent of our existences cut, segregated, and dimmed in them. We deserve to live as a hyperdimensional mesh of identities when they want to flatten us, to be loud when they want to silence us, to occupy the spaces that have been negated to us, and to be wonderfully written and represented as such.
Alliah/Vic is a bisexual non-binary Brazilian writer and visual artist working in the realms of the weird and pop culture. They’re the author of Metanfetaedro and have various short stories published in themed collections and on the web. They’re currently building too many independent projects, working on their first novel, and haunting your internet cables. Find them tweeting at alliahverso and newslettering in Glitch Lung. Or buy them a coffee at ko-fi!
Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.