I keep crying I want a pussy.

I was supposed to have one by now.

that keeps making me cry.

I was supposed to be recovering right now. I was supposed to be hurting I was supposed to be swollen and probably wondering why the fuck I ever wanted this while knowing exactly why I wanted it.

Instead I'm still here in the same body.

I hate writing that because this body has been so good to me in other ways. Estrogen changed so much. but never enough. My face struggled along

I take my underwear off.

I'm so fucking tired.

There are nights when I can ignore it completely.

Temporary can last a very long time.

I learned how to position my body so I wouldn't notice. I learned how to look at myself without looking there. I learned how to have sex while deciding, almost unconsciously, which parts of my body were allowed to participate in my own awareness.

That became normal.

I hate that it became normal.

I hate how much of being transsexual is becoming extremely skilled at tolerating things you should never have needed to tolerate.

Then I got my surgery date and something changed.

For the first time, I could look at what was between my legs and think that I wouldn't have to do this much longer.

I could forgive it because it was leaving.

I could almost become tender toward it.

You were a mistake, but you won't be here forever.

I had never been able to think about my body like that before.

I started saying goodbye.

I could count them.

Then somebody changed the number.

That's what broke me.

I had already started leaving this body behind.

Now I have to live in it again.

I know how dramatic that sounds because I'm still me. My body didn't suddenly revert. Everything transition has given me is still here. I can walk outside and live my life. I can laugh and work and write and fuck and complain about stupid shit and make dinner and be somebody's wife.

That almost makes crying about this feel more humiliating.

My life is good.

I still want to rip this thing off sometimes.

Both of those things live inside me without resolving each other.

I don't hate being alive. I hate that there's one part of being alive that still feels like somebody attached the wrong ending to an otherwise recognizable sentence.

I just want to close my legs and feel myself there.

That thought destroys me.

I want to lie in bed naked with my thighs together and have nothing trapped between them. I want my wife to touch me and for my brain to stay inside my body the entire time. I want to put my fingers between my legs and feel softness and an opening that belongs to me.

I want to bleed after surgery and somehow be happy about blood because the blood would mean something finally happened.

I want to be swollen. I want to hurt. I want to complain about dilation and get annoyed by the entire maintenance routine that I've spent years romanticizing because I've never been allowed to experience it. I want the indignity of recovery because at least the indignity would belong to the body I chose.

I want underwear to fit against me without anything needing to be hidden. I want to wear something thin without checking myself. I want to stop thinking about how I'm sitting. I want my body to stop requiring stage directions.

God, I just want a pussy.

I can't explain how bizarre it feels to envy women for something they're allowed to hate.

Women complain about their vaginas all the time. Periods and infections and discharge and smells and pain and sex and doctors. I listen and feel jealous. I've wanted mine so desperately that annoyance sounds luxurious.

I want to have a pussy long enough to become ungrateful for it.

I want there to be a day when I'm irritated because I have to dilate, and another day when I barely think about it, and eventually a day when I'm lying in bed scrolling through my phone with my hand between my legs because it's warm there and I don't even notice what I'm doing.

That's the future I keep crying over.

It's not some magnificent transformation.

It's boredom.

I want the privilege of being bored with my own vagina.

Instead my genitals have been one of the longest administrative projects of my life. Other people have had to discuss them. Doctors have discussed them. Insurance has discussed them. People have written letters about them. I've sat in rooms and answered questions about what I want done to them while trying to act like it's completely normal to need strangers to authorize the construction of a part of your own body.

I learned all the medical words because knowing the words gave me something to hold onto.

Vaginoplasty sounds manageable. Gender-affirming surgery sounds respectable. Bottom surgery sounds casual enough that I can joke about it.

None of those phrases describe sitting in bed crying because I want a pussy so badly that my chest hurts.

I feel nineteen again.

I feel like the girl who'd just started estrogen and kept touching her chest to see whether anything had happened yet. I remember how impossible everything felt then. Every woman I wanted to become seemed impossibly far away. I could see her sometimes, especially when I caught myself in a mirror at exactly the right angle. She'd appear for half a second and disappear when I moved.

I kept going because I believed she was real.

She was.

I'm her now.

That should make this easier.

Instead it makes the last distance feel unbearable. I've come close enough to myself that I can finally see exactly what's missing.

I wish I could reach backward and hold that nineteen-year-old girl because she thought estrogen was the beginning of a very long road and she was right. I want to tell her she becomes beautiful enough to stop asking whether she ever will. I want to tell her she gets married. I want to tell her she gets to wake up next to a woman who knows her body and loves it.

Then I'd have to tell her we're still waiting.

That's the part I can't stop crying about.

I promised her we were going to get there.

Every injection was part of the promise. Every appointment was part of the promise. Every horrible photograph where I could barely recognize myself was part of the promise. Every time I told myself to survive another month because my body was changing was part of the promise.

When I finally got the surgery date, I thought I'd kept it.

I thought I could finally tell every previous version of myself that we made it.

Now the date moved and suddenly I feel like I have to apologize to all of them.

I know I didn't fail them. I know a scheduling delay isn't some cosmic judgment about whether I deserve my body.

Knowing that does absolutely nothing to stop the tears.

There are feelings that survive being understood.

I'm experiencing one of them.

I miss my pussy.

I know how absurd that sentence is because I've never had her.

I miss her anyway.

I'd already made room for her in my mind. I'd imagined waking up and finding her underneath bandages. I'd imagined being afraid to look. I'd imagined finally looking. I'd imagined crying when I saw her. I'd imagined touching myself after I healed and feeling my brain go completely quiet for once.

I'd imagined standing naked in front of the mirror and having nothing left to mentally correct. I'd imagined eventually forgetting how badly I once wanted any of this.

Then I let myself believe those things were close enough to touch.

That was my mistake.

I stopped guarding myself against hope.

Now I have to put the armor back on after I'd already started taking it off.

I fucking hate that.

I hate being told I'm strong enough to wait because I already know I'm strong enough. Strength isn't the problem. I can survive another delay. I can survive another month. I can survive more appointments and paperwork and phone calls and whatever other stupid obstacle gets placed between me and an operating table.

I've survived much worse.

I don't want survival to be the standard anymore.

I want something good to happen to my body.

I want to wake up from anesthesia and know that while I was unconscious somebody finally corrected the thing I've spent years learning how not to see. I want my wife beside me. I want to cry when I finally see myself. I want to be afraid that it looks strange because everything looks strange when it's swollen.

I want to spend months getting acquainted with it. I want to learn my own body again. I want to complain about it. I want to laugh about it. I want eventually to stop writing about it entirely.

I want this essay to become embarrassing.

I want to find it years from now and barely recognize the desperation inside it because having a pussy has become so fucking ordinary that I can't completely remember what it felt like to want one this badly. I want future me to read this in bed with her legs tangled around her wife and start crying for the girl who wrote it. I want her to reach between her legs afterward just because she can. I want her to whisper that we got there.

Tonight I'm still waiting. Tonight I'm crying over something that doesn't exist yet and grieving a surgery that's still going to happen because grief doesn't care whether the loss is permanent. Tonight I don't want to make any of this beautiful.

I don't want another metaphor for transition.

I don't want to learn patience.

I don't want to become stronger.

I've been strong enough.

I've waited enough.

I've survived enough.

I just want to wake up and finally have the body I've already spent years making a home.

I just want to put my hand between my legs and find myself there.

I just want my fucking pussy.

This one's free, like everything here. Paid subscriptions are the reason I get to write instead of trying to cite theory for meals.

Subscribe

Bluesky: bundleofstyx.org / Twitter: @bundleofstyx_ / Tumblr: bundle of stx / Instagram: Bundleof.styx

Donate to my kofi

I was rereading J. Sakai’s Settlers for the third time when I started thinking about something that has bothered me for years about the way liberals argue with Republicans. There is a whole genre of liberal political commentary built around catching the right contradicting itself. Republicans complain about government spending and then support enormous military budgets. They complain about immigrants taking jobs while supporting an economy that depends on immigrant labor. They complain about foreign countries taking advantage of America while defending the institutions that give America its position in the world. The liberal response is usually to point at the contradiction like they have finally found the loose thread that will unravel the whole thing. Someone posts the two statements beside each other, adds a screenshot, and waits for the Republican to realize that he has been defeated by basic logical consistency. More importantly, I think on some level they already know it is there.

That was what clicked for me while rereading Sakai. The contradiction isn’t necessarily a mistake in the political worldview. Sometimes the contradiction is doing something. It allows someone to understand himself as the beneficiary of a social order in one moment and its victim in the next without ever having to reconcile those positions. The Republican who celebrates American dominance and then complains that the rest of the world is exploiting America doesn’t need those ideas to fit together according to the standards of a liberal debate club. They only need to explain different experiences at different moments. When America is powerful, its power belongs to him. When the consequences of that power become expensive, unstable, or personally inconvenient, responsibility suddenly belongs somewhere else.

Liberals keep treating this as hypocrisy because hypocrisy is comforting. If the problem is hypocrisy, then revealing the inconsistency should weaken the belief. You can pull up the old tweet, show the voting record, compare the two statements, and wait for embarrassment to perform political education. Then nothing happens. The contradiction gets pointed out for the thousandth time and everyone involved returns to exactly the same position. At some point you have to consider the possibility that the contradiction persists because it serves a purpose.

That is what keeps bringing me back to Deleuze and Guattari them alongside Sakai gave me a way to think about the contradiction I kept seeing in American politics. Sakai’s Settlers insists that Amerikan political consciousness can’t be separated from the material history of settlement. The settler wasn’t simply dropped into an already existing country and handed a neutral position within it. Settlement produced the world in which he understood himself, which meant that relations created through conquest could eventually stop appearing as relations at all. They became ordinary life. People rarely experience what has always surrounded them as a privilege granted by history. They experience it as the natural starting point from which everything else is measured. Once that position becomes ordinary, its erosion doesn’t necessarily feel like the loss of an advantage. It can feel like something has been stolen.

