Yes, Virginia, trans rights are human rights

The Easter Resurrection: Not of Christ, but of Common Decency

Dear Editor: I am 42 years old, and some people say you should remain silent when family members casually dehumanize entire groups of people. These same people probably think chocolate bunnies are an appropriate substitute for standing up for basic human dignity.

I recently had a conversation with someone—let's call her "Virginia," because nothing says "protecting the identity of transphobes" like using the name of an entire commonwealth—who expressed views about transgender people that would make Tucker Carlson blush with professional jealousy.

After ending our call with the diplomacy of someone evacuating a building that smells like gas, I received a series of texts that could generously be described as "I'm doubling down!" First came the classic non-apology ("I'm sorry YOU don't believe I should FEEL this way"), followed by a YouTube video about a transgender swimmer. The video was deeply unserious, offering nothing more than subjective anecdotes, misrepresentation of institutional policies, slippery slopes, straw men, false equivalences, confirmation bias, intentional misgendering, and overgeneralizations.

In short, it was an interview with a bigot who wants to be seen as a victim and not a perpetrator. The crescendo was a cherry-picked news story about a rape case where—surprise!—pronouns were somehow framed as the real villain.

Today is Easter Sunday. It is a holiday celebrating a guy who was literally known for hanging out with society's outcasts and telling self-righteous people to stop being such massive jerks—a position deemed so extreme that the state politely replied by torturing him to death in public.

So, Virginia, this isn't a debate. I'm not "just asking questions" or "having a dialogue" about whether some humans deserve basic dignity and legal protection. I'm writing this to explain why you're wrong—not just factually wrong (though hoo boy, are you ever), but wrong in the deeper, "this-is-not-who-you-were-raised-to-be" sense of the word.

Consider this my Easter gift to you: an opportunity for resurrection. Not of the 2,000-year-old preacher kind, but of your basic human empathy. After all, if there's one thing Easter teaches us, it's that profound transformation is possible—even from those we've given up for dead.

The Drag Queen Paradox

There was a story on the news last night showing life imitating an old children's riddle. It seems that a truck got stuck at the entrance to the Holland Tunnel. Too high for the clearance. Well, for hours, the experts tried to find some way to unwedge the vehicle, but to no avail. Finally, a ten-year-old girl in a passing car suggested simply letting the air out of the truck's tires, thus lowering it to the clearance level, which they did. And it worked.

Working Girl (1988)

Remember that time in elementary school when your teacher asked a riddle that stumped all the adults but seemed blindingly obvious to the kids?

That's exactly what we're dealing with when it comes to anti-trans arguments. The argument goes something like this: "I have no problem with a man wearing a dress, but I don't think that they should be doing it around kids! I heard that some schools are even letting these drag queens visit schools! They're reading stories to children and indoctrinating them with gender ideology!"

Easter Bunny costume worn at a public event.

A deviant radical rabbit impersonator spreading their bunny ideology, allegedly.
source: https://bellevuecollection.com/easterbunny/

Here's the paradox at the heart of Virginia's position (and those of the countless talking heads who've monetized this particular flavor of outrage): If gender truly is fixed, biological, and immutable, then dressing up in drag is simply theater—a harmless performance, no different from wearing any other costume. It can't "change" or "influence" a child's gender identity any more than dressing as the Easter Bunny can turn a child into a rabbit.

This is not a light point. The biological essentialists love to clutch their pearls, and claim that their bigotry is rooted in concern—"Think of the children!"—and will gleefully refer to transwomen as "men wearing dresses." By this logic, we've already established that drag (and by extension, social transition) is just a presentation of fabric and makeup. The person underneath remains unchanged because, remember, gender is supposedly immutable!

But if drag is somehow "dangerous" or influential to children's gender identities, then gender must actually be fluid, socially constructed and influenced by culture, environment, or role models. This would mean gender isn't strictly binary or biologically fixed—and if gender is malleable, there's no basis for discriminating against people whose identities differ from traditional norms. To suggest that merely witnessing drag performances could somehow alter a child's gender identity is to admit that gender isn't fixed after all. Oops!

So which is it? Is gender an unchangeable biological reality, in which case drag is just harmless dress-up? Or is gender so fragile and impressionable that it can be altered by exposure to someone wearing sequins and reading "The Very Hungry Caterpillar"? Because it literally cannot be both.

The truth is that neither position justifies bigotry. If gender is fluid, then we should respect transgender identities as valid, part of the human continuum of gender and sexuality. If gender is fixed, then a trans person's existence is not a threat to anyone else's gender identity. Either way, the only logical conclusion is respect and acceptance.

This isn't advanced calculus. It's not even long division. It's the kind of basic reasoning any third-grader could follow. And that's what makes it so maddening—the failure isn't one of intellectual capacity, but of willful blindness. Because the point was never logical consistency. The point was always to find a socially acceptable veneer for plain old prejudice.

The Time-Wasting Machine: Why "Debating" Human Rights Is A Trap

A man walks into a pawn shop and asks, "How much for this gold chain?" The pawnbroker, seasoned and skeptical, takes the chain and performs his usual test—scratching it with a file. As expected, it's fake.

The next day, the same man walks in and presents another supposed gold chain. Still skeptical, the pawnbroker applies acid to this chain, and finds that it is also a fake. Day after day, the same person brings in gold chains. Each time, the pawnbroker tests them, and each time, they turn out to be counterfeit.

Eventually, THE PAWNBROKER stops testing altogether, dismissing every chain as fake without a second glance. It's a waste of time, and the pawnbroker has better things to do.

—The Parable of The Pawnbroker

Virginia, those garbage YouTube videos you sent me are counterfeit gold chains. And frankly, I've run out of acid. The fact is that you've had plenty of time to sincerely research this topic in earnest, to listen to queer and transgender voices, and learn with empathy and an open mind. You've chosen instead to pick low-hanging fruit from low-effort propagandists on the dregs of the internet. Dismissing expertise doesn't make you a rebel, it makes you a fool.

