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!"

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.

"Liberation Day" Where do we go from here?

Since August last year I’ve been working at a food pantry: William Temple House. 72 days into the new administration and already we are straining to meet the increasing needs of our community. Recently, USDA announced that it is cutting shipments starting in May and June.

Due to these cuts, millions of pounds of food won't even make it to our state's food banks. When these shipments don't arrive, our food pantry will go empty at the exact same moment when millions of Americans are going to slip into poverty due to cuts elsewhere in the federal government.

We simply CANNOT absorb the amount of economic hardship this administration is about to place on American families. Couple this with plans to cut nutritional assistance programs like SNAP, and we are about to see tens of millions of vulnerable Americans (mainly children and seniors), go hungry.

Let me be clear about what I am saying: Americans are going to die because of this administration. The victims will be our children, elderly grandparents, the friend or cousin who lives with a disability, and the unlucky neighbors who happen to fall on hard times through no fault of their own.

During Trump's first administration, the crisis came to a head in 2020—during his final year in office. COVID-19 destabilized a fragile and fragmented social fabric and precarious economic condition. The negligence became too consequential for everyday Americans to ignore. The politically disengaged were blindsided by closed businesses and social distancing requirements. Our hospitals were flooded with the sick and dying.

Do you remember it? I feel like the people in my life have blocked it out—this collective trauma that we never really processed and remain in denial about. In the final months of Trump's first term, the daily death toll was in the thousands from COVID-19. We had 9/11 levels of death in this country every day for months. Over 10 million people were out of work. We were spiraling.

We're not there yet, but I cannot help but feel that we are rushing ass-first into disaster. As of this writing, we are just 72 days into the crisis of this administration, and already the alarms are flashing red and I can see the cracks forming beneath my feet.

My most charitable position is that Trump is a careless and dangerous buffoon—a reality-TV guy who is flailing about at the ancient controls of an impossibly sophisticated machine, turning dials up and down blindly—unaware of the consequences of his actions. Maybe his actions are nothing more than a deeply flawed vibe, the product of an underdeveloped mind and stunted personality which cannot properly address the complexity of his own situation.

And I really want to believe that's the case... but then I remember January 6th, and his efforts to retain power after losing the election. I remember everything he did after Election Day and the events leading up to that, and I get a pit in my stomach.

My frosted side says he's a born fool and dangerous for that reason alone. My shredded wheat side says that this is intentional, that he is aiming for conditions that will all but guarantee civil unrest. It appears that he wants to stoke chaos as a pretext for declaration of emergency powers. And even as I type that, I feel crazy. I feel like I deserve to be called a crank. [adjusts the tinfoil hat for a snugger fit]

Suggesting that an autocratic coup is already in motion, that plans have been laid out and are being followed, sounds crazy because it is crazy. But I'm not being an alarmist, I'm just actually fucking alarmed. I'm alarmed because of the Executive Order Trump signed on the first day of his second term: DECLARING A NATIONAL EMERGENCY AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES.

(b) Within 90 days of the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a joint report to the President about the conditions at the southern border of the United States and any recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807.

I read that last line and something cold washes over me, through me. I feel it in my bones right now. We have just 18 days to go.

These tariffs are going to impact a lot of people who simply are not paying attention. They will come to our food pantry, and will find a line of other people who also were not paying attention. Every day that line gets a little bit longer, and we're doing the best we can. But by the end of the month, we'll have a President who is ready to make a power grab, and a public that is living in fear and increasing scarcity.

And as we head into May and June, food pantries like ours will be cut-off from our largest supplier just as that line starts to go around the block a few times. Once we're out of food, we have to close our doors. What will all of those people do then? Where will they go? What will they do?

Insurrection Act, 1807

[I]n all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.

Insurrection Act of 1807, ch. 39, 2 Stat. 443, 443

Will the President of the United States turn our own military against us? Will he massacre civilians when his own policies lead to civil unrest?

I don't know. What I do know is that the next Presidential election is 1,314 days away.