Liberals repeatedly misunderstand what they are looking at when they collect screenshots of conservative contradictions. They assume they are exposing a failure of reasoning when they may actually be looking at a coherent feature of settler political consciousness. Someone can understand America as enormously powerful while simultaneously believing Americans are uniquely victimized. because the contradiction isn’t incidental to the worldview. The settler has to live inside a material order whose history he has largely been taught to forget. He experiences the benefits produced by that history as normal and experiences disruptions to those benefits as something being done to him. Once you understand that, the endless liberal ritual of catching Republicans contradicting themselves starts to look almost quaint. They noticed the contradiction correctly. They just assumed exposing it was the same thing as explaining it.

Ask an Amerikan about an ancestor who crossed an ocean or a prairie and you'll hear about courage. Ask the same person about someone crossing a border today and you'll hear about invasion. Both answers come out sincerely, often from the same mouth, and the seam between them rarely gets noticed.

I. The Run

At noon on April 22, 1889, soldiers stationed around the Unassigned Lands in Indian Territory gave the signal, and somewhere around fifty thousand people who had spent days waiting at the boundary surged across the prairie. Some came on horses. Others arrived in wagons or aboard trains that had been packed with claimants waiting for the hour when movement would become legal. The land had been obtained by the United States through the post-Civil War treaties it imposed on the Muscogee and Seminole nations, and President Benjamin Harrison had opened roughly two million acres to settlement by proclamation. The rules followed the basic machinery of federal homesteading. A qualifying claimant could occupy land, improve it, remain on it for the required period, and eventually receive title from the government. The Oklahoma Historical Society estimates that around fifty thousand people surrounded the territory that morning and that roughly eleven thousand agricultural homesteads were claimed during the run.

Some claimants did not bother waiting for noon. People slipped across the boundary ahead of the signal, hid themselves, and positioned themselves to seize better claims before the crowd arrived. They became known as Sooners. The name survived so thoroughly that Oklahoma eventually adopted "Sooner" as part of its public identity, which means that a state born partly from an organized land rush memorialized the people who cheated at the land rush. There are moments when history saves the critic the trouble of writing a joke.

For decades afterward, Oklahoma schools reenacted the land run. Children dressed in period costumes, pulled wagons across schoolyards, and staked claims to little patches of grass. In 2014, a Choctaw mother in Oklahoma City described being told that her daughters could sit in the office or take an unexcused absence rather than participate. Native parents and educators pushed the district toward alternatives that taught the history without asking Native children to play the people being dispossessed.

Before noon, the federal government held the settler population at a line, and at noon that same government released the crowd into motion so that individuals could stop moving on particular parcels. Movement was how immobility got produced, since a claimant raced across the land to plant a stake and establish that somebody else had better keep moving. The celebrated migration lasted an afternoon, and the defense of what it produced has lasted generations.

The settler has to move before the settler can defend being settled, and the state has to disorganize one territorial relation before it can recognize another. A population celebrates the ancestor who crossed territory in search of a future and can later experience another population crossing territory as a danger to everything the ancestor built.

These positions are easy to dismiss as hypocrisy, but hypocrisy is too shallow, since a hypocrite understands the contradiction and conceals it. The pattern I'm interested in works even when both sides are sincerely believed. The pioneer's movement can genuinely feel like freedom while the migrant's movement genuinely feels like invasion, and the same political culture sustains both experiences by attaching them to different positions in the territorial order. I've been calling this pattern settler schizophrenia, a term I'd better define before anyone decides I've diagnosed Oklahoma.

Schizophrenia here comes from the philosophical work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, especially the two volumes they published under the shared title Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Anti-Oedipus in 1972 and A Thousand Plateaus in 1980. They use schizophrenia to describe a process through which established codes break down, social relations become mobile, and flows of labor, money, signs, land, identity, and desire escape older arrangements.

Clinical schizophrenia is a psychiatric condition experienced by actual people. They have enough to deal with without being held responsible for the Homestead Act.

The settler half of my phrase comes from a different theoretical history. It comes from arguments about conquest, land, race, and the political formation of the white Amerikan working class. J. Sakai's Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat from Mayflower to Modern is central here because Sakai insists that class consciousness in the United States can't be understood without asking what conquered territory did for the people who received access to it. The question he forces onto the table remains unavoidable: what happens to class consciousness when a worker can imagine escaping wage dependence by becoming a proprietor on somebody else's land?

Read together, Sakai and Deleuze and Guattari describe a peculiar subject: capitalism loosens the settler from an older territory and conquest supplies another, and the settler experiences the second movement as liberation from the first. The society built from this movement then teaches his descendants that the territory produced through movement is permanent, and settler schizophrenia names the political consciousness that can inhabit that sequence without feeling it as a contradiction.

It celebrates movement when movement creates settler possession and turns territorial once possession has been achieved. It leans heavily on the state while teaching the owner to imagine private property as something that exists before the state, and it inherits the material consequences of history while treating historical explanation as an accusation against the present. It imagines Amerika as universally open to reinvention and still goes looking, periodically, for the people whose presence supposedly threatens the country's authentic identity.

White Amerikans are central to this story because the settler order developed around white political membership, white access to land, and legal distinctions separating settlers from the Indigenous and Black populations over whom the emerging state exercised radically different forms of power. What I'm describing is a political machine, and the people come afterward.

II. What Deleuze and Guattari Meant by Schizophrenia

Gilles Deleuze was already an established philosopher when he met Félix Guattari after the political upheavals of 1968. Guattari came from a different world. He had spent years working at La Borde, an experimental psychiatric clinic where conventional distinctions between patient, analyst, institution, and everyday work were being questioned. Their collaboration produced books with a reputation for difficulty that occasionally becomes an excuse for never stating what they were actually arguing.

Every social order organizes flows. People move, goods move, desire moves, money moves, land changes hands, bodies reproduce, and information circulates, and political institutions decide which of those movements are permitted, which become obligations, and which get treated as threats.

Earlier social orders often organized these flows through relatively durable codes. Kinship could determine inheritance and religious law could determine marriage, and political rank could fix who owed labor to whom. A peasant might be tied to a particular place by legal status and customary obligation, and by dependence on land that couldn't simply be sold like a stock.

Capitalism requires a different degree of abstraction. Land becomes alienable and labor becomes purchasable as time, and money permits exchange between people who share no kinship and may never meet again. A person can theoretically sell her labor in a place where nobody knows her family, and capital can abandon one region and reappear somewhere cheaper. The commodity doesn't care whether the person who buys it knows the person who made it. Deleuze and Guattari call this process decoding because relationships previously organized through thicker social codes become available for circulation through money and contract.

Their account follows Marx closely at important moments. Near the end of the first volume of Capital, Marx describes the violent historical process through which English peasants were separated from common land and transformed into workers possessing little besides their capacity to labor. The worker appears in the market as legally free because she can sell labor to different employers, although the loss of independent access to the means of living makes the sale economically necessary.

Deleuze and Guattari read capitalism through this encounter between decoded labor and decoded capital. The worker has been loosened from one territory and money from older political restrictions, and when the two flows meet, capitalism takes off.

Their word deterritorialization describes this loosening. A territory in their work is larger than a piece of dirt. It can be a social arrangement that gives people a stable location within a system of meaning and power. Deterritorialization occurs when that arrangement breaks apart or loses the capacity to hold the elements passing through it.

A society composed entirely of deterritorialized flows would be difficult to reproduce. Capital needs workers mobile enough to move where employment exists, and it also needs them disciplined enough to appear at the factory tomorrow morning. Property has to circulate, and somebody still needs an enforceable title. Families can become more flexible, while children still have to be raised somewhere. Money can cross borders, while contracts still depend upon legal jurisdictions.

Capitalism therefore constructs new territories, and Deleuze and Guattari call this reterritorialization. The nation becomes one of these new territories and the private household becomes another, race can become one, and property certainly does. The market loosens people from older relations while the state, the family, national identity, and legal ownership give them somewhere else to stand.

That's why their schizophrenia shouldn't be confused with simple disorder. It describes a system that produces its own instability because the instability is productive. Capitalism has to disassemble relations that obstruct circulation, and it then has to keep the consequences of circulation from dissolving the social order that continued accumulation requires.

Political commentary has a bad habit of assuming that exposing a contradiction defeats an ideology. Someone discovers that a person who hates the federal government depends on a federally backed mortgage and waits for the revelation to destroy the person's worldview, or points out that a politician praising free markets supports a subsidy and assumes the contradiction will prove fatal. Usually nothing happens, because a contradiction can weaken a theory while a social system can run on one.

The Amerikan settler order ran on exactly that kind of contradiction, and it did so with unusual literalness because it deterritorialized territory itself. Existing relationships between Indigenous nations and land had to be broken, subordinated, legally narrowed, or politically erased before the settler property system could appear universal, and the ground had to be transformed before the deed could look natural.

III. A Petty Lord of His Own Land

Sakai came to his study of white workers from a political experience far removed from the academic history profession. In the author's note to a later edition of Settlers, he recalls working as an Asian domestic worker in California, participating in civil-rights organizing, and later working alongside people involved in international liberation struggles. He began what became Settlers in the 1970s because the class politics of Euro-American workers seemed inadequately explained by the socialist literature available to him.

His target was the reassuring story in which poor Europeans arrived in North America, became ordinary workers, and were then manipulated by capitalists into racial hostility against people with whom they shared an underlying class interest. Sakai disputed the assumption that exploitation exhausted the material position of white labor. He wanted to know what else white workers received through membership in the settler order, and his answer begins with land.