As YouTuber Thought Slime (aka Mildred) brilliantly explains in their video "Fascists Will Waste Your Time," debates with bigots aren't actually debates at all. They're time-theft operations. While you're out there living your life (working, caring for loved ones, enjoying hobbies, and (presumably) having sex) the professional bigot has nothing better to do than argue endlessly about whether certain humans deserve basic dignity.

Their strategy isn't to win these arguments. It's to have them in the first place. To keep the question perpetually open. To make it seem like human rights are up for reasonable discussion between well-meaning adults instead of what they actually are: non-negotiable table stakes for participating in civilization.

And, I'm paraphrasing Mildred here, ask yourself this: If I came to your house for Easter dinner and spent the entire meal loudly questioning whether your best friend Amanda deserves basic human rights—"I'm just saying, what if Amanda shouldn't be allowed to use public bathrooms? I'm just asking questions!"—how long would I remain at your table? Ten seconds? Maybe fifteen if you needed time to put down your fork?

Yet somehow when the target of this rhetorical harassment is an entire marginalized group of Amandas, we're all expected to entertain these arguments ad nauseam. We're labeled "extreme" if we don't patiently explain, for the eleventy millionth time, why transgender people deserve legal recognition, fair access to public spaces, housing, healthcare, and the basic courtesy of being addressed by their correct names. I call bullshit.

It's an exhaustion tactic. In today's saturated outrage media environment, nobody has time to research and formulate thoughtful responses to every half-baked theory pushed by rage-merchants on Facebook. We're drowning in information, and the anti-trans crowd knows it. They don't need to convince you with valid arguments—they just need to overwhelm you with so many bad ones that you throw up your hands and say, "I don't know what to believe anymore."

Description: a Nazi loser doing Nazi loser shit.
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN1oBfg0fwI

This strategy is particularly effective on people who feel economically or socially vulnerable. When you're worried about paying medical bills or keeping your job, it's oddly comforting to believe there's a simple enemy responsible for your struggles. The billionaire class certainly isn't going to volunteer for that role, so they make sure the spotlight stays firmly fixed on marginalized groups who make convenient scapegoats.

The fascist doesn't debate to discover truth. Truth is irrelevant. They debate to normalize the idea that some people's humanity is questionable in the first place. Every minute you spend arguing whether trans people are "real" is a minute where you've implicitly accepted that this is something reasonable people can disagree about.

It isn't.

So the next time someone tries to drag you into one of these "debates," remember the pawnbroker. Remember that you can simply say, "Shut up, you're being an asshole." It's not closed-minded—it's time management. It's recognizing that some positions aren't worthy of debate, some gold chains are obviously fake, and some YouTube videos are just thinly-veiled hate wrapped in a trench coat of pseudo-intellectualism.

Simply put: A fascist will always have endless bad faith arguments, but reasonable people are not obligated to entertain every shitty thing a Nazi has to say.

Pass the Easter ham, please.

History Doesn't Repeat, But It Sure Does Rhyme

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.

The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.

If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

Jean-Paul Sartre

There's a reason the words "Never Again" still echo through Jewish communities worldwide. History has taught us that atrocities don't begin with violence—they begin with words. With dehumanization. With the quiet acceptance that some people's dignity is up for debate.

Before we dive into this section, let me acknowledge something: comparing anything to Nazi Germany risks hyperbole. The totalitarian machinery of the Third Reich was uniquely horrific. But understanding how that machinery was built—brick by rhetorical brick—isn't alarmist; it's essential pattern recognition.

Loser Nazi assholes destroying books taken from the library of Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld
Source: https://daily.jstor.org/90-years-on-the-destruction-of-the-institute-of-sexual-science/

Many people don't realize that when Nazi forces came to power in 1933, one of their earliest targets wasn't Jewish people, it was the transgender and homosexual community in Berlin. At the time, Berlin was home to the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexual Science), founded by Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld—a pioneering research center that conducted groundbreaking studies on human sexuality, including some of the earliest work supporting transgender individuals. On May 6, 1933, just months after Hitler became Chancellor, Nazis raided this institute. Days later, they burned its library of over 20,000 books and research materials in a public bonfire, destroying decades of irreplaceable knowledge about gender and sexuality. This wasn't a random act of violence—it was a methodical erasure of knowledge that contradicted their ideology.

As historian W. Jake Newsome documents, Nazi officials like Wilhelm Frick declared that "unnatural fornication between men must be prosecuted with all severity as this vice will lead to the downfall of the German people" [Pink Triangle Legacies Project]. Sound familiar? The rhetoric of "protecting children" and "saving civilization" has always been the cover for targeting marginalized groups.

The pattern is distressingly predictable:

  1. First comes the dehumanizing language: labeling a group as "degenerate," "unnatural," or a "threat" to society.

  2. Then come legal restrictions: laws that push the targeted group out of public life.

  3. Finally comes violence—sometimes state-sanctioned, sometimes merely state-tolerated.

After the initial book burnings, the Nazi regime dramatically expanded persecution under Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code, which criminalized homosexuality. Between 1933 and 1945, approximately 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality, with roughly 50,000 officially sentenced. Of these, between 5,000 and 15,000 were sent to concentration camps, where they were forced to wear the infamous pink triangle. Many were subjected to torture, medical experimentation, and execution. Survivor testimonies, like that of Josef Kohout (who wrote under the name Heinz Heger), detail unimaginable cruelty—beatings, rape, and public humiliation specifically targeting gay prisoners.

This persecution wasn't just the work of fanatics at the top. It required the quiet complicity of ordinary citizens—people who might have personally known someone gay or transgender but who chose to look away, to accept the new normal, to believe that maybe there was something to what the authorities were saying about "those people."

I can hear you now, Virginia: "But that was Nazi Germany! That's not what's happening here!" And you're right—we aren't living in a totalitarian dictatorship... yet. But that's precisely why these early warning signs are so important to recognize.