Week 10 update: Speed dating and concept evaluation

We had a somewhat irregular week for studio II. After our presentation, our team regrouped and strategized on how we might conduct the next phase of our research. We started out with just two concepts (an ARC educator “hackathon” and a community-promoting “ARC awards” program), and while our team felt confident that these concepts were feasible and desirable to addressing our problem space, we still had a lot of open-ended questions that would require further inquiry. Additionally, we became very concerned with the potential opportunity costs of not exploring more alternatives.

To address this concern, we decided to return to our primary research and synthesize niche problem statements that my provoke additional concepts. This went extremely well, and we now have more than a dozen concepts ready for evaluation. We’re excited to get these ideas in front of educators, but this remains to be a substantial obstacle to our process.

We consulted with Hajira and Sofia about our concerns, and asked how we might convert the highly synchronous activity of “speed dating” to a more online and asynchronous form. They recommended Typefrom and while this option was appealing, it came with a few drawbacks. The ultimate dealbreaker on this platform was the price. It costs $40 to enable the features that actually make the platform more useful than free products such as Google Forms. After some digging, I found a free alternative (they literally marketed themselves as such). Tripetto offers logic and branches that will enable our team to structure paths for our survey to tailor the individual experience. This is pretty huge, considering the scarcity factors our team has struggled with since the beginning of this project.

Despite this progress and excitement for next steps, I’ve personally struggled with motivation this week. I know that a lack of regular sleep and some external stressors are partially to blame, but there are many factors contributing to this. It’s been difficult to process (cognitively and emotionally) what comes next for me.

This week, I received my cap and gown, a diploma frame, and a few other artifacts to commemorate my time at CMU. I’ve been in school since January of 2014, and I feel incredibly lucky and grateful for this opportunity. To date, academics has been my longest career. I have spent more time being a student than my entire Navy enlistment, or my time working at Intel as an engineer. Each chapter came with its own struggles, failures, and success.

Each made an indelible mark on my psyche and personality. I could never imagine in my wildest dreams that my educational path would end here, in Pittsburgh, confined to my shoebox apartment, a deadly virus burning down countless lives while I indulge in high-level theories. I owe so much for this good fortune, and I do not know how I will ever repay the world for what it has given me.

It’s not so much that I am procrastinating — I put in a lot of hours this week, especially for this project — it’s that I’m paralyzed, afraid that what we are doing is missing something vitally important yet still unnamed. I also know that 15 weeks is hardly enough time to understand potential futures and their relationships to the current state. 

It’s all crushing me down. I feel the weight of an obligation to deliver good work, yet terribly uncertain about this process. I’ve never done such intensive research before, and while I believe these theories and frameworks I’m soaking in (Worldview filters; Voroscone; Archplot structures; CLA;  Empathy mapping; Participatory, Generative, Co-design, etc.) are helpful and necessary to our work, it’s difficult to know if the way our team applies these unfamiliar methods will yield truly impactful results.

I know that this is a learning experience, first and foremost it is an invitation to fail brilliantly as we discover new ways of making, but without any prior experience with this stage, it’s so difficult to keep my chin up and to believe in my own creativity and ability.

Week 7: Expanding scope of generative research

This week, our in-class sessions were dominated by guest lecturers who provided insights into our current work in progress. On Monday, Stacey Williams and Richard The asked us for our team’s “elevator pitch” and then asked us a few questions about the work we were doing:

• Is the artifact(s) part of the intervention, or just a representation?

• Is there a conceptual map that anybody should be working on to provide a system?

• Can we design a process that will unify the decision making process at PPS?

• Creating space where they can reflect on their own lives and experiences, and present a different model for education?

Carol was quick to respond regarding the relational mapping from our last presentation, and how our understanding of the relationships between administrators and other stakeholders has revealed a potential leverage point for meaningful interventions, but that the artifact should be something that inspires change.