In the first chapter, Sakai emphasizes that many migrants came from social strata capable of imagining independent property ownership as a plausible goal. He draws heavily on histories of colonial migration and labor to argue that access to land changed the meaning of wage labor in the colonies. A worker who might remain dependent on wages in Europe could imagine accumulating enough to acquire a farm or business in North America. The horizon itself mattered.

Property offered an exit, and that distinction changes politics. A permanent proletarian can imagine freedom through changing the relation that makes her proletarian, while a worker who experiences proletarian status as temporary can imagine freedom through becoming an owner. The second worker may resent the employer intensely and still keep a strong investment in the property order, because her grievance is partly that she hasn't yet reached the position she wants. The lottery ticket shows how a future position can organize behavior long before anyone wins.

In the final chapter of Capital, Marx discusses Edward Gibbon Wakefield's theory of colonization. Wakefield had recognized that capitalism had trouble reproducing a stable wage-labor force wherever workers could obtain land cheaply. Marx enjoys the example because it demonstrates his point that capital is a social relation. Ship capital and a labor force to a colony where workers can walk away and establish independent livelihoods, and the capitalist can discover that wealth alone doesn't produce a proletariat.

In Sakai's reading, the worker's escape from wage dependence requires available territory, and available territory has a history, which in the United States includes Indigenous dispossession. The worker's freedom from one form of dependence can therefore be made possible through somebody else's loss of territorial control.

That makes the settler subject more complicated than either the heroic pioneer or the racist dupe. His freedom can be real and its conditions can be colonial, and both propositions belong in the same sentence.

The Homestead Act makes the relationship impossible to miss. The federal government eventually distributed around 270 million acres under the homestead system. Claimants generally had to be citizens or prospective citizens, reside on the land, improve it, and meet the law's procedural requirements before receiving title. The settler did real work, and the settler also entered a field constructed through federal law.

Amerikan political mythology often treats labor as though it explains the origin of ownership by itself. Someone cleared the land and built the house, and property followed. The mythology begins with the worker because beginning earlier gets awkward: beginning earlier brings in the treaty and the survey, and it may bring in a population whose relationship to the land didn't fit the property regime being imposed on it. Sakai's contribution is forcing the story backward, so that the individual proprietor stops being the beginning and becomes an outcome.

In Sakai's account, European workers could experience severe exploitation while possessing political possibilities denied to enslaved Africans and heavily constrained for Indigenous peoples. An indentured servant might experience brutal labor conditions. His status nevertheless contained a temporal endpoint and a possible future within the settler polity that chattel slavery explicitly denied to the enslaved African.

The political effect of this difference exceeds income. A person can identify with the society she expects to enter, so the settler order didn't need to make every white person rich; it needed to make membership materially consequential.

Cheryl Harris later gave a legal vocabulary to part of this process in her 1993 essay "Whiteness as Property." Harris argues that Amerikan law historically converted whiteness into a status with property-like characteristics through the intertwined histories of conquest and slavery. Whiteness came with recognized expectations and benefits and with forms of exclusion that law helped protect.

This helps explain why white poverty doesn't automatically negate racial advantage. A poor white worker can be exploited and can also occupy a legal and political status historically distinguished from populations subjected to other forms of domination, and materialism requires holding both relations at once.

I read Settlers as a test rather than a scripture. Any theory of the Amerikan working class has to survive the land question: it has to explain why property acquisition mattered, and it has to explain why workers could fight employers ferociously while defending political arrangements that subordinated other workers, racialized labor markets and citizenship included. A theory that explains only exploitation describes one relation and mistakes it for the whole society, and the settler becomes visible only when the rest of the map is put back.

IV. The West as a Line of Flight

Frederick Jackson Turner made the frontier the foundation of Amerikan character in his famous 1893 essay "The Significance of the Frontier in American History." He took the 1890 Census announcement that a distinct frontier line could no longer be identified and transformed it into an interpretation of national development.

Turner argued that the existence of western land had repeatedly offered Amerikans an escape from older social constraints. The frontier loosened hierarchy and encouraged individualism, and it gave class tensions somewhere geographic to go. Turner's thesis has been debated, revised, criticized, and repeatedly declared dead by historians who then discover that Amerikans keep talking like Turner anyway. Turner and Sakai sit strangely close together, since both think land shaped Amerikan consciousness and both read western movement as a way social pressure got displaced, and they disagree only about the people already on the land.

Turner's famous "free land" gets much less conceptually clean once freedom is understood as a relationship among people rather than a characteristic of acreage. The land looked free from inside the settler system because Indigenous claims had been politically discounted, and Sakai restores those claims and changes the moral geometry, so that Turner's escape becomes somebody else's invasion.

Deleuze and Guattari were fascinated by Anglo-American literature for similar reasons. They saw writers such as Melville as unusually interested in flight and in refusing inherited forms, and their America is filled with lines moving toward horizons. The romance has a blind spot, because a line of flight crosses somebody's ground.

Their own later concepts contain the means to correct it, because a line of flight carries no automatic moral virtue. A movement escaping one system can become destructive inside another, and deterritorialization can open possibilities and generate new forms of domination.

The Amerikan frontier is almost a textbook example. A younger son leaves Europe because property feels unattainable and a worker moves west because wage dependence feels suffocating. The desire for escape is completely intelligible from the settler's position, but the territory receives it differently: movement that looks emancipatory from behind the wagon looks like dispossession to the people watching the wagon arrive. The same line carries both relations.

Settler schizophrenia keeps those two relations apart. The settler remembers the escape while the political order absorbs the enclosure into ordinary law, and the two stop appearing together.

Once the frontier closes, the cultural form survives, and Amerika keeps producing frontier solutions. The suburb becomes one and entrepreneurship another, and space itself eventually becomes a frontier because apparently one continent was insufficient for the metaphor. The recurring promise is that a conflict built into the society can be escaped by finding somewhere else to stand, so people are told to move and start again, to own something and build something.

Individual exit can be liberating, and it turns into a political problem when it depends on an imagined empty territory whose existing relations can be ignored. The frontier habit makes a travel plan out of a social problem.

V. The Grid

The frontier mythology loves motion, but property requires measurement. In 1785, the Confederation Congress adopted a system for surveying western lands that would divide territory into six-mile-square townships and subdivide each township into thirty-six sections of one square mile, or 640 acres. The rectangular survey became one of the most consequential pieces of institutional infrastructure in Amerikan settlement. Seen from an airplane, large parts of the Midwest still show the geometry: roads follow section lines, fields meet at right angles, and property descriptions rely on coordinates set by surveyors who sometimes arrived before the settlers whose claims those coordinates would organize.

Deleuze and Guattari distinguish smooth space, which in their work describes forms of movement less organized around fixed coordinates and predetermined pathways, from striated space, which is measured, divided, compared, and made administratively legible. The Amerikan land grid is striation with paperwork. It translates territorial complexity into comparable units, so a section in one township can be described through the same abstract system used anywhere else, and land becomes easier to sell because the purchaser doesn't need to understand the place through the relationships of the people living there. The territory becomes legible to a distant state and the parcel to a distant market. The grid is political before it becomes psychological: once it has existed long enough it stops looking imposed and starts looking like geography, which is one of the achievements of settlement.

The General Allotment Act of 1887 pushed the individualizing logic more deeply into Indigenous landholding. Federal policy divided tribal land into individual allotments and opened land classified as surplus to non-Indigenous settlement. The Bureau of Indian Affairs now describes allotment as involuntary and reports that more than ninety million acres passed out of Indigenous ownership and control before the policy was ended in 1934.

Allotment did more than steal acreage. It attempted to change the form of the relationship to acreage, pressuring the collective political relationship of a nation to territory into the individualized property form the settler state recognized. The Indigenous person could remain while the Indigenous nation's territorial relation was weakened.

Patrick Wolfe's theory of settler colonialism helps explain why this distinction matters. Wolfe argued that settler colonialism should be understood as an enduring structure organized around access to land. Elimination in his account includes physical destruction, although the logic can also work through assimilation, legal reclassification, child removal, or property regimes that reduce the political capacity of Indigenous peoples to remain collective territorial subjects.

That's why settler colonialism doesn't end when open warfare does. A reservation boundary can remain politically contested, jurisdiction can remain contested, and land ownership can remain fragmented through policies whose origins lie a century earlier.

The Amerikan owner is often imagined as standing opposite the government, though the government has spent an extraordinary amount of time producing owners: it surveys the land, recognizes title, maintains the records, runs the courts that enforce contracts, writes the rules of inheritance, and decides which claims fit the property system. Once those activities become ordinary, they disappear from the ideological picture.

Government becomes visible when it taxes the owner or restricts land use. The state that protects the existing distribution counts as neutral and the state that changes the distribution counts as political, which has obvious ideological advantages, since a person can experience ownership as the absence of government after government has finished manufacturing the conditions under which ownership means anything. Amerikan libertarianism occasionally discovers tyranny at the exact moment the government finishes helping with the closing costs.

The settler form of anti-statism appears when existing property relations are treated as though they precede political authority, and they don't. The deed is a social relationship recognized by institutions, and that makes it political.

VI. Whiteness as a Territory

Settlers didn't arrive as a single European people. They arrived with national antagonisms, different churches, class distinctions, regional cultures, and languages that could make neighbors mutually unintelligible, and whiteness helped produce a new political sameness out of them. It operated as a territory of membership.

Groups now treated as unremarkably white could experience periods of intense exclusion, and the boundaries of whiteness shifted because racial categories developed through politics rather than descending intact from biology. The law demonstrated that flexibility repeatedly.