In Florida alone, the past few years have witnessed a staggering acceleration of anti-transgender legislation. In May 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a package of bills that banned gender-affirming care for minors, restricted it for adults, prohibited transgender people from using bathrooms matching their gender identity in government buildings, and created new restrictions on drag performances. As DeSantis himself put it, "We are going to remain a refuge of sanity and a citadel of normalcy" [BBC]—implying, of course, that transgender identities are neither sane nor normal.

In 2024, HB 1639 (dubbed the "Trans Erasure Bill") passed committee in the Florida House, aiming to ban transgender Floridians from accessing accurate driver's licenses and IDs. As Equality Florida noted, the bill exists "for the purpose of bullying transgender Floridians out of public life entirely" [Equality Florida]. These aren't isolated actions—they're part of a coordinated nationwide campaign. The year 2025 is already on track to break records for anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, with over 120 bills filed across the country before the year even began [Truthout].

When a transgender Floridian named Amy Lundberg sought gender-affirming surgery, she discovered that the University of Miami had stopped providing these services altogether—not officially because of the legislation, but because "the state's holding back funding for any institution that does anything" supportive of transgender people [NBC Miami]. This isn't about protecting children; it's about erasing an entire community from public life.

Like in 1930s Germany, the persecution isn't being carried out by monsters. It's being enabled by ordinary people—people like you, Virginia—who may not harbor deep hatred in their hearts but who have been convinced that there's something dangerous about transgender existence. People who wouldn't personally harm anyone but who vote for politicians promising to "restore normalcy" by excluding those who don't fit narrow definitions of gender. People who might say, "I have no problem with them, but..." and then proceed to explain why basic human dignity should come with conditions attached.

"Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than "politics."

They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbors were dragged away. You know who weren't nice people? Resisters."

― Naomi Shulman

The lesson of history isn't that we're doomed to repeat it. The lesson is that we have a choice. We can recognize these patterns early, speak out against dehumanization in all its forms, and refuse to be complicit in the gradual erasure of our neighbors' humanity. Or we can look away until the machinery of hate has gained too much momentum to stop—when non-violent resistance is no longer a viable option and we must throw ourselves against the gears until they seize.

As federal judge Robert Hinkle wrote when permanently blocking Florida's anti-transgender healthcare law in June 2024: "Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs. But they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender. In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished" [LA Times].

History may not repeat exactly, but it rhymes. And right now, Florida's laws are rhyming with some very dark chapters of our past. The question isn't whether you'll end up on the right side of history—it's whether you'll get there before more damage is done.

Let's be crystal clear about something that right-wing politicians and professional idiots love to obscure: there is no actual scientific debate about the validity or necessity of gender-affirming care. Every major medical organization in the United States supports gender-affirming care as medically necessary and often life-saving. This includes:

  • The American Medical Association, which has explicitly stated that "gender-affirming care is medically necessary" and "has been linked to dramatically reduced rates of suicide attempts" AMA, 2023

  • The American Academy of Pediatrics, representing over 67,000 pediatricians

  • The American Psychological Association

  • The American Psychiatric Association

  • The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

  • The Endocrine Society

  • The World Professional Association for Transgender Health

  • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

  • The American College of Physicians

Collectively, these organizations represent more than 1.3 million doctors across the United States [HRC, 2025]. The medical consensus is overwhelming. This isn't a "both sides" issue where reasonable people can disagree—it's a case where politicians are overriding the recommendations of literally every relevant medical expert simply because it's politically convenient.

What's At Stake: This Isn't Academic

“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”

― Lyndon B. Johnson

The culture wars over transgender rights aren't just Twitter arguments—they have devastating real-world consequences. People's lives, literally, hang in the balance.

A 2024 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Human Behaviour found that anti-transgender laws directly caused increases in suicide attempts among transgender and nonbinary youth by as much as 72% —not just correlation, but causation, established by tracking over 61,000 trans and nonbinary youth across five years [Trevor Project, 2024].

The CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that approximately 26% of transgender students attempted suicide in the past year, compared to just 5% of cisgender male students [CDC, 2023]. These aren't just statistics—they're children, siblings, and friends driven to the brink by a society that treats them as political talking points instead of human beings.

And it's not just the heightened suicide risk. Anti-transgender laws create cascading social and economic harms that ripple throughout communities—often the same communities that right-wing politicians claim to champion. Here's where it gets deeply ironic: the very people who rail against transgender rights are often hurting themselves in the process.

Consider the case of Trevor, featured in Jonathan Metzl's award-winning book "Dying of Whiteness." Trevor was a conservative white man in rural Tennessee with severe liver failure who needed medical care. Because Tennessee repeatedly blocked Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, he couldn't access the lifesaving care he needed. When asked if he supported Obamacare, Trevor told researchers: "Ain't no way I would ever support Obamacare or sign up for it. I would rather die." [Boston Review]. His reason? He didn't want his tax dollars "paying for Mexicans or welfare queens."

This is the tragic irony that Metzl documents extensively: conservative white Americans often support policies that literally shorten their own lives. In Tennessee, resistance to the Affordable Care Act meant that white Americans who would have really benefited from healthcare reform were "loath to support Medicaid expansion" because they didn't want minorities to benefit [Boston University]. Metzl's research found that this opposition to expanded healthcare "cost every single white resident of the state 14.1 days of life." [Metzl].

The same dynamic plays out in the fight over transgender rights. By supporting politicians who demonize trans people, many rural Americans are backing leaders who are simultaneously gutting their healthcare, defunding their schools, and dismantling economic protections that would benefit them directly.

Rural communities and hospitals in states that refused to expand Medicaid have suffered disproportionately. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, expansion was associated with "a large reduction in hospital closures" [KFF]. When rural hospitals close, entire communities lose access to healthcare—not just transgender people.

Meanwhile, transgender people face extraordinary economic challenges. According to the Williams Institute, transgender people are four times more likely than the general population to be living below the poverty line, with more than 25 percent reporting an annual household income of less than $20,000 [Center for American Progress]. In states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA, the uninsurance rate among low- and middle-income LGBT communities dropped by 10 percentage points, compared to only 6 points in non-expansion states. This translates to real lives saved.