Peter added that we’re separating the artifact from the process, but will develop an artifact that is representative of the depth of our research and understanding of the problem space. We then spent some time brainstorming out loud about some form of “ARC Institution” in the future could help to achieve the goals outlined in the Prospect Studio brief. A couple interventions we may want to prioritize:

• Leadership development curriculum, teaching design and reflexivity.

• Summer courses that are paid separately from the 9-month salary.

Peter reminded us that “future is fiction” and that it is our job as designers to bring that fiction into high enough fidelity that we make a persuasive argument through form. This ultimately means that we must situate the proposal within a fiction, and build from there.

Richard The wanted to know what other communication materials might inspire this. While not suggesting that we need to answer such questions with any degree of immediacy, we should put onto our horizon a few questions around how the ARC Institute might talk about these goals. For example, this could be a poster that says what life-long learning looks like.

Stacey’s other comments tied in well with the reading that Peter provided (Rutger Bregman). Specifically, this strange mismatch between education and the typical way we encounter work: i.e., in school, each subject is divided and compartmentalized, whereas in our work, often we must apply mastery of multiple subjects and do not have the luxury of flattening our problems into a single subject matter. Stacey pointed out that we (meaning educators, but also society) are boxed into binary thinking whereas other cultures have non-duality, non-binary ways of thinking.

Knowing that this entanglement is an obstacle to change, we must also consider what other sudden changes (from external factors, such as a pandemic or climate change) might present opportunities.

On Wednesday, Liz Sanders ran us through a series of role-playing exercises, where we considered the differences in priorities for stakeholders. This was confusing at first, but eventually we sync’d up and began negotiating as if we were in fact those different people in a school system. I was representing the thought process at a district level, while Carol played a student. I recognized that there were basic needs that were not at all address in our hypothetical scenario (a hackathon to create new and sustainable transportation for the future).

This was eyeopening and made our team think differently about our own approach to generative research…

Oh, our research. It has been challenging these last two weeks, and we’re worried about getting stuck. Despite so much cold calling/emailing acquaintances, we’ve found that right now in particular is a bad time to solicit any participation. PPS is migrating to a hybrid model, with teachers having stated a great deal of concern about safety. Additionally, this next week is their spring break, so any activities that require reflection on their daily lives will not capture work activity. This is also the only week of respite they will be afforded before summer break.

Nevertheless, there is some scintilla of joy to be extracted from this obstacle. I’ve had more motivation to reach out to people I haven’t been in touch with since graduation. Some of them are doing really great, others not. Some are starting families, others are starting careers. Much to my surprise, two acquaintances are actually in the process of becoming K-12 educators. This was not expected, but it was heartening to know that such alignments exist.

Our team is also struggling with external pressures: wrapping up mini courses, midterm expectations, job hunting and interviews, design challenges, personal struggles, and more. One of the things we specified in our team contract was transparency for such events. My team has been supporting me the best they can while I navigate these struggles and diversions. I too have been supporting them the best I can.

This weekend was very productive, as we generated new protocols and refined our workshop to included a broader range of participants. I’m especially excited to try out some of the techniques we’ve been considering, including: “Thing From The Future” based on the work of Stuart Candy, prioritization card sorts, and relational mapping. That last exercise was directly inspired by our conversation with Liz Sanders.

Thanks to a 20 oz. can of Red Bull, I was able to power through my very packed Wednesday, and I’m glad I made it that session, since we ended up monopolizing Liz in our breakout room — she seemed to be genuinely interested in our project, which was very, very humbling.

On the personal side of things, I’m glad to have my job interview and design challenge behind me. It’s been difficult to juggle so much, especially while still grieving the loss of a family member. I’ve been more emotionally raw, and feel less focused than I’d like. Some of this is due to a loss of sleep and not the workload. I seem to be “fine” during the day time, but when the sun sets, and the world gets quiet, I still think of him. I miss you, Uncle Ron. I’m sorry I won’t be there to send you to your final resting place. Like so many we’ve lost this year, you deserved better than this, and sending flowers to those left behind feels insufficient in the face of so much loss.