The first federal naturalization statute in 1790 restricted naturalization to a "free white person." That racial limitation remained central to federal naturalization law for generations. In Ozawa v. United States in 1922, the Supreme Court concluded that a Japanese immigrant could not qualify as white for naturalization and treated "white" as corresponding to what was then called the Caucasian race.

Only a few months later, United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind confronted an applicant who could point to contemporary racial classifications that placed people from parts of India within the Caucasian category. The Court shifted the test and held that statutory whiteness had to be understood through the popular meaning attached to "white persons" by the supposed common understanding of Amerikans.

In those two cases the scientific rationale changed and the border stayed. Whiteness didn't need a stable essence because its political function was stable enough, which was to separate populations eligible for full incorporation from populations whose presence could be managed through different rules.

Harris's idea of whiteness as property matters so much to a theory of settler consciousness because property has boundaries and carries a right of exclusion, and whiteness could work the same way. A white person with little wealth could still hold a form of recognized standing.

W. E. B. Du Bois famously described part of this standing as a public and psychological wage. White workers in the post-Reconstruction order could receive social recognition and access to public institutions unavailable to Black people even when their economic wages remained low.

Desire enters the class analysis here. Political membership can pay in status, and status becomes intensely valuable when material security is limited, so the settler worker can fight capital over wages while defending racial membership, since the two struggles concern different parts of his position. There's no contradiction once the social field has more than one axis; the contradiction appears only inside a theory that insists the worker must have one objective identity capable of explaining every political investment. Human beings have shown considerable resistance to being that convenient.

The history also explains why settler consciousness can expand beyond whiteness. The Amerikan state can incorporate populations formerly excluded from the dominant political category. People of color can own property and serve in institutions historically involved in settlement, and immigrants from colonized nations can arrive in the United States and become participants in a settler property order. A Black person can experience anti-Black racism while holding a deed inside the same property system, and an Indigenous person can participate in capitalist markets while belonging to a nation whose political relationship to the land predates the United States.

VII. "The Chinese Must Go"

One of the clearest demonstrations of settler incorporation arrived in nineteenth-century California. Denis Kearney was an Irish immigrant who became a leading voice in the Workingmen's Party of California during the anti-Chinese agitation of the 1870s. His movement combined working-class grievance with demands to exclude Chinese laborers, and the politics eventually fed into state-level restrictions as well as the broader national campaign that culminated in federal exclusion.

Chinese workers had been indispensable to western development, including major portions of railroad construction. Their usefulness to capital did not translate into equal membership in the settler polity.

In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, barring Chinese labor immigration. The Library of Congress describes the law as the first major federal restriction on free immigration and notes that subsequent restrictions also denied Chinese immigrants the path to citizenship available to European immigrants.

Some of the most aggressive exclusion came from European immigrants who had themselves recently crossed an ocean, which looks contradictory only if migration carries the same political meaning for everyone, and settler society changes the meaning once the migrant is incorporated. The Irish worker can arrive as an outsider and later speak as part of the people whose territory requires defense, with whiteness performing the conversion: the recent migrant becomes a settler and the newer migrant stays foreign.

The speed of the transformation matters because it shows that settler consciousness doesn't require ancient ancestry, only a position. Someone who entered the national territory recently can become intensely invested in the boundary precisely because incorporation remains insecure, and belonging that had to be earned can create an especially strong desire to show that the category has standards.

The exclusion also had material effects. Chinese workers competed within labor markets, and removing them could change bargaining conditions for other workers, so the politics can't be explained solely as false consciousness. White workers could perceive concrete benefits from exclusion, and the racial ideology gave those benefits a moral language. The worker didn't have to choose between interest and prejudice because the social order had already joined them.

In The Mass Psychology of Fascism (1933), Wilhelm Reich asked why masses of people can desire political arrangements that look irrational from a narrow economic perspective. Sometimes they don't look irrational from the position people actually occupy: a worker can gain something through racial exclusion and lose something through capitalist exploitation, and the political subject is formed at the intersection.

VIII. The Suburb Was the Last Frontier

The geographic frontier eventually closed, and the property frontier moved closer to the city. During the twentieth century, homeownership became one of the principal mechanisms through which Amerikan families accumulated security and transmitted wealth. Public policy played a decisive role in expanding mortgage finance and suburban development, while racial exclusion shaped who could fully participate in the new property regime.

Residential segregation had many institutional sources. Local ordinances, restrictive covenants, discriminatory lending, real-estate practices, and violence all contributed. Federal housing policy interacted with these systems rather than standing outside them.

The political importance of suburbia comes from the way security was concentrated inside the house. A house became shelter and an investment and a school district all at once, and it could support retirement and become inheritance. Once several forms of security depend on one asset, protecting the asset becomes an understandable political priority.

A moral reading of homeowner politics is inadequate here. A homeowner defending scarcity is defending the primary asset through which the welfare regime has taught her to secure old age, and the institution has recruited her into the behavior. Asking individuals to abandon the incentive through exceptional virtue is unlikely to transform the system.

The racial history remains visible in contemporary wealth even after formal discrimination has been dismantled. Federal Reserve data from the 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances found median wealth of about $285,000 among white families, compared with roughly $44,900 among Black families and $61,600 among Hispanic families.

Accumulation does the carrying here, and racial essence plays no part. A restrictive rule can disappear while the appreciation accumulated under it remains inside family balance sheets, and a family can inherit a house without inheriting the beliefs of the person who bought it. The asset doesn't need ideological continuity.

A liberal homeowner can sincerely oppose racial discrimination and understand redlining, and she can also oppose housing development because additional supply might affect neighborhood value or because density might alter schools, traffic, or local amenities. A lawn sign expressing universal inclusion can sit on the same parcel as a zoning objection protecting scarcity because one expresses moral identity and the other protects material security. Settler schizophrenia lets the two commitments coexist until a concrete decision forces them into contact.

Settler politics appears when ownership itself starts functioning as a claim to superior political authority over space, so that the resident becomes more legitimate because she owns and the newcomer becomes suspicious because she hasn't yet acquired the right kind of rootedness. The old frontier principle quietly survives, and arrival becomes legitimacy after enough time has passed.

IX. The Neighborhood

Large political orders survive through small habits, and Deleuze and Guattari make this point in their discussion of micropolitics. Political power doesn't live only in constitutions, armies, elections, or presidents; it also lives in ordinary expectations about authority and belonging.

A neighborhood can train people in territorial politics. The property line teaches a distinction between inside and outside, the homeowners' association teaches what legitimate occupancy looks like, and the neighborhood app teaches residents which bodies are worth noticing, while the police stand ready as the institution that can turn suspicion into state action. Together these institutions reproduce a territorial common sense inherited from the larger order.

The famous Central Park incident involving Christian Cooper in May 2020 showed how quickly these small relations can become racialized. Cooper, a Black birdwatcher, asked a white woman to leash her dog in an area where park rules required it. She responded by calling police and describing him as an African American man threatening her.

The significance lies partly in the institution she invoked. The park was public and the disagreement concerned ordinary use of shared space, and the conflict became racial and territorial through the expectation that police authority could decide whose account of danger would carry institutional weight. The encounter became nationally prominent partly because it happened on the same day George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police.

People experience the state as protector unequally. A property-secure subject can learn that calling the police restores order, while a population with a history of discriminatory policing can experience the same institution as a source of danger, and the institution contains both histories. Political arguments fail when one population's experience is treated as universal.

The settler analysis becomes personally legible to me here as a Black woman and a transsexual woman. Territorial belonging is rarely abstract when people decide your body looks out of place, and a person walking through a neighborhood can become a question: who are you visiting, why are you here, do you live nearby? The questions reveal an assumption that some people enter space already belonging while others have to account for their presence. Settler politics reaches its molecular form at exactly this scale: the nation says some people belong and the block rehearses the distinction in miniature.

X. Invasion

The frontier migrant eventually becomes the national native, rooted in a country where the family has lived for generations. A white family that has lived in Pennsylvania for two centuries can genuinely experience Pennsylvania as home, and the problem begins when rootedness becomes evidence that settlement no longer matters. The descendant of settlers starts experiencing the nation as a possession endangered by newer arrivals.

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "Protecting the American People Against Invasion." The order described recent unauthorized immigration as an unprecedented "flood" and framed enforcement through national-security and public-safety concerns. A separate proclamation the same day, "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion," invoked sovereign territorial authority and directed actions aimed at what the administration formally described as an invasion across the southern border. The word "invasion" does more than describe unauthorized entry, because it converts migration into territorial warfare: a legal violation becomes a struggle over possession, and the citizen becomes an inhabitant defending a homeland against a migrant whose movement threatens sovereignty.

The political force of this rhetoric is not evenly distributed across the Amerikan public. PRRI reported in 2026 that 33 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that immigrants were "invading" the country and replacing its cultural and ethnic background, while 62 percent disagreed. The partisan divide was enormous: 66 percent of Republicans agreed, compared with 28 percent of independents and 10 percent of Democrats. Earlier PRRI data also found higher agreement among white Americans than among Black or Hispanic Americans.

Texas offers an especially sharp historical inversion. During the period of Mexican rule, authorities became alarmed by large-scale migration from the United States into Texas. The Mexican government's Law of April 6, 1830 attempted to restrict further migration from the United States, strengthen Mexican control, and limit the introduction of enslaved people. Immigration continued and political conflict intensified until the Texas Revolution transformed sovereignty over the region.

That history matters because contemporary invasion rhetoric in Texas takes place inside a territory whose political order was itself transformed through migration, settlement, revolt, war, and annexation. The relevant fact is memory: Amerikan political culture already holds a historical narrative in which population movement changes who governs a territory. Replacement anxiety turns that narrative around: the established population imagines itself watching newcomers arrive, and the historical settler becomes the person afraid of settlement.

