(I’m Not Getting It Because It’s Her Style, Just Because I Like It.)(Not That There’s Anything

It wouldn’t be a very big difference, but it would be a difference. 

Attacking someone for not dating you is saying that it is your right to control their actions.

Attacking someone you are dating depends on the circumstance. From the list above, it seems like the biggest reason is infidelity, which is saying that your right to faithfulness is greater than someone’s right to life. It’s also more centered around forcing someone into not doing something than forcing someone into doing something.

Attacking your ex again depends on the circumstances. Infidelity would be basically the same, but attacking someone for breaking up with you is probably more like the first case.

There’s also the fact that there tends to be a greater connection between partners than between one person asking the other out.

Again, these things are similar, and I’m not saying they’re not. I’m just saying that there is a distinction, though the distinction is not the most important part of this post.

shocking

Quick someone find me a picture of moldy leaves it is VERY IMPORTANT

Harry Potter is the earliest one I can think of. There were probably others before that, but I can’t think of them off the top of my head.

what was your first special interest, that you can remember?

*transgender but otherwise this is a nice list. Off the top of my head, I can also add Fires of the Faithful/ Turning the Storm to the fantasy section -- it’s mostly a fantasy novel, but it has two very prominent lesbian characters.

This is a list I made for YALSA’s The Hub on the wide range of YA literature featuring LGBTQ characters. See the full post and a downloadable pdf here. 

How did you become so awesome?

I’m not awesome; awesome people don’t take months to reply to messages. But thank you, Anon!

Statements about DACA (which was referenced in the original screenshot) generally are about immigration, yes.

I also found the tweet that contained the original screenshot of the email. It’s from a reporter at The Blaze, which is a right-wing organization and I believe the group that originally broke the story.

I can’t find the full email anywhere, nor proof that it actually exists that can’t eventually be traced back to that same tweet. I’m also not subscribed to the Planned Parenthood mailing list, so I can’t just check, but if anyone who follows me is subscribed and would like to verify this, the email would have been from around September 5.

(Also, I think it’s legitimate for an organization to briefly mention issues relating to groups that are not its primary focus as an expression of support when it’s relevant. This would be true even if it were a group that I am not particularly involved with. For instance, if Trump were to sign an executive order tomorrow barring Mormons from attending school, it would be reasonable for GLSEN to send out an email saying something like “We stand with our Mormon members” even though that has nothing to do with GLSEN’s mission (and Mormonism is not known for its acceptance of LGBT+ people.) Putting aside questions of immigration law, Planned Parenthood most likely has DACA beneficiaries on its mailing list; if it wants to reassure those people that it supports them, that is legitimate.)

Zero self-awareness

(Am I doing this right?)

Art by Heather Theurer