When politicians block healthcare access to score political points against transgender people, they're not just hurting the transgender community—they're hurting everyone who needs affordable healthcare, especially in rural areas. When they cut education funding while raging about "gender ideology," they're not just making schools less welcoming for transgender students—they're depriving all children of quality education.

Consider current statistics: According to the Human Rights Campaign, as of August 2024, 39.4% of transgender youth (about 118,300 teenagers) live in the 26 states that have passed bans on gender-affirming care [HRC]. These bans don't just affect transgender teens—they often include provisions that restrict public funds for healthcare across the board, limit what doctors can discuss with any patient, and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship for everyone.

Virginia, you might think the culture war over transgender rights doesn't affect you personally. But the politicians using transgender people as scapegoats are the same ones implementing policies that hurt your community, your healthcare, your schools, and your family's future. This isn't a coincidence—it's a deliberate strategy to distract you from the real sources of economic insecurity.

The medical evidence is overwhelming: gender-affirming care saves lives. A 2022 study in the journal JAMA Network Open found that gender-affirming care was associated with 73% lower odds of suicidality among transgender youth [JAMA Network Open]. When politicians override medical consensus, they're playing politics with people's lives—including the lives of their own constituents.

The fact is, the states with the most aggressive anti-transgender laws also have some of the nation's worst health outcomes, highest poverty rates, and most underfunded social services. This isn't helping anyone—it's hurting everyone except the politicians who ride the wave of manufactured outrage to power.

So the next time someone tells you that transgender people are the reason your community is struggling, remember: the real threat isn't the transgender teenager trying to live authentically or the drag queen reading stories at the library. The real threat is the cynical politician using them as distractions while picking your pocket and dismantling your healthcare.

Transphobia isn't just morally wrong—it's a scam by the wealthy that none of us can afford.

Beyond "Tolerance": The Problem With Being A Christian Bigot

I've tried to appeal to your compassion by showing the devastating harm caused by these laws. I've tried to appeal to your self-interest by showing how politicians use transphobia to undermine policies that would benefit your community directly. Now, let me appeal to your sense of religious values.

As we mark Easter Sunday, it's worth remembering what Jesus actually taught. He didn't tell us to protect "traditional gender roles." He didn't tell us to enforce conformity in others. He told us to love our neighbors as ourselves. He surrounded himself with society's outcasts—people who violated every social norm of his time. The Jesus of the Gospels would be sitting with transgender youth today, not calling for their erasure from society.

In fact, our modern concept of "tolerance" falls far short of what Jesus actually taught. "Tolerance" suggests putting up with something unpleasant—like tolerating a toothache or tolerating a boring dinner guest. Jesus called for love, not tolerance. And love doesn't say "I'll put up with your existence as long as you stay out of my sight." Love says "I see you fully as you are, and I cherish what I see."

Remember the story of the Good Samaritan? When Jesus was asked "Who is my neighbor?" he didn't respond with "Only the people who look and act like you." He told a story about a despised foreigner showing mercy to someone from a group that hated him. The point was radical: your "neighbor" isn't defined by similarity—it's defined by shared humanity.

Florida's policies don't reflect these values. They don't reflect compassion or mercy. They don't even reflect basic American principles of equal protection under the law. What they reflect is fear—the same fear that has driven persecution throughout history.

So Virginia, I'm asking you to ask yourself: What would Jesus do? Would he support laws that drive children to suicide? Would he support erasing people from public life? Or would he sit with the marginalized, heal the wounded, and rebuke those who use religion as a cover for cruelty?

The Easter story isn't just about resurrection. It's about transformation. It's about the possibility of radical change. It's about seeing the world anew.

We all have biases. We all inherit prejudices. But we don't have to be defined by them. We can choose to grow. We can choose to learn. We can choose to see people—all people—as fully human, deserving of dignity, respect, and love.

That's my Easter prayer for you, Virginia. Not just tolerance, but transformation. Not just reluctant acceptance, but genuine celebration of the beautiful diversity of human experience.

The resurrection we need isn't of some ancient religious figure. It's the resurrection of our collective humanity. It's time to roll away the stone of prejudice and step into the light of compassion.

Yes, Virginia, trans rights are human rights. And that's not up for debate.

Bibliography

  1. YouTube Video.UPenn Swimmer speaks out against Lia Thomas | The Story of Paula Scanlan” YouTube video, accessed April 20, 2025. https://youtu.be/BhhSvWwlaA0.

  2. Willis, Brianna. “Pronoun Use at Center of Rape Case Involving Former Prisoner in California.” ABC7 Chicago, December 23, 2024. https://abc7chicago.com/post/pronoun-use-center-rape-case-involving-former-chowchilla-central-california-womens-facility-prisoner-tremaine-carroll/15696730/.

  3. YouTube Video.Working Girl | #TBT Trailer | 20th Century FOX” YouTube video, accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1UqFivi6A.

  4. Jack L Turban, Dana King, Jason J Li, Alex S Keuroghlian “Social Transition for Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth, K-12 Harassment, and Adult Mental Health Outcomes.” accessed April 20, 2025. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8612964/

  5. Thought Slime. “Fascists Will Waste Your Time.” YouTube video, accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZzwO2B9b64.

  6. YouTube Video.Elon Musk makes 'Nazi-style salute' at Donald Trump's inauguration parade.” YouTube video, accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2bbb-6Clhs.

  7. YouTube Video.Anti-Trans Matt Walsh Confronted for Spreading Disinformation to Joe Rogan” YouTube video, accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly4nFCs99Rw.

  8. YouTube Video.I Debunked the Entire Manosphere” YouTube video, accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgO25FTwfRI&t=377s.

  9. Magnus‑Hirschfeld.de. “Institut für Sexualwissenschaft.” Accessed April 20, 2025. https://magnus-hirschfeld.de/ausstellungen/institute/.

  10. Newsome, W. Jake. “The Nazi Persecution of Queer and Trans People.” Pink Triangle Legacies Project. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.pinktrianglelegacies.org/newsome.