This inversion can become violent. The man who murdered twenty-three people at an El Paso Walmart in 2019 admitted targeting Hispanics and described his attack through a manifesto that used invasion language. The Justice Department later stated that he selected the border city in an effort to target Mexican and other Hispanic immigrants. The case shows how territorial rhetoric can fuse with racial threat under its most violent conditions.

XI. Capital Gets the Airport Lounge

The border becomes even stranger when placed beside the mobility of capital. Money moves across jurisdictions constantly, corporations reorganize supply chains, investment crosses borders electronically, and production moves when labor or regulatory costs change, so financial ownership can detach from physical proximity so completely that the owner of an asset may never visit the place where it exists.

That movement can destroy the stability of local life. A factory closes, a regional industry declines, a town loses its tax base, and housing becomes a speculative asset for people living somewhere else, while the people affected by these processes often have little direct power over them. Capital is abstract and the migrant has a face.

That creates a powerful opening for reterritorialization. The state may be unable or unwilling to promise that capital will stay in a particular town, but it can promise to control a geographical line. Economic sovereignty is difficult and territorial sovereignty is visible, so the border gives diffuse insecurity an edge.

This helps explain why economic globalization and cultural nationalism can intensify together, and the relationship holds no mystery once nationalism is understood as a compensatory territory. Capitalism destabilizes place, national identity promises permanence, markets treat labor as mobile, and citizenship creates a category that says who belongs: the economic order loosens while the political order tightens somewhere else.

The Bracero Program makes the contradictory relationship between labor mobility and territorial membership unusually clear. Beginning during World War II, the United States and Mexico created programs that admitted Mexican men as temporary contract workers, especially in agriculture and railroad work. Millions of contracts were issued before the program ended in 1964. The worker could cross, but membership didn't necessarily cross with him. The arrangement allowed labor to enter under conditions defined by employers and the state while preserving the worker's political foreignness, so the social machine admitted the flow it needed and limited the consequences it didn't want.

Deleuze and Guattari call capitalism axiomatic because the system doesn't need one grand moral code capable of making every rule philosophically consistent; it needs rules capable of managing flows. One rule admits labor, another controls residence, another governs family migration, and another removes people who fall outside the recognized category. Consistency is optional and function is mandatory.

The political irony is that capital often receives more freedom of movement than the workers whose labor gives capital its value. Money gets the airport lounge and the dishwasher gets an interview, which is my quota of border humor, and unfortunately it's doing empirical work.

XII. The Settler Left

Sakai's hardest argument was directed at the left, because the left often wanted the white worker to arrive theoretically purified. The usual class story says workers share a basic material interest against capital and racial divisions keep them from recognizing it, and that story can describe real situations: employers have used racial division to suppress wages and weaken organization, and workers can gain enormously through interracial solidarity.

The story becomes inadequate when some workers receive material advantages through the racial organization of labor, because at that point racism is doing more than producing misunderstanding. It is distributing jobs, housing, political standing, and the expectation of future ownership, and that produces contradictory politics without requiring stupidity. Sakai points to white labor agitation for western land as an example: demands for cheap land let the settler worker oppose concentrated wealth while still claiming territory produced through Indigenous dispossession, so the radicalism becomes horizontal among settlers and the hierarchy survives across the settler boundary.

The New Deal provides another version of the problem. Major pieces of social legislation dramatically strengthened protections for many workers while leaving important occupational categories outside early federal systems. Agricultural and domestic workers, sectors containing large shares of Black workers in the South, were excluded from key protections at the time. Historians continue to debate the mixture of administrative, political, and racial reasons behind the exclusions. The distributional effect remained racially uneven.

Social democracy itself can be territorial in this way. A political community can create generous benefits for insiders while policing the boundary around membership.

The settler logic appears when citizenship begins functioning as inherited property rather than political membership, and the country then becomes something the established population owns, and newcomers become people trying to acquire a share without having paid an imagined historical admission price. The price changes depending on whose ancestors are being remembered: a settler ancestor crossing a continent becomes proof of industriousness, while a migrant crossing a border can become proof that the border is collapsing.

That's why I read Sakai as a corrective to left-wing romance. If people were permanently determined by settler position, politics would be pointless, but solidarity exists because positions can be contested. People can act against relative privilege, organizations can produce new interests, and workers can discover that the long-term power won through coalition exceeds the short-term advantage won through exclusion. Sakai's real challenge is that there's no hidden universal worker waiting beneath history for the correct leaflet, so the organizer meets the worker history actually produced.

XIII. Moves to Innocence

A mature settler society eventually learns to incorporate criticism, and that's one of the most interesting forms of reterritorialization because critique itself becomes part of the national story. The country can acknowledge slavery and removal, and the historical wrong then becomes a stage in the nation's moral development, which leaves the present institution looking wiser because it has learned from the past. In that story, recognition becomes evidence that the underlying material relation has been resolved, with the country as the protagonist of the suffering it caused and the victim as a character in the nation's redemption.

Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang gave a useful name to one version of this process in their 2012 essay "Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor." They criticize the expanding use of "decolonization" as a general synonym for making institutions more progressive and insist that settler colonialism concerns material relationships to Indigenous land and life. They describe rhetorical and psychological strategies that relieve settlers from confronting that material question as moves to innocence.

The concept is especially useful for institutions, and the land acknowledgment is the obvious case. An institution names the Indigenous nation whose territory it occupies, and the statement can correct historical erasure and create an expectation that the institution maintain real relationships with Indigenous communities. Those effects matter, and the open question is what happens next.

If nothing material changes, recognition can become a new source of institutional legitimacy: the institution proves its ethical seriousness by accurately describing the history of the property it continues to control. The critique has been incorporated and the territory remains.

Robert Lee and Tristan Ahtone's "Land-Grab Universities" investigation traced nearly eleven million acres connected to the Morrill Act to land taken from around 250 Indigenous tribes, bands, and communities. Their research linked those transfers to fifty-two institutions that benefited from land sales used to build endowment principal.

A university can acknowledge Indigenous land in a building whose institutional history was partly financed through Indigenous dispossession, and some institutions have begun exploring scholarships, partnerships, land relationships, or other forms of repair. The distinction stays simple, because recognition changes language while restitution changes a relation.

The personal version of the same process appears whenever structural history gets converted into a trial of individual guilt. Someone says white families received unequal access to property, and a white person replies that her grandparents were poor, which turns the conversation moral: was my grandmother good, did my father work hard, did my family personally discriminate against anyone? Those questions don't resolve the property relation.

Guilt is appealing because it keeps the self at the center. The guilty settler can confess and the innocent settler can defend herself, and both remain protagonists while the deed waits quietly in the recorder's office.

Responsibility is less dramatic: a person can inherit an institution she didn't design, and she can alter it all the same, with no ancestral contamination ritual required. Materialism is merciful in a way guilt politics rarely is, because it doesn't require people born after an event to pretend they authored it. It asks what remains operative now.

XIV. The Schizo-Paranoid Circuit

Deleuze and Guattari distinguish a schizophrenic pole of social investment from a paranoiac pole, and the process I'm describing runs through both, which makes it closer to a settler schizo-paranoid circuit than to schizophrenia alone. The schizophrenic tendency decodes and escapes fixed organization, while the paranoiac tendency attaches desire to large identities, hierarchy, nation, race, sovereignty, and order, and the settler formation needs both.

The settler arrives through deterritorialization. The European leaves an older territory, the frontier breaks Indigenous territorial control, capital converts land into alienable property, and old social positions become unstable as migrants cross distance. Then the process reverses direction: the parcel, the border, whiteness, and citizenship all harden, the household becomes an inheritance machine, and the new territories present themselves as permanent.

The paranoiac moment arrives when movement threatens the territory produced by earlier movement. The political subject experiences change as dispossession, so demographic change becomes replacement, redistribution becomes confiscation, historical explanation becomes accusation, and Indigenous jurisdiction becomes disorder, and the subject seeks a harder boundary.

That circuit explains why contradictions don't disappear after being exposed. Each pole solves a problem produced by the other, since mobility creates instability that territory answers with control, and territory creates pressure that generates new movement, so the settler state lives through the oscillation. The system teaches people to experience selected movements as freedom and selected boundaries as nature, and the contradiction becomes common sense because its two sides appear at different moments. Calling the system hypocritical is insufficient for that reason, because the contradiction is doing work.

XV. The Map Speaks Back

The map is one of the settler state's most successful technologies because it makes relationships look like geometry. A border becomes a line, a reservation a colored area, a county a shape, and a parcel a set of coordinates, and the conflicts that produced the line disappear until someone makes a claim and the map becomes political again.

McGirt v. Oklahoma produced exactly this moment. Jimcy McGirt, a citizen of the Seminole Nation, had been convicted in Oklahoma state court for crimes committed within the historical boundaries of the Muscogee reservation. His jurisdictional challenge eventually reached the Supreme Court.

In 2020, a five-justice majority concluded that Congress had never formally disestablished the Muscogee reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Justice Neil Gorsuch opened the opinion by recalling the federal promises made after the forced removal of the Creek Nation and wrote that, because Congress had not said otherwise, the government had to honor its word.

The decision's political effect was enormous because it made the map speak historically. A space Oklahoma had treated as fully absorbed into ordinary state jurisdiction turned out to contain a surviving treaty relationship, and where the state had behaved as though time had resolved the matter, the Court asked what Congress had actually done.