We’re about to cross the vital half-way mark in the semester. Normally this would include a spring break of our own, but due to concerns about increased student travel, we instead have pre-scheduled “off days” to (at least in theory) provide some periods of rest. It is something like having a nap instead of a full night’s sleep. We can make do, but that doesn’t mean we need to like it.

Week 3: Portland Public Schools — Reflection on Researching Educator Essentials For a Vision of Teachers Who Are Resilient, Adaptive, Open to Change

“In sum, if you can set yourself up with a definite question for every day in the field, find a solid, reliable way to get the data you need to answer it, and feel confident in the insight that emerges- you will get where you need to be in the long run.”

—Christena Nippert-Eng

This week, our team took a deep dive into secondary research. Using the STEEP analysis framework, we assembled a large collection of articles, relevant URLs, case studies, and much, much more within a relatively short period of time—the power of scale is in play for reasons I’ll illuminate soon. Close reading of this text was then distilled into short summary statements. Hat tip to Dr. Elaine Gregersen, for this wonderful article on how to make use of spreadsheets for research. This approach had several advantages:

1. a clear division of labor.

Specifically, our team was able to divide our secondary research along discrete domains/categories while also sharing any incidental discoveries. This “yes, and” approach to research lowered the stakes and allowed for maximum contribution by every member of our team.

2. expanded exploration and discovery.

We were given a specific focus of our own choosing, and this was based entirely on our affinities, curiosities, and professional backgrounds. A clear advantage of having such a diverse group was our ability to apply personalized knowledge toward an information gathering process.

3. Rapid synthesis.

After gathering our sources and insights, and taking time to discuss our findings as a group, it was easy to recognize patterns and apply our newfound information to the task of formulating dozens of relevant interview questions. This process set us on a clear path from secondary research and lit review to primary and ethnographic research.

4. Clarity and transferability.

This information has been collected in a manner that will potentially benefit other teams; the indexical structure of the information we’ve collected, when paired with short summary statements, will enable others to quickly browse a significant amount of research in a relatively short period of time. It’s a buffet of relevant information!

We’re on the precipice of a convergent process, and we can now begin to glean some visions of the future of PPS beyond what was offered in the brief. The most dramatic insight revolves around “The Great Reset” brought upon us by COVID-19 is revealing unseen potential futures. We often cannot see what is possible until it happens, and the sudden shift to work/study from home is no exception. American schools are strained by unique technological and social needs. People are isolated, but also finding new and compelling ways to communicate and collaborate. We are working from within the context a novel problem and circumstance, and in doing so revealing new methods of organization and interaction.

There is a window of opportunity that I fear might be closing as vaccine rollout accelerates and we embrace a return to “normalcy” (a pre-pandemic world that we want to believe, desperately, still exists). If we return to this sleepy shadow of what once was, we risk a deep and terrible slumber that our children will never forgive us for—a good crisis is a terrible thing to waste. If we return to old habits and old ways of thinking, we will do so at the expense of those most negatively impacted by COVID-19. The underlying power structures and inequality that we cannot ignore under current conditions will be something we’ll be very tempted to sweep back under the rug once people are able to return to work without a deadly virus burning through our communities unchecked.

We need clear visions of the future; we need that clarity so much more now than before the pandemic.

Next week, our plan is to setup times for interviews. Now that we have a general landscape of what is known and documented, we have lots of questions to ask and new insights to gain. I’m very pleased with the work our team has been doing and have absolute confidence in our ability to make these interviews a success. The curiosity is palpable at the moment and we’re eager to begin connecting general and specific knowledge. These first-hand insights will fill so many gaps if we can just ask the right kinds of questions.

The current pace seems to be sustainable and the progress that we are making has been very satisfying, but I’ll admit to having symptoms of “Confluenza.” The opportunities afforded by a job fair are not something I can ignore, and while I have done my best to take advantage, I do find the experience a needless distraction. Last year’s “open studio” was downright nauseating. The contradiction of values and actions was disturbing and felt like an intrusion into an important space: the studio was a haven for critical thinking and offered a high degree of psychological safety. The presence of so many “talent seekers” and alumni felt like an intrusion in 2020. This year, those same people were viewing me from a camera inside my home.