  11. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Paragraph 175 and the Nazi Campaign against Homosexuality.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/paragraph-175-and-the-nazi-campaign-against-homosexuality#:~:text=Paragraph%20175.

  12. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Documenting Nazi Persecution of Gays: The Josef Kohout/Wilhelm Kröpfl Collection.” USHMM Collections. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.ushmm.org/collections/the-museums-collections/curators-corner/documenting-nazi-persecution-of-gays-the-josef-kohout-wilhelm-kroepfl-collection.

  13. BBC News. “Florida Governor Signs Anti‑Transgender Bills Cementing State’s Status as ‘Citadel of Normalcy’.” BBC News, August 24, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65627756.

  14. Equality Florida. “Statement on Anti‑Transgender Bill Passing Final Florida House Committee.” Equality Florida. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.eqfl.org/statement-anti-transgender-bill-passes-final-florida-house-committee.

  15. Erin in the Morning. “Nearly 120 Anti‑LGBTQ Bills Filed across the US Before 2025 Has Even Started.” Truthout, December 21, 2024. https://truthout.org/articles/nearly-120-anti-lgbtq-bills-filed-across-the-us-before-2025-has-even-started/.

  16. NBC Miami. “Anti‑Trans Laws in Florida Devastate People Seeking Gender‑Affirming Care.” NBC Miami, January 15, 2025. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/anti-trans-laws-in-florida-devastate-people-seeking-gender-affirming-care/3478401/.

  17. Rosenblatt, Kalhan. “A Florida Law Blocking Treatment for Transgender Children Is Thrown Out by a Federal Judge.” Los Angeles Times, June 11, 2024. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-06-11/a-florida-law-blocking-treatment-for-transgender-children-is-thrown-out-by-a-federal-judge.

  18. Project 2025 Observer. “Project 2025.” Project 2025 Observer. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.project2025.observer.

  19. Metzl, Jonathan M. “Dying of Whiteness.” Boston Review, November 20, 2019. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/jonathan-m-metzl-dying-whiteness/.

  20. Temple, Kelly. “Judge’s Ruling Turns Spotlight on Tennessee’s Worn‑Torn Safety Net.” Tennessee Lookout, September 10, 2024. https://tennesseelookout.com/2024/09/10/judges-ruling-turns-spotlight-on-tennessees-worn-torn-safety-net/.

  21. The Trevor Project. “Anti‑Transgender Laws Cause up to 72 % Increase in Suicide Attempts among Transgender and Nonbinary Youth, Study Shows.” The Trevor Project, June 2024. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/anti‑transgender‑laws‑cause‑up‑to‑72‑increase‑in‑suicide‑attempts‑among‑transgender‑and‑nonbinary‑youth‑study‑shows/.

  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Youth Risk Behavior Survey.” MMWR 73 (2023). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/su/su7304a6.htm.

  23. Human Rights Campaign. “Attacks on Gender‑Affirming Care by State Map.” HRC.org. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map.

  24. Human Rights Campaign. “Get the Facts on Gender‑Affirming Care.” HRC.org. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.hrc.org/resources/get-the-facts-on-gender-affirming-care.

  25. American Medical Association. “Advocating for the LGBTQ Community: AMA Policy on Gender‑Affirming Care.” American Medical Association, February 10, 2023. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/advocating-lgbtq-community.

Tackling the challenges for our learners

Bridging knowledge gaps.

Working with a team of three other designers, we began to see points of divergence for our goals. Amanda’s focus on online activism and leveraging new technologies was compelling, but she was driven to do this work independently. Nandini and Michelle were also interested in the digital realm, but were not sure about the framing for citizenship.

One of the key challenges for addressing citizenship in the 21st century is the fundamental misunderstanding by the public of how we interact with these new technologies. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. have removed the traditional political boundaries and geographic limitations of culture and ideas.

This is our stake-holder map, there are many like it, but this one is ours.

This is our stake-holder map, there are many like it, but this one is ours.

The advantage of this style of mapping is that we do not need to work from the current state toward feasible solutions. While the appearance may be linear, we actually developed our ideas for bridging the gaps by first looking forward, to a preferred state. Herbert A. Simon succinctly described the field of design as “changing existing circumstances into preferred ones,” which is exactly what we are plotting with this map. We then can backcast from the preferred state, and identify patterns and opportunities for intervention.

This tool is simple as it is effective. For weeks we had been looking at how technology was affecting citizens’ perception of reality (bots, trolls, hackers, fake news, hoaxes, disinformation campaigns, post-truth, etc.) but we had not adequately considered how bidirectional that perception was. In late 2013, a hacktivist documentary titled, TPB AFK (The Pirate Bay, Away From Keyboard) was released. This film chronicled the political and social aspects of digital sharing, and the rise of Sweden’s “Pirate Party.” Having won seats in parliament in 2009, The Pirate Party of Sweden was a recognized political group. Since then, other nations (e.g., Germany and Iceland) have also elected members from this movement.

The philosophy of the Pirate Party is best understood from their belief that “the internet is real.” They do not make the distinction between interactions “IRL” (In Real Life) and “online.” Instead, they use the term “AFK” (Away From Keyboard) to describe that state. In American politics, we can see the disruption all around us from this misunderstanding. People have been tricked into believing that their online activities are somehow contained, safely behind a prophylactic digital barrier. It’s “on the internet” and therefore not real. Except that it is. Imagine the mayhem that would exist if people believed that their personal vehicles and the roads on which they travelled were somehow a totally self-contained reality, separate from everything else.

Our goal therefor is not to leverage technology to help citizens become more engaged IRL, or AFK, but to help them understand that they are still citizens, even (and especially) when occupying digital spaces.

Considering stakeholders

Civic engagement: how grassroots movements make lasting impact.