That distinction cuts to the center of settler schizophrenia, because the settler order repeatedly treats duration as legitimacy: enough years pass, the political origin fades, and the relation becomes geography. McGirt reopened the temporal dimension by showing that the map had a before, the jurisdiction had an origin, and the treaty remained legally significant, which is deeply unsettling to a political consciousness that wants settlement to mean both occupation and conclusion.

The word "settled" is doing two jobs. The land has been settled and the question has been settled, and the settler needs those meanings to reinforce each other while history keeps separating them.

In 1889, settlers raced across land to establish claims, and in 2020 the Supreme Court confronted a surviving Indigenous political relationship within the state created by generations of those claims. Oklahoma turned the run into a childhood ritual in which the people whose political relationship to the territory had made it possible entered the lesson mainly as background, so a century later a court decision announcing that one of those relationships still had legal force felt to many Oklahomans like the past had unexpectedly invaded the present. The past had been there the whole time, and only the camera had moved.

XVI. History Is Alive Whenever It Legitimates and Dead Whenever It Complicates Possession

The Founders and the Constitution remain politically alive, a family homestead stays alive enough to become heritage, and the pioneer comes back every time a politician invokes self-reliance. History turns suspiciously ancient when it explains a present inequality. A housing policy from the twentieth century is suddenly too old to matter, a treaty from the nineteenth century becomes an artifact, and the accumulated value of inherited property becomes personal achievement. The settler wants a past that can legitimate belonging without creating obligations, and heritage provides that past, while structural history does something more dangerous by establishing causal continuity.

The method I call invariance asks what remains operative while visible forms change. The task is to follow what survives the transformation.

The frontier closes and territorial property remains. The racial covenant becomes legally unenforceable and accumulated housing wealth remains. Explicit white naturalization requirements disappear while national belonging can stay racialized in the political imagination. Allotment formally ends and fractionated land ownership and its jurisdictional consequences remain, a land acknowledgment appears while the institution may continue controlling the land, and the ideology changes faster than the material relation. Amerika often prefers redemption, and redemption has an ending, while material history keeps sending invoices.

XVII. The Settler Looks Into the Mirror and Sees an Individual

There's a fantasy at the center of Amerikan liberal individualism that the person arrives before society, so that the person works, buys, chooses, and succeeds while institutions appear as the environment around an already formed individual. The settler version makes the fantasy geographical: the pioneer stands on empty land and works, property appears, a family follows, and government arrives later, usually with taxes. The story is elegant because almost every causal relation has been edited out of the frame, and the individual only becomes intelligible once the social world is restored.

The settler really worked, and the question is what his work could become inside a particular institutional field. One person can work and acquire appreciating property, another can work and pay rent for decades, another can work land whose title belongs to somebody else, and another can be excluded from the market through rules she didn't write. The conversion of effort into wealth is socially organized, and settler schizophrenia hides the conversion by treating the outcome as autobiography.

That's why structural explanation can feel insulting. A person hears that institutions contributed to her position and feels that somebody has denied her labor, which makes emotional sense because Amerikan culture has taught her that deserving and independence depend on being the author of her own position. Historical causality introduces other people, and other people introduce claims and remember treaties, and they can ask whether the territory is as settled as the map suggests.

XVIII. The Settler Neurosis

The word schizophrenia in my title describes movement, and the neurosis appears around permanence. The settler lives inside a society created through displacement and wants the ground to stop moving.

The irony lies in the history through which permanence was obtained. Settler society required Indigenous territorial disruption, capitalism repeatedly required workers to move, and enslavement violently transported African people across an ocean and within the continent. Property markets reorganized cities while industrial capital built towns and abandoned them, and the national economy kept moving long after the frontier supposedly closed. The settler responded by constructing smaller sovereignties, with the house promising permanence, the neighborhood familiarity, the nation continuity, and the border an inside, while whiteness historically promised membership. Each territory gives the subject somewhere to stand while the social order underneath keeps changing.

The cycle is understandable without being inevitable. People can build different forms of security, and the state can provide social goods that reduce dependence on appreciating private property. Political institutions can create membership without turning it into ethnic possession, labor organization can build solidarities that cross national status, and Indigenous sovereignty can be treated as a continuing political relation rather than an artifact. The problem has never been the mere existence of boundaries; what matters is the relation a boundary protects and whose movement it regulates.

XIX. The Point Is the Relation

The concept becomes useful when several relations converge: a historically produced entitlement to territory is present, a movement or social transformation destabilizes that territory, a compensatory boundary promises to restore control, and the history of how the territory was produced drops out of the account of why the boundary is legitimate. I look for those four relations in Amerikan politics today, and I find them wherever land and belonging are in dispute. The January 2025 executive order that framed unauthorized immigration as an invasion carries the second movement, the one that treats the territory as finished and the arrival as a threat to it, and the first movement, the run that made the territory, never comes up. A neighborhood that fights an apartment building while its yards carry signs welcoming everyone has the same split, with the moral commitment and the property commitment living in separate registers until a vote forces them together. A university that opens a public meeting with a land acknowledgment and keeps the land is making a move to innocence, and a politician who promises to protect "the American worker" while the benefit and the border get drawn around who counts as one is bargaining over what membership pays, which is Sakai's labor aristocracy at work. The question I ask in each case follows from the land run: who moved first, who is being told to stop moving, and which of those facts is allowed to count as history?

The settler's society has sorted incompatible demands into different parts of ordinary life, and people can sincerely hold positions that look incompatible when abstracted from history. The settler can experience herself as independent because the state's role in producing her security has become invisible. She can celebrate immigration through her family history and fear immigration as a present territorial process, she can oppose racism and benefit from accumulated property shaped by earlier racial policy, and she can resent capital while identifying intensely with the nation through which capital's instability is politically managed. The contradictions are social before they become personal.

XX. The Ground

Settler schizophrenia applies almost perfectly to contemporary American politics, because the American subject keeps encountering institutions built around American power and experiencing them as evidence that America has somehow been cheated. NAFTA and the continental trade system that replaced it integrated production across North America in ways that benefited U.S. firms, investors, exporters, and consumers overall, even while particular industries and working-class communities absorbed severe losses that were never evenly repaired. The USITC has found small positive aggregate effects from American trade agreements while also finding that their gains weren't distributed evenly. Yet the political story becomes Mexico took our jobs, as though American capital hadn't helped design the arrangement, relocated production through it, and collected the returns. Something similar happens with America's overseas military presence. The bases are talked about as burdens America maintains for ungrateful foreigners, even though the Defense Department has repeatedly described forward deployment as a way to secure access, move forces quickly, sustain logistics, reinforce alliances, deter rivals, and preserve American influence in strategically important regions. Then there's the petrodollar, which becomes even stranger because the mythology usually obscures the stronger argument. There isn't one magical petrodollar agreement holding American supremacy together. There is a dollar-centered international financial system in which the dollar remains central to reserves, international lending, payments, debt, and trade, and the Federal Reserve openly acknowledges that this position lowers borrowing and transaction costs for Americans while widening the pool of capital available to the United States. Settler schizophrenia appears when the benefits of empire become so normalized that the settler can no longer recognize them as benefits. Cheap access to capital feels like the natural condition of money. A military network spanning the planet feels like charity. A continental production system organized heavily around American capital feels like foreign exploitation once some of its internal costs finally reach American workers. The settler experiences the consequences of the system while forgetting his country's position inside it, so every contradiction arrives wearing the face of an outsider. Mexico stole the factory. Europe made us defend it. Foreign countries manipulate our currency. The world is supposedly feeding on America while American state power, military reach, corporations, financial markets, and currency sit near the center of the very systems being described. Settler schizophrenia doesn't require the settler to be materially comfortable, because many Americans plainly aren't. It describes the ideological split that lets someone suffer real injuries produced within an American-centered order and then understand those injuries as proof that America itself is the colonized party.

Amerika keeps trying to become innocent without surrendering what its history produced. It wants the territory and the property, the inheritance and the institutions, and the emotional continuity of national history, and it also wants the freedom to declare the historical process finished whenever causality becomes uncomfortable.

The mistake is assuming that legitimate belonging requires innocence. A person can belong to the United States and understand that it was produced through conquest, and a white worker can be exploited and understand that exploitation never erased racial advantage.

The settler's deepest political desire is often for the argument to end. The land has been settled, the jurisdiction has been settled, the racial question has been settled, the border has been settled, and the past has been settled, and history remains rude enough to keep replying. The map speaks and the treaty survives, the inherited asset appreciates, the migrant crosses, the worker moves, and capital moves faster, while the settler rebuilds somewhere to stand and calls the new arrangement permanent.

The political subject isn't born carrying the contradiction. She learns it through property, the nation, the border, and the neighborhood, and she learns which movement counts as ambition and which counts as invasion, which acts of government count as the natural protection of order and which as interference, and where history begins. These lessons can be unlearned only after they become visible as lessons.

Amerika has spent centuries describing the person standing inside the fence. The history becomes considerably clearer when we finally ask who put the fence there.

Works Cited

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. "Greater Wealth, Greater Uncertainty: Changes in Racial Inequality in the Survey of Consumer Finances." Used for the 2022 median family wealth estimates of approximately $285,000 for white families, $44,900 for Black families, and $61,600 for Hispanic families.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane. University of Minnesota Press, 1983. Used for desiring-production, capitalism's decoding of flows, schizophrenia as a social process, deterritorialization, reterritorialization, the capitalist axiomatic, and the paranoiac and schizoid poles of social investment.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Used for micropolitics, molecular and molar organization, smooth and striated space, lines of flight, territorialization, and the argument that escaping one rigid formation does not guarantee an emancipatory destination.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Claire Parnet. Dialogues. Columbia University Press, 1987. Used for Deleuze's treatment of Anglo-American literature, movement, escape, and the West.