Simply put: from a personal perspective, the online/remote format of 2021’s Confluence wasn’t an improvement. The people I spoke with were professional and generous with their time and engagement, but I could feel their fatigue through the screen. There’s just a cloud of general burnout and I admire the way so many people manage to push back against it.

Our team selected Educator Essentials because we recognized the value of educators as vital tissue, making the rest of the body of education whole and capable of movement, growth, and change. Knowing that our ultimate goal is to produce an artifact that inspires an image of educators that are resilient, adaptive, and open to change, I am both grateful and terrified of the flood of countless examples I see every day, through every interaction I share across cameras and screens. I see people who work diligently, compassionately, through these screens.

If you want to get some sense of what I really mean by this (because it is always better to show than to tell), then just watch how these children self organize when an educator is temporarily absent from zoom.  The teacher, Emily Pickering of El Paso, Texas, exhibits these traits, and it is evident in how her students responded in her absence. The future is now and we should marvel at the efforts we are seeing in our daily lives. This moment is so much bigger than all of us. The future isn’t something we can wait in line for. It is something thrust upon us with all of its dazzles and horror. What we are seeing from educators and students is just one piece of a larger picture.

We are not “making the best of this” we ARE the best of this. All of us. For better or worse, everyone is doing the best they can. This was true before the pandemic, but it’s easier to see it now.

Reflecting on the first week (Studio II and Research Methods)

On Monday we kicked off a design research project for Studio II. Peter began the brief with a quote:

“We see things not as they are, but as we are.”

—H.M. Tomlinson, Out of Soundings

This has stuck with me throughout the week as our team began exploring two public schools for consideration of focus. Portland Public Schools are an obvious choice because I bring unique insights to this domain—I have a couple years experience volunteering at Ockley Green K-8 and NAYA’s after school youth mentorship program. I’m able to contribute lived experience and perspective. I know PPS educators and know many of the challenges they face. I also feel very much indebted to this community, as they opened their doors to me and helped me at a critical stage of my journey into the field of design. It is my sincerest wish and goal to contribute to a more positive future for the children of district.

Having reviewed the briefs for Portland Public and for Santa Clara, I am reminded of the work I did over the previous summer, interning as a communication designer for Dezudio (Ashley and Raelynn’s design studio, here in Pittsburgh). This was a fantastic opportunity to apply recently acquired skills and knowledge from service and communication design coursework to address the challenges of Brooklyn LAB Charter School in the context of COVID-19. Central to this work was understanding the needs of historically marginalized communities which already could be described as “in crisis.” These conditions were amplified by COVID-19, but also presented an opportunity to justify significant overhaul to this institution and their approach to supporting student’s academic needs.

I’m excited to work with our assigned team. Cat, Caro, and Chris were all members of our MA cohort, and we have good rapport from previous projects and our time together in the studio. Additionally, this team comprises of a plurality of individual experiences and perspectives. Cat attended a private school in D.C., Carol is from Taiwan and has no direct or personal experience with public education in the United States. Chris and I both come from hyper-conservative and religious homes, and this impacted the way in which our parents made choices regarding education. For Chris, this meant a combination of home schooling as well as traditional enrollment. For me this meant several gaps and educational deficiencies (e.g., attending a rural school district with trailers in lieu of a school building) and eventually dropping out altogether. I did not finish high school, and instead passed the G.E.D. when I was still seventeen years old. These experiences lend to a strong negativity bias on my part, which I hope will balance out some of the more optimal experiences of my peers—I know all too well what doesn’t work in public education.

For the first week of our Research Methods course, we read excerpts from Alan Cooper and a paper by Branka Krivokapic-Skoko. A few points I found helpful from Cooper:

I agree with many sentiments, but his definitions for design, expertise, stakeholders, and just the entire framing of “users” feels very outdated.