As I continue to think about what citizenship truly means, I am disturbed to think about the lack of participation in western democracy. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the 2016 general election saw a 20-year low in voter turnout. It is tempting to shake my finger and to blame systems and policy (I still do this, in private), but when you pan back and look at the tension between discrete categories, it becomes much clearer what the stakes really are. I have heard from many of my closest friends and peers, that the election of Donald Trump has sparked an ad-hoc civics class. The Washington Post even launched a podcast whose title illustrates this phenomenon: Can He Do That?

One of the factors that prevents people from engaging with politics in a meaningful way, is the pervasive feeling of uncertainty. When you do not understand the mechanics of government and politics it is easy to be discouraged. The first amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to petition government for redress of grievances. This principle makes sense, but government is not a monolith. Government is not a person or a place, so who or what do you call upon when you have a valid complaint? When there is an emergency, you can call 9–1–1, but what about the slow-moving emergency of climate change, wage stagnation, the rising costs of education, childcare, or medical services? We the people might be pissed off. Many of the people who voted for Trump were voting with their middle finger — people often make poor choices when acting in anger.

Grassroots movements have historically been the most successful when groups form durable solidarity toward specific and appropriate goals. If we can find a way to synthesize a learning experience to form coherence with groups who share common grievances, we can make real impact. The 2020 election presents a unique opportunity to pressure elected officials. This is an ideal setting for researching this wicked problem.

Decoding a learning experience: notes from class presentation

We have not yet finished in-class presentations, but I wanted to take a moment to record what has been seen so far:

“The Learning Network” Provides current events in the format of lesson plans. Their goal — to expand reach to students. This is achieved through a combination of online lesson plans, quizzes, and student opinions.

Want to learn to play racquetball? Hillary described her initial interest as “like playing tennis, but indoors” — which makes sense, considering that we are living through winter in Pittsburgh. She discovered that Pickleball players (who are mostly 50+ year olds) are obsessed with this sport, and have countless posts on YouTube. Racquetball videos on YouTube, by comparission, are exceptionally rare (very few videos, the top pick being an upload from 10 years ago). Key takeaway: learn the moves before learning the rules.

Michelle Chou presented a sustainable seafood guide. App and website: Seafoodwatch.org, a resource created by the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Users can enter a search for the type of seafood they want to eat. The guide then provides information and recommendations (environmental impact, overfishing, etc.) Categories include: Best Choices, Good Alternatives, Avoid.

Kate played a showreel for the barbican Digital Revolution Exhibition. This traveling exhibition seeks to inform the public on how digital culture permeates modern-day life. The most impactful exhibit (I think) was an exploration into “Digital archaeology” (the history of human computer interaction).

Next, we looked at an online tool designed to teach DSLR users how to be more effective at digital photography: http://photography-mapped.com/. Most DSLR owners shoot in Auto-Mode, and never touch the manual settings. This interactive website explains the different functions of a DSLR. One of the key features of the siteShows instant feedback to help develop understanding.

There were more presentations (I might come back and post more from my notes), but you may have already noticed a pattern: new technology is what makes all of these learning experiences possible. These experiences may happen online or in-person, but all of them are leveraging technology to enhance people’s learning. Some of these experiences were not even possible a few decades ago.

Decoding a learning experience: a case study of factitious

One major area of concern going into the 2020 election is the role of social media in spreading disinformation. While I firmly believe that social media companies (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) need to take a more proactive role in combating fake news (and other propaganda), users and community stakeholders can also help to fight against the tide. One helpful tool is an online game, factitious.

The rules are simple: players are presented with a headline, text, and images — is it real or fake? The correct answer will be rewarded with points, while incorrect answers will provide helpful tips for how to spot a fake. Why is this game important? One of the hard-learned lessons from the 2016 election year was that people often share a news story without ever vetting the contents. Even worse, many Facebook users were willing to share a news story without ever having read the article.

What works: the game is simple, informative, entertaining, and free to the public. What could be better: the game is low stakes, and while that certainly encourages players to give it a try, it doesn’t have any replay value, or real incentives for competition. This could be improved.

Related links:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/09/how-misinformation-spreads-on-social-media-and-what-to-do-about-it/

https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-combat-fake-news-and-disinformation/

https://www.cits.ucsb.edu/fake-news/protecting-ourselves-teach

https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/anti-misinformation-actions/

Citizenship and technology: questions and hypotheses

This week we continued to explore citizenship from the lens of learning experience design (LxD). This issue is complex, affecting countless individuals, institutions, systems, and more. It was helpful to visualize the issue with a team (we continued a second day of whiteboard sketching, with post-its for card sorting. Ultimately, this helped us to identify the categories of “Five Ws” (Who, What, When, Where, Why) and How.

Who: voters (including potential voters). In 2016, voter turnout was at a 20–year low. Nearly half of voting-age Americans did not cast a ballot in 2016. It could be easy — even tempting — to look at this group and condemn their inaction. After all, Hillary Clinton received nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, but lost the electoral college due to roughly 100,000 votes spread between three so-called “swing states.” If we ever are to have a health democracy, we need more people to vote, and they need to vote consisently. There are no “off years” for civic duties.

What can be done to increase voter turnout? This varies from one state to the next, so this question cannot be addressed at a national level, unless we first address the specifics of each state. Since the focus of this class is not public policy, we should instead look at voters and what resources would help them to understand the election process. There are many competing ideas, and it is likely that not just one policy or change to our elections will do the trick. Ultimately, we need voters to understand the necessary steps in the process, from registration to the act of casting a ballot.

When? Now.

It is not particularly helpful to only look at voters during our election years — every year, all year is what we need. Voting is only one small piece of civic responsibility. Volunteering in your community, military service, writing and calling your representatives, participating in demonstrations, jury duty, and even paying your taxes are major areas of concern, and these activities happen every day (if not to you, then to someone you know) in the United States.

Where can we reach eligible voters? One of the challenges with an always-online culture is that attention itself has become a commodity. There is serious competition for clicks and participation. This constant battle for your attention leaves only razor-thin margins for the less exciting, less sexy areas of real life. Combating distraction presents a real challenge.