Du Bois, W. E. B. Black Reconstruction in America. 1935. Used for the concept of the public and psychological wage attached to whiteness.

Harris, Cheryl I. "Whiteness as Property." Harvard Law Review 106, no. 8 (1993): 1707-1791. Harris argues that whiteness acquired property-like legal and social characteristics through the histories of slavery and Indigenous dispossession.

KGOU. "Elementary School Alternative To Land Run Reenactments Offers More Sides Of The Story." Used for the 2014 controversy over Oklahoma school reenactments and Choctaw parent Sara Adams Cornell's account of the alternatives offered to her daughters.

Knight, Tara. "IF SEX IS MATERIAL, THEN ANALYZE THE FUCKING MATERIAL." Bundle of Styx, September 2026. Used for the method of invariance and its application to social relations that remain structurally operative through changes in ideology and form.

Knight, Tara. "No White Trans Woman Is Working Class." Bundle of Styx, 2026. Referenced as the earlier essay in which Sakai's labor-aristocracy argument was applied to contemporary class analysis.

Lee, Robert, and Tristan Ahtone. "Land-Grab Universities." High Country News, 2020. Their investigation traced nearly 10.7 million acres taken from around 250 Indigenous tribes, bands, and communities through more than 160 land cessions and linked the land to fifty-two land-grant institutions.

Library of Congress. Materials on the Chinese Exclusion Act. Used for the 1882 exclusion of Chinese laborers, later restrictions, and the distinct naturalization regime imposed on Chinese immigrants.

Library of Congress and National Park Service. Materials on the Bracero Program. Used for the program's operation from 1942 to 1964, its use of temporary Mexican contract labor, and the millions of contracts issued across the period.

Marx, Karl. Capital, Volume I. Especially the sections on primitive accumulation and "The Modern Theory of Colonisation." Used for the separation of workers from land, Wakefield's colonial theory, and the problem cheap land posed for the reproduction of wage labor.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___ (2020). Used for the Supreme Court's conclusion that Congress had not disestablished the Muscogee reservation for purposes of federal criminal law and for Justice Gorsuch's treatment of the continuing force of treaty promises.

National Archives. "The Homestead Act of 1862." Used for the requirements of the Homestead Act and the roughly 270 million acres ultimately distributed under the homestead system.

National Archives. Materials on the General Land Office and rectangular survey system. Used for the Land Ordinance of 1785, six-mile-square townships, thirty-six sections, and the federal survey apparatus that preceded large-scale western settlement.

Oklahoma Historical Society. "Land Run of 1889." Used for the April 22, 1889 run, the estimated fifty thousand participants, Sooners, and the rapid claiming of homesteads.

Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922), and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923). Used for the Supreme Court's changing legal construction of "white person" within naturalization law.

Public Religion Research Institute. "Are Immigrants a Threat? Most Americans Don't Think So." 2023. Used for earlier racial-group differences in agreement with replacement rhetoric.

Public Religion Research Institute. "Immigration Enforcement, ICE, and Civil Liberties in the Second Trump Administration." 2026. Used for the finding that 33 percent of Americans agreed that immigrants were invading the country and replacing its cultural and ethnic background, with substantial partisan differences.

Reich, Wilhelm. The Mass Psychology of Fascism. 1933. Used for the question of why masses of people can desire political arrangements that look irrational from a narrow economic perspective.

Sakai, J. Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat from Mayflower to Modern. Kersplebedeb and PM Press, 2014 edition. Used for the land-centered interpretation of Euro-American class formation, settler proprietorship, indenture, white labor, anti-Chinese politics, Americanization, and the labor-aristocracy thesis. Sakai's class analysis remains contested within Marxist historiography and is treated here as an argument rather than uncontested consensus.

Sakai, J. "When Race Burns Class: Settlers Revisited." Used for Sakai's later clarification that Settlers concerns class formation and should not be reduced to treating "settler" as a synonym for white person.

Texas State Historical Association. "Law of April 6, 1830," "Mexican Texas," and "Texas Revolution." Used for the Mexican government's effort to restrict further immigration from the United States into Texas, the regulation of slavery, and the political conflicts surrounding Anglo-American colonization.

Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. "Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor." Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1, no. 1 (2012): 1-40. Used for "settler moves to innocence" and the insistence that decolonization remain connected to material questions of Indigenous land and life.

Turner, Frederick Jackson. "The Significance of the Frontier in American History." 1893. Used for the frontier thesis and the argument that western land repeatedly offered an escape from older social constraints.

U.S. Department of Justice. Materials on the 2019 El Paso Walmart mass shooting. Used for the perpetrator's guilty plea, the killing of twenty-three people, his targeting of Hispanics, and his use of invasion rhetoric in the manifesto preceding the attack.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. "History of Indian Land Consolidation" and "Federal Law and Indian Policy Overview." Used for the General Allotment Act, involuntary allotment, opening of "surplus" land to non-Indigenous settlement, and the loss of more than ninety million acres from Indigenous ownership and control during the allotment period.

White House. "Protecting the American People Against Invasion" and "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion," January 20, 2025. Used as primary sources for the second Trump administration's official language of invasion, sovereignty, and territorial control in immigration policy. The documents establish the administration's own framing and are not treated as independent verification of every empirical claim within that framing.

Wolfe, Patrick. "Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native." Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (2006): 387-409. Used for settler colonialism as an enduring territorial structure and for the broader concept of elimination extending beyond direct physical destruction.

Follow my Tumblr it allows me the ability to post more long form content in a way that isn’t owned by Meta

If you want to support the work, you can leave a paid Substack subscription. I lowered it to $12 a month, and that support materially helps me keep writing long-form work like this.

You can also donate to my Ko-fi if you want to support me directly.

The Last Ditch was a basement bar in Greenfield, Massachusetts, that did some of the math for you. It kept a KN-95 requirement at the door years after most businesses had quietly dropped theirs, long after the rest of the country decided that caring about COVID belonged to an increasingly eccentric minority, and for a certain kind of lesbian that requirement was the difference between having a Saturday night and spending another Saturday on the couch refreshing the group chat.

It described itself as a place for “dykes, transsexuals, gender freaks, workers, and their friends,” and it tried to run like it meant that. If you couldn’t afford the cover you got in anyway. In a country where lesbian bars have been closing for decades, somebody had found a room, paid the electric bill, stocked the bar and unlocked the door, and a lesbian in Western Massachusetts could reasonably expect to walk downstairs and find other lesbians there. That’s a bigger deal than it sounds, and it’s the first thing that disappeared once the Last Ditch turned into a national argument about masks, disability, lesbian culture and whether queer people can spend fifteen consecutive minutes together without somebody producing screenshots.

Then the bar had to survive, which is where it gets ugly in the boring way. A bar can call itself whatever radical thing its owners like, but the building still sits inside property relations that don’t give a fuck about anybody’s politics. The landlord wants rent, because landlords have a famously limited interest in lesbian community infrastructure, and the workers need wages, because radical politics has never once made groceries free. The distributor wants to get paid too, and alcohol distributors remain stubbornly resistant to being paid in mutual aid.

The Last Ditch was trying to deliver a social good through the business model of a bar, and a bar only works if enough people pay. People who couldn’t afford to pay kept coming because the bar wanted them there, and it wanted them there for good reasons. Attendance dropped anyway. Workers struggled to get paid while the rent stacked up, and the place had promised the people around it more than its register could cover. Its politics told it to let more people in while its economics needed more people paying, and eventually that fight showed up as a change to the mask policy.

The bar announced that Saturday nights were going mask optional and addressed the people most affected as its “immunocompromised disabled divas.” I’ve sat in enough organizing Discords and 2 a.m. group chats to picture how that sentence got written: somebody knew the news was going to land like shit and reached for a cute word to cushion it. It works the way “hun” works when somebody’s taking something from you, where the sweetness is right there to cover for the part that isn’t sweet. And it made everything worse, because now you’ve told disabled patrons that the one room organized around their bodies has decided they cost too much, and you’ve called them divas while doing it. It’s the kind of communications decision that makes you wonder whether every person in the room simultaneously lost the ability to read the sentence before posting it.

Disabled patrons got angry, and they had every right to. Some of them had built their whole relationship to the Last Ditch around knowing that this one room kept precautions every other room had dropped. The bar’s own policy had told them their presence mattered enough for the place to run differently, so when the policy bent under money pressure, a lot of them heard that the commitment had always been negotiable. That’s what happens when an institution makes a promise: people organize their lives around it. If a bar builds its political identity on being accessible to people shut out everywhere else, those people are going to lean on it harder than a regular customer leans on a regular business, because the bar asked them to think of themselves as members of something.

The Last Ditch owed them a real explanation of what had changed and why, and the announcement didn’t give them one. Its tone took a hard money decision and made it feel personal to people who already get treated as disposable in public life.

Then the whole thing blew past anything proportionate. People accused the bar of eugenics and talked about the owners as though they’d developed a political commitment to disabled people dying. One commenter reportedly hoped the place would get firebombed. The bar apologized for the tone of the announcement, and by then the fight had already left the people who shared a scene and wandered into the kind of public spectacle social media is extraordinarily good at manufacturing. The Boston Globe covered it, and the story traveled far past Western Massachusetts. Then Ted Cruz, a man I’m sure has lost many nights of sleep over disabled lesbians’ access to nightlife, had opinions about a basement bar in Greenfield. That should have been the moment everybody realized the original dispute had moved into an entirely different political environment.

The people who actually drank there still had to figure out what kind of bar they wanted and whether it would survive. The national audience took on no responsibility for any of that. They got to make whatever point they came to make and then disappear, and the lesbians in Western Massachusetts got whatever was left after everybody else found something new to be mad about.

