Oh believe me, we’re working on getting bathrooms! But, when people in key positions of power don’t want to do so they need only cite a building code, the cost, not having a proper location, etc. While there are discussions of making sure “new” buildings have accessible restrooms, the university thus far has appealed to “well, it wasn’t included in the original blueprint of the time so…” or in the NCB stuck a lovely faculty ID swipe access requirement on the one in that building.

We shall see how things progress in the coming years and we really need to update that map! I believe that’s the one that was created using maps of buildings. Some students are trying to work on a more up-to-date that would include accessibility information more blatantly.

Indeed, that’s one of the things that I’ve heard folks OC backgrounds say along with feeling like they’re in a cold, inhospitable, and uncaring environment :/

I think that different things will work for different people ? This is one model, but I’m sure that there are plenty of others out there that do the same inclusive work!

Whoops! I remember reading it the first time and being slightly confused, but not it makes more sense in not making sense (given the context of this blog)!

Agreed on many points! What I hear you saying is a need to incorporate a rolling conversation about inclusivity and biases as opposed to just relying on the initial set-up and I feel that that’s part of the puzzle that sometimes gets left out.

It’s just one approach of many! So many people have different styles that seem to work well for the first day of name mispronouncing.

And, yup, change is hard :/

It’ll be interesting to see what changes we all will have to/should make in the coming years as things change even more!

Ahhhhhh, that makes sense! I was sitting there wrestling with what it could mean. And yeah, I hear you about keeping is succinct and including elements that can be included even if they aren’t necessarily/always the ending point.

Thank you for making this post. Your point that “This demobilizes gay communities and puts them at odds with each other by making complicit a fraction of the community at the cost of the rest of it” is something that I have seen ignored in a lot of conversations (and it’s really frustrating).

It really seems, to me at least, that rather than engaging in the overall project of liberation for LGBTQ+ communities, for example, the conversation because focused on getting people the “same” rights and settling for what the system already had available as opposed to calling the system into question and seeking to challenge the normalcy of institutions.

In turn, folks seeking broader liberation were told “but you have marriage now, what else do you want, you’re asking too much” and silenced/manipulated to settle for their new found rights. They were set against folks who continued to challenge the system and told that *those* folks were holding back “the movement”. SO MANY MANIPULATION TECHNIQUES.

Now that I’m done ranting, you may be interested in work by Suzanne Pharr and/or Eric Rofes in the event you haven’t encountered their works yet.