Why is voting turnout is low? This question is more difficult to answer. Voter suppression tactics, gerrymandering, apathy, and public misperceptions and attitudes about democracy are major factors.

How can we change that? Before we can answer that question, we must first understand what factors determine a person’s level of political engagement. This should be a serious area of focus for further research.

Further Reading:

Voter turnout (https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html)

Swing state voter margin (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/)

Voter suppression (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/)

Gerrymandering(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/what-is-gerrymandering.html)

Topics of interest: challenges in exploring the design of learning experiences

After the results of the 2016 election, many Americans (including a candidate who received nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump) wanted to know: what happened? What has unfolded since then has been an endless firehose of scandals, breaches of public trust, attacks against journalists, amplification of white nationalism, and a polarization of politics unlike anything seen in recent decades or even generations. For many, this question has been more about whether we are reliving 1968 or 1934. Depending on what happens in this year’s election, we may have an answer to that dreaded question.

I believe that recent events and how we interpret them are dangerously subjected to a “fragmentalization” of narrative: this happened, and that happened, because (?). It is in our nature to seek out patterns — we depend on them to make sense of our reality — but just like Rorschach tests, cloud formations, tea leaf and palms readings, what we *think* we see is often much more subjective than we are willing to admit. These truthy relationship between separate parts can easily deceive us, and make it harder to see firmer (but much less pleasant) truths. The facts remain the same, even if our interpretation of them varies wildly.

This is why I am choosing to engage in two important topics this semester: technology and citizenship (i.e., civic engagement). I believe that in our ever-increasingly digital world, that it makes no sense to separate these two topics. They are deeply interlinked, (from our political discourse online, Tweets by the President and his feverish supporters, the sharing of stories on social media, cybersecurity, data breaches, electronic voting, online privacy, and so much more) technology influences politics, just as politics influences technology. What we do to one, through innovation or policy, will affect the other. In other words: to understand 21st century politics is to understand the fifth dimension — cyberspace.

Here are some specific questions worth exploring: how can we combat disinformation, fake news, state-sponsored propaganda, bots, and trolls? If we are living in a post-truth era of hopelessly tribal politics, how do we exit from it? Is that even possible? Voter turnout in general elections has been flat (around 55%) since the 1970s, how can we get more eligible voters to engage in their civic duties? How can we promote a more confident and informed public? I have some ideas about all of this, but will wait until class tomorrow where we can discuss. I hope to get some good feedback.

Reframing Climate Action

Climate change represents an existential threat to all human and non-human life on our planet. This is a global crisis. It is a complex, compounded problem, representing a multitude of technological, political, and economic challenges; as big and complex as they are, we should welcome these challenges. We can start by reframing the debate. Later this month, families in the United States will gather to celebrate Thanksgiving. You may find yourself sitting at a table with someone who opposes the radical transformations necessary to address the climate emergency — someone who refuses to acknowledge the dire warnings from climate scientists, and who sees no real need to change our economy, food production or modes of transportation. Instead of browbeating them for their lack of concern or sense of ecological stewardship, consider this alternative: talk about how exciting this transformation could be.


Sustainability cannot be achieved if the only source of inspiration is our fear of a climate catastrophe. We need enthusiasm and a sense of adventure; we need to dream of big, radical shifts from the brightest corners of science fiction. We need to inspire people’s imagination, and show them a future that is possible: with proper planning and investment into new technologies, we can build something better. Recycling our plastic bottles, taking public transportation or riding a bicycle to work might make us feel good about our carbon footprint (and if you do these things, thank you), but these kinds of actions do little to inspire. We need a moonshot of new technologies that make fossil fuels obsolete. This cannot be a lateral transition.


One of the most common objections to adopting the necessary changes and policies to address climate change (e.g., generating 100% of our electricity from solar, wind, and other renewables, massive expansion of public transportation infrastructure, abandoning fossil fuels in virtually every area of the global economy, sweeping reforms to agricultural practices and global trade, etc.) is the notion that these changes are both radical and sudden. In fact, these changes are. It is radical to reshape how people power their homes, what they eat, or how they commute to and from work. The IPCC says that “unprecedented and urgent changes” are needed to keep warming below 1.5°C, and that failing to meet that goal will have catastrophic impact. In fact, even with the target of 1.5°C we are likely to see significant ecological impact beyond what has already taken place.


What these objections fail to account for is that radical change is happening, and it will continue so long as new technologies are being developed. At the beginning of the twentieth century, most people traveled long distances by rail, ships, or even by riding on the backs of domesticated animals. The Wright brothers sparked a radical change in 1903, when they successfully completed the first heavier-than-air powered flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Less than thirty years later in 1927, Charles Lindbergh became the first aviator to successfully complete a non-stop trans-Atlantic flight. A little more than a decade later in 1941, the Japanese Imperial forces launched a massive naval air strike against the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. That same decade, in 1947,Chuck Yeager became the first pilot to break the sound barrier. Roughly twenty years after that, in 1969, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. By the end of the twentieth century, massive fiberoptic networks and satellites connected people from around the world and enabled communication at the speed of light.


It is an undeniable fact that some of the most transformative technologies of the twentieth century were not planned by governments or voted on by the consent of the public, but instead began with hobbyists. From powered flight to the home computer, radical change can come from the most humble beginnings. With proper funding, institutional support, public and private investments, and an insatiable drive for continual improvements, these new technologies have reshaped every aspect of our daily lives.


Even though it is commonplace today, flying on a commercial jet is still an adventure. One century ago, the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world could not enjoy the convenience or speed we now take for granted. It is an optimistic act to step inside of an aluminum tube and to trust total strangers to safely accelerate to over five-hundred miles per hour, thirty-thousand feet above the ground.


Unfortunately, this miraculous convenience comes at a heavy price: air travel is also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. According to one study from 2016, air travel alone could account for a quarter of our carbon budget by the year 2050. This is alarming but not hopeless. We do not need to abandon air travel and or return to riding on the backs of horses. The fundamental physics of aviation do not even require burning fossil fuels. In fact, there are already a number of prototype hydrogen-fueled aircraft that fly without producing any carbon emissions. Research indicates that hydrogen is the most suitable alternative fuel; hydrogen is abundant (it is the most common element in the known universe) and because it burns clean, it could extend the life of jet engines by 25%.