I’m not sure that I agree with him on this statement:

• Users of a product should be the main focus of the design effort.

I take issue with this framing because, as Cooper points out, the user is not always the same person as the customer. This is certainly the case in public schools, where students are not paying for a service, but still have specific needs. And are students “users” of a product? This market-based framework seems much more useful in a for-profit context.

When he says that, “it is important to speak to both current and potential users, that is, people who do not currently use the product but who are good candidates for using it in the future because they have needs that can be met with the product and are in the target market for the product” I question why this is the goal. Is it good to grow the market for growth’s sake? What if I’m designing iron lungs and that JERK Salk is trying to push me out of the market? 

• Product and competitive audits: Also in parallel to stakeholder and SME interviews, it is often quite helpful for the design team to examine any existing version or prototype of the product, as well as its chief competitors.

This one seems pretty obvious, but last semester it was also very important that our research include lots of exploration into the same product/system space. Knowing what is out there helped us to recognize new potentials for existing applications and solutions.

On Wednesday, Stef (our TA for the class) shared her team’s project to give us a better sense of what to expect in terms of process and crafting our deliverables. This was useful for priming ideas about how to approach the somewhat open-ended prompt to create an artifact to represent daily life for PPS in the year 2035. Based on this impression, I began thinking about individual goals for this project and thinking about what I can hope to improve or learn throughout this process:

• Remote collaboration

• Research-based design

• Providing meaningful artifacts for a client

• Producing something great for a portfolio

I inserted these items into our team contract. For Monday, we need to complete a first draft territory map for PPS. This process has been a bit slower, and Cat mentioned how much she misses having access to a physical whiteboard. Even though we’ve been working in this “new normal” for nearly a full year, it is impossible to ignore what we have lost by switching to a remote learning context.

Playing Catch-up

Thinking fast vs. looking back

Season 2, episode 1 is easily the most famous episode of the 1950s TV series, I Love Lucy. Ethel and Lucy go to work at a chocolate factory, while Fred and Ricky take on their respective housework. Whether or not you’re familiar with this comedy, chances are you probably know (or are about to know) where this is headed.

I Love Lucy, “Job Switching” (Season 2, Episode 1), 1952

Lucy and Ethel are assigned with the task of wrapping chocolates on an assembly line. Having already disappointed the foreman with their poor performance from earlier in the episode, this is their last chance to avoid being fired. Their task is simple, and repetitive: wrap the chocolates as they come down the belt, and don’t let any chocolates through unwrapped. At first the speed is manageable, but it quickly speeds up, and the quantity of chocolates increases dramatically — and that’s what makes this episode so damn funny. Lucy and Ethel panic. They begin setting chocolates aside, but eventually resort to stuffing the chocolates into their blouses and mouths. At the end of the episode, Fred and Ricky realize that they are terrible housekeepers, and decide that they want Lucy and Ethel to return to their traditional roles. As a token of appreciation, Ricky gives Lucy a gift: a box of chocolates.

What does any of this have to do with LxD, civic engagement, elections, or the unaddressed hazards of 21st century technology? Not much. It is however, a great analogy for my schedule last week. I managed to stay on top of things through the first few weeks of the semester, but then the belt sped up, and I had too many “chocolates” without the capacity to wrap them. I’m now looking back, instead of writing and reflecting in the moment. This shift in perspective has been fruitful, I along with the rest of my team have made significant strides toward our goal of developing a learning experience.

What is still missing are my posts on Medium and this personal blog. I want to document this process, but am doing so one week later. The next two posts (06-11 February) are dated to correspond with the class schedule and for their prompts. This is done for clarity, and not a deception. The advantage of writing from this vantage point is that I now have the benefit of knowing how these ideas unfolded. I can write about what was done, and how it changed things.

BACK TO SCHOOL

Today’s quote: “Design is the process of turning existing situations into preferred ones.”

