Katja [→L1!] Antares, a 🐱🐲. @[email protected]

Time for some #ff #introduction #introductions!

I'm Katja! 24, they/them, currently near Vancouver.

I often post about communism/other far-left politics, music (mainly rock, metal, and jazz), the legal system here, my experiences with gender/sexuality/MH issues, urban planning and transportation, food (I like to cook!), technology, and sometimes, you know, really gay stuff.

Feel free to send me a follow request! I only have my follows locked to keep out spam accounts and problematic users.

Oh, I forgot—

✔️ Catdragon, cat, dragon, kitty, derg, rarfer, and other really furry species-related ones

What terms should you use for me?

✔️ They/them
✖️ She/her, other pronouns
✖️✖️ He/him, it/its

✔️ No title
❔ Mx.
✖️ Mr., Ms., Mrs.

✔️✔️ Things that push my buttons, **if** we know each other well & it's an appropriate space for that stuff
✔️ Friend, pal, bud, other non-gendered terms
❔ Girl, sis, dude
✖️ Guy, bro, sir, ma'am
✖️✖️ Anything that's too friendly/🌶️ for the circumstances, or if we don't know each other well, unironic dad/daddy
✖️✖️✖️ Kid, boy, or any other condescending terms

Had to go back and adjust some colours (my monitor really isn't calibrated well for doing art!), but...

...I've finished my redesign of Katja! Now with less eye-searing #FF0000!

Goodnight! 💙

The reasonable, sensible disgust that most queer people feel towards "child porn, but not photographic" is a very different thing than hetnorms trying to chase kink out of queer spaces, and failing to recognise that difference is just going to exclude many queer people — especially minors, who need these spaces as much as us adults do, and who have *incredibly* good personal reasons to feel unsafe wherever sexualisation of minors occurs.

When I see snarky posts on Twitter implying that literally anyone who has a problem with drawn CP is yet another candygore fetishist Puritan, it comes across as seriously dishonest. Like, for every "Actually, if you're into BDSM, you need to be castrated" person, there's far more who are cool with kink in general, but have standards, like "It's not alright to produce content that trivialises CSA when so many abusers still get away with those actions, repeatedly".

I'm well aware of certain posters on Twitter who do make wildly flimsy arguments as to various kinks being harmful based on stunningly bad conjectures, etcetera, but… most opposition to drawn depictions of CSA isn't "ew, kinks", but specific opposition to a category of media that is far more harmful, violent, and exclusionary than any other genre of explicit content, really.

This whole discourse of "opposing media that romanticises and promotes violent attitudes towards children, thus contributing to the fact that ~14% of people worldwide are sexually abused before the age of 18¹ → opposing any non-normative sexuality at all, even though most kinks aren't even remotely socially harmful, let alone to that extent" is… seriously questionable.

¹https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311357/

…I'm definitely hoping I'll be able to set up my exam schedule such that I can make it to MFF next year. Even if that won't be my first priority with course selection, of course.

Have fun there, everyone that's going!

"Atlas Shrugged" is "just fiction", read by adults who can distinguish fact from fiction, right? It's inherently incapable of transmitting political messages to people by virtue of its fictitious nature, right?

I should probably work out now, heck. xwx

Ah! Great! I smell vaguely like bacon now. <_<

Good morning!

Goodnight! 💙

So full of gay energy,,,,,

But, as usual, the best long-term solution here is - you guessed it! - removing capital from healthcare.

No, not just insurance! Pharmaceutical companies, equipment manufacturers, and service providers, too! We'd save a lot of money by not having to piss it away on "value for shareholders"!

(Hopefully both the BCSC and the SCC will rightfully come to the conclusion that this issue involves a balancing of interests, in which either decision will impact *someone's* s 7 rights, and thus, the side which has the narrowest impacts - that being the continuation of the ban on private health insurance for essential procedures and doctors practicing in both the private and public systems - is the more constitutionally justifiable outcome.

But that's not exactly certain.)

"It's unconstitutional to prevent the development of a healthcare system that would systematically exclude exploited and marginalised people from healthcare." - these assholes.

Bud, seriously, a few tens of rich people getting mildly worse health outcomes due to having to wait along with everyone else in our currently underfunded healthcare system is nothing compared to the millions who'd get worse service in a system with more privatisation.