Why stop there? Jet A-1 (one of the most common jet fuels in use today) was developed in the 1950s. Considering the rapid progress of modern aviation, why should we continue to use a seventy-year-old fuel? Jet A-1 has a maximum burn temperature of roughly 4,000°F; that is impressive, but hydrogen can burn over a thousand degrees hotter at 5,100°F. The byproduct of burning this fuel is water vapor. What can we do with that extra thermal energy? SABRE hypersonic Reaction Engines are currently in development, and could potentially lead to commercial aircraft with a speed of over 4,000 mph. That’s three times faster than the (now defunct) supersonic Concorde airliners.


Imagine flying from New York to London in one hour.


That’s exciting, but I forgot to mention something: that speed only accounts for altitudes of 30,000 feet. Hydrogen-oxygen engines, unlike their antiquated kerosene-burning counterparts, are not dependent on atmosphere for their combustion. At higher altitudes, where there is no atmosphere or wind resistance, these hypersonic jets could reach speeds of up to 19,000 mph. Imagine flying from London to Sydney in less than four hours. This is radical change; it is faster, higher, hotter, and cleaner than anything we have ever built before, but it is not unprecedented. This is what we have always done: better, and more exciting.

 United Nations, “Special Climate Report: 1.5ºC Is Possible But Requires Unprecedented and Urgent Action” 08 October, 2018. (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2018/10/special-climate-report-1-5oc-is-possible-but-requires-unprecedented-and-urgent-action/)

 Roz Pidcock, Sophie Yeo, “Analysis: Aviation could consume a quarter of 1.5C carbon budget by 2050” 08 August, 2016. (https://www.carbonbrief.org/aviation-consume-quarter-carbon-budget)

 Andrew J. Hawkins, “This company wants to fill the skies with hydrogen-powered planes by 2022” 14 August, 2019. (https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/14/20804257/zeroavia-hydrogen-airplane-electric-flight)

 A. Godula-Jopek, A. Westenberger, “Compendium of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 4: Hydrogen Use, Safety and the Hydrogen Economy” 2016. (Pages 67-85)

 Rachel Cormack, “This Hypersonic ‘Space Plane’ Can Get From New York to London in One Hour” 27 September, 2019. (https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/sabre-hypersonic-space-plane-2871535/)


Why putting on the brakes is not enough

Pittsburgh Public.jpeg

Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, knows his platform allows for bad craziness to spread like cancer, but fuck it! He’s still getting rich. Who cares if his platform amplified the worst voices in this country, and did so at the shared expense of everyone else? Right? Anyone who still works for Twitter should seriously reconsider what they are doing with their lives. Imagine getting paid to provide Nazis a global megaphone. How do you sleep at night, @Jack?

Thoughts on Ruined by Design, by Mike Monteiro:


I’ve finished reading Mike Monteiro’s book, Ruined By Design, and his message is clear: “as designers, we need to think of ourselves as gatekeepers.” This means we must refuse to put harmful designs (in any form) into the world. He uses the analogy of the Hippocratic Oath, and a doctor’s pledge to “first, do no harm,” and argues for designers to adopt a code of ethics.

I can hardly disagree with the notion that designers, like many other professions, ought to operate under a set of values. But is this enough? No. It is not enough to *not* do unethical design. It’s a good start, but it is not enough. For every harmful act, for every data breach, for every easily preventable hack, for every racist and hateful Tweet, for every man-made environmental catastrophe, and for every preventable tragedy brought upon us in the name of “innovative technology” and “disruption,” there is another mile we all travel on this dark highway. Refusing to do something harmful is a neutral act, and ought to be perceived as part of a neutral position. If you are someone who remains “neutral” on climate change, staggering wealth inequality, or the very real threats of fascism and white nationalism, then you’re not really part of the solution - you’re just a speed bump.

We need to reverse this, and Mike Monteiro is passionately calling for us to start by putting on the brakes. It’s not enough, but it is an essential first step. What we desperately need is positive change. We are going down this road at the speed of internal, infernal combustion. We are going faster than hot chrome and sweaty sex. Running in the red.

Almost everyone (aside from a handful of oligarchs and their Fox News sycophants) agrees that we should (at the very least) slow down. And if you suggest we stop, do you know how you will be labeled? You will be called a “far-left radical.” As if wanting every hard working family in this country to live with some basic level of dignity is a communist plot! As if wanting Twitter and the rest of Silicon Valley to actually be held responsible for what they put out into the world is “too liberal” or “too PC.” Well, call me liberal, but I cannot see the value in letting racist assholes have a platform to make terroristic threats against hospitals. Seriously: Fuck you, Jack Dorsey.

Why are these matters controversial at all? Maybe it is because the only thing more grotesque than this horrify status quo is: ourselves. We have been ignoring hard truths for such a long time that we often fail to see how far off we have wandered. It’s after midnight. The road is dark. The engine is running in the red. Why? From wealth inequality, to endless wars, to climate change, we live in a world where crisis is the status quo. Why?

(?)

What the author correctly identified is that this is because it is designed that way. We can’t fix this by simply refusing to go further down this road; we need to actively work against the designs that lead to ruin. We need to take the wheel. And if we crash, we need to pile up the debris and preserve only that which functions as a warning sign: to tell future generations not to go down that same path ever again. I’ll let Mike have the last word on this.

If we want positive search results, we should do positive things. If we want to reassure the users of our products that they can trust us, we should do positive things. There’s a reason I wrote these last three chapters in this order. Community breeds standards; standards breed accountability; accountability breeds trust; licensure validates that trust. It’s a journey. It may be a long journey, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth taking.

Do positive things.

Monteiro, Mike. Ruined by Design: How Designers Destroyed the World, and What We Can Do to Fix It (p. 206). Mule Books.