I’m still getting settled in Pittsburgh, and probably will be through most of the fall semester. Orientation was exciting but also a bit draining, The cohort is exceptionally social. I’ve never seen anything like it. These folks are bright, ambitious, quirky, and fun. We’ve gotten along well on a few outings, and I am seeing a lot of sincere effort to be open and engaging. I’m still feeling closed off at times, and pressured to say or do “the right thing.” 

Not ethically, of course - that comes easily. Doing what is right is most easily expressed when helping others. EX: I helped a member of the cohort (they live in the same neighborhood) move a new couch to their apartment. We ran into some unfortunate constraints, and they had to borrow a hacksaw - seriously. How’s that for creativity? Christianne and Diana are genuine innovators!

When I say “the right thing,” I am referring to some Platonic Ideal for socializing in the presence of great minds. My peers are impressive in so many ways, and I want to add value to their experience here. I know that we will all struggle (in some way) to adapt, and will need to be present for one another to help bridge those gaps. I know how precious those kinds of resources can be, and how powerful the bond can be when people struggle together towards a goal. I also how important it is to foster a positive and enthusiastic environment.

I know these things because these were some of the lessons I learned when Jon Davis and I completed our Surface Warfare qualifications. After we got pinned, there was a solid two-week period where we constantly took turns pointing at the other’s chest and saying with a grin: “lookin’ good!” I feel a strong sense of responsibility to encourage that here. So far, I have every reason to believe that I am not alone in wanting to make this happen.

I cannot say enough good things about this cohort. These folks have an incredible range and scope - both in terms of knowledge and experience. There is a wide range of professional and academic experiences: geology, neuroscience, psycholinguistics, UX design, art, business and project management, cognitive science, Industrial Design, and much, much more. They are adventurous travelers and risk takers who find joy in hiking through the woods and sharing a favorite poem. They speak seriously about wanting to change the world. And I think they have a real shot at it.

I’m trying my best not to be cynical. Eustina somehow manages to be cynical while also being likable (and also very cool). Maybe she can teach me that trick. I am also (in the interest of transparency) a little bit worried about the age differences: I strongly suspect that I am the oldest one here, but the age gap is probably under ten years in most cases. I don’t really know why this bothers me. My age is coupled with a lot of experience, but makes me feel a bit insecure. Or maybe it is that the feeling of being insecure is being rationalized after the fact, and age is an easy scapegoat. Who knows?

The facilities here are incredible: there’s a fully functional robotic information desk with old school Dr. SBAITSO/Hawking synthetic speech generator and CGI rendered on-screen persona, a lab for 3D printing and laser cutting, a wood shop with all of the essentials, a computer lab with dozens of iMac Pros, and lots more. I even stumbled by their cleanroom (which gave me flashbacks).

Nothing is perfect however, and this school definitely has its quirks. The CUC locker rooms are on the opposite side of the building from the gym? What? Why? There’s what looks like (and almost certainly is) a Dale Chihuly in the lobby outside of the CUC gym, which is cool, but how do you justify such a strange layout? Is it convenient for the hallway to be a constant river of sweaty bodies in transit to their post-workout showers?

First day of class went well. I took my bike to campus early and lifted weights while watching the gym television broadcast of Trump’s G7 press conference - this administration has given us the strangest and most disturbing performance art ever, and this was no exception. Political dread remains ever present, I expect 2020 to be totally batshit. Lunch on campus is expensive. I’ll need to start packing a lunch, and make better use of the grad student kitchen - that’s right: we have a motherphuuukin kitchen! 

Our afternoon class schedule was oddly double booked with a class for MDes students. We got the right room number about five minutes before class was scheduled to begin. Like I said before: nothing is perfect. Jonathan Chapman is teaching our Design Thinking Seminar class. I think this class will be extremely valuable. He expects us to produce an impressive, complete, beautiful book (our own Design manual for non-designers) over a fifteen week period. The examples are intimidating, but I am mostly excited to think about what I will do - the work will be hard, but ultimately rewarding.

After class, Alex asked me about Laserdiscs and I told him that if he wanted to know the history, it would be an hour long conversation. I kept it to under twenty minutes - at least, I think I did.