ACCOUNTABILITY HAS TO PRODUCE AN AFTER

Feminism spent generations building ways to make domination visible, because so much of what happens to women is designed to look like ordinary life. The family hides economic dependence inside love, and heterosexuality hides coercion inside romance. Institutions keep people out with rules that look neutral until you ask who they keep failing. Disability politics pushed that analysis into buildings and showed that a space doesn’t need a sign banning disabled people when the assumption that they won’t show up is already built into the stairs and the door policy.

That’s a real achievement, and it gave us better tools. The weak spot comes afterward. Knowing exactly what happened doesn’t tell a community what the relationship between the people involved is supposed to look like once everybody has said their piece, and we got much better at the first skill than the second. A scene can describe in immaculate political language who did what to whom and still have no idea how those people are supposed to share a room on Friday.

Accountability has to produce an after because communities keep going after the fight ends, or they collapse, and when they collapse people lose things they can’t easily get back. Sometimes the harm is bad enough that continued relationship would reproduce it, and sometimes certain people really shouldn’t share a space. Treating separation as the default answer to every conflict, though, eventually builds a community whose main institutional skill is making itself smaller.

People are going to fuck up, because people hurt each other even when they share politics. Institutions are going to fuck up too, because they organize relationships at a scale where one person’s bad call becomes everybody’s policy. So a political community needs some way of deciding which failures mean separation and which ones mean change.

The Last Ditch makes that painfully obvious, because the fight grew out of material needs that no amount of moral clarity could make go away. Disabled patrons needed social space they could get into without eating the risk everywhere else carried, and the bar needed enough money to stay open. Deciding which need was more sympathetic wouldn’t have made the other one vanish. The rent was due whoever won the argument online, and disabled lesbians were still going to need somewhere to go on a Saturday. You can’t accountability your way out of a material contradiction, and the only move left is working out how accessibility gets paid for without asking one struggling bar to eat the cost forever.

What we usually do instead is run a moral investigation. We find the person who behaved badly and settle on the language for what she did. Then we treat the assignment of blame as though it solved something, and the bar still can’t make payroll, and disabled lesbians in Western Massachusetts still don’t have anywhere to go.

If your politics can explain exactly who fucked up and can’t explain what everybody should do Monday morning, you’ve built an extremely elaborate court system without building much of a community.

WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ALREADY KNOWS HOW MUCH A SOCIAL WORLD TAKES TO BUILD

It’s almost too on the nose that this happened in Western Massachusetts, where lesbians spent decades showing what it actually takes to build a social world, which mostly comes down to enough of us living close enough together for long enough. Northampton got its national reputation because women moved there partly because other lesbians already had, and that density let ordinary proximity harden into institutions, including the informal one where everybody knows who to call when your life falls apart.

You can feel a profound spiritual identification with every lesbian alive and still have nobody to call when you need somewhere to sleep tonight. Community gets material when somebody knows somebody who has a couch, and the couch only shows up because people spent enough time around each other for identification to turn into relationship. Western Massachusetts matters to lesbian history because lesbians there built enough of those relationships that lesbian life could reproduce itself through institutions.

None of it was ever pure, since no community made of human beings has achieved that fascinating condition. Lesbian spaces reproduced racial hierarchy, because being a lesbian didn’t lift anybody out of the racial order around her. Economic inequality stayed put because sexual orientation doesn’t redistribute property, and women who shared a softball league and, in some cases, the same three exes still fought about feminism, because sharing a social world never guaranteed sharing a theory.

Conflict is what happens when people stay in relationship long enough for their differences to have consequences. Some of those fights got worked through without wrecking the relationships the scene depended on, and some didn’t, and the ones that didn’t are the reason people still talk about what got lost.

This gets sharper when there aren’t many institutions left, because the ideology of infinite exit assumes a social abundance that lesbians just don’t have. You can quit the organization that disappointed you or stop going to the bar after somebody handles a fight badly. You can cut the girl who hurt you out of your life, and every one of those decisions can make sense on its own terms. Add them up and you get a population that can’t sustain collective life, because collective life needs shared institutions and shared institutions need some of the people they’ve hurt to keep showing up.

Lesbians are finite, and lesbian institutions are considerably more finite than lesbians. We can’t keep shrinking the list of people we’re willing to share a room with and then act like some mysterious historical force closed all the bars.

Sometimes the institution needs to change because staying in it as it is would reproduce the harm. Sometimes the relationship needs to end because nothing could make it safe. A community still needs some way of telling those situations apart from the ones where people could stay together if the terms changed.

WE HAVE ASKED THE LESBIAN BAR TO BECOME AN ENTIRE SOCIAL SYSTEM

The Last Ditch was in an impossible spot partly because it was never allowed to just be a bar. When the lesbian community center closes, the bar picks up its functions, because the bar is one of the only places lesbians still reliably run into each other. When every other queer space drops its mask policy, the one that kept it inherits responsibility for everybody the others shut out, whether it asked for that or not. Political organizations have weakened too, so people start expecting the bar to be where political norms get hashed out.

Every trans girl who has ever been the only one in her friend group with a car and a stable-ish apartment knows exactly how this goes. Nobody decided she’d be the emergency contact. She was just there and she was reliable, so her phone is the one that lights up at 2 a.m. when somebody’s estradiol shipment gets seized at customs or somebody needs a ride home from a date that went sideways. She helps because she wants to and because nobody else will, and somewhere around year two she’s covering other girls’ rent shortfalls on a retail paycheck while nobody asks how her own doctor’s appointments are going. Everybody’s need got routed through one woman who couldn’t hold it forever. The Last Ditch was that girl with a liquor license, because eventually one basement is carrying pieces of an entire lesbian civil society and paying for it with drink sales, and then everybody acts shocked when the economics show up.

Lesbian bars carry this harder than most places, because lesbian social life has always sat right next to feminist politics. Nobody has ever really thought of the lesbian bar as simply a place where lesbians happen to drink. Women needed informal institutions to give them safety and support they couldn’t get anywhere else, the bar became one of them, and that history is beautiful. Keeping it means being honest about its limits. I don’t want lesbian bars stripped of politics, because the politics are part of why they mattered. I want enough lesbian infrastructure that every surviving bar doesn’t have to become our entire fucking government.

A lesbian bar is already doing something politically significant when lesbians can reliably find each other there, and we should take seriously how much that simple fact holds before we demand that the same bar fix every other failure of lesbian civil society.

ACCESSIBILITY HAS TO BE REPRODUCED MATERIALLY

We tend to talk about accessibility as if the deciding factor were how much the people in charge care, as if every inaccessible space were a failure of values and enough commitment would find a way. Values matter, and they also make accessibility sound free. Accessibility is a relationship between a person and the conditions that let her participate, and those conditions cost money.

A mask policy is cheaper than an elevator and still isn’t free. A rule that changes who walks through your door changes who your regulars are, and over time it changes what kind of business you are. Every institutional arrangement costs somebody something, and a community that actually wants accessibility has to figure out who pays instead of assuming somebody’s goodwill will cover it forever.

The disabled patrons who relied on the Last Ditch had found a rare room arranged partly around their bodies, and losing one accessible bar hits differently when almost every other bar has already shut you out. Their anger says a lot about the world around that basement. One small business had become wildly important because there was almost nothing else. The fragility was there before the policy changed, because a whole scene’s accessible social life was sitting inside one business that a slow Saturday could put under.

If a community wants permanently masked lesbian space to exist, it needs a way of keeping that space alive through the stretches when drink sales can’t carry it. That might mean funding that takes the pressure off nightly revenue, and the people actually building it should work out what form that takes. Without something like that, accessibility lasts exactly as long as somebody can personally eat the cost, which eventually turns political commitment into martyrdom, and martyrdom is a terrible business model even when everybody involved has impeccable politics.

The more useful question the Last Ditch raises is how a lesbian community plans to keep accessible social life going when the market gives businesses no reason to, and answering it requires organization, because structural problems can’t be solved by locating one unusually virtuous bartender.

THE INTERNET REMOVED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSEQUENCE

The fight changed shape once the Last Ditch became national content, because the people participating stopped sharing any stake in what came next.

Before the story spread, most of the people arguing had skin in it. A disabled patron who hated the masking change still needed an accessible lesbian bar in Western Massachusetts to exist. The workers needed the place to survive because their paychecks came out of it, and the owners’ whole lives were tangled up in the room they’d built.

The national audience had none of that. A stranger could hold up the Last Ditch as proof that queer politics had become ridiculous and lose nothing if the bar closed the next month. Another stranger could hold it up as proof of ableism in lesbian spaces without ever having to build the accessible bar that would replace the one getting dragged. Both of them logged off with their takes intact, because neither one had to live inside what happened.

People who expect to see each other again have a reason to keep the door open, because tomorrow exists for them. The spectator gets the fight in its most dramatic moments, so escalation entertains her more than resolution ever could. Repair makes terrible content, since repair usually means a lot of long, awkward conversations whose conclusion is that everybody has to behave somewhat differently, and nobody screenshots the slow rebuilding of trust. Outrage travels because it squeezes the whole thing into something you can understand in one scroll: somebody gets to be the villain and somebody gets to be the victim, and everybody watching gets permission to have an opinion about people they’ll never meet.

Then the audience leaves, and the people who live there stay. They’ll keep running into each other at potlucks and at the next meeting, because Western Massachusetts doesn’t magically generate a second lesbian population whenever the first one has a fight. Small scenes overlap whether anybody finds that emotionally convenient, which is why the people who stay have a stake in reconciliation the audience never had.

DISABLED PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BECOME CHARACTERS IN SOMEBODY ELSE’S STORY

Once conservative commentators showed up, people sympathetic to the bar got handed a pretty ugly temptation because they could start reading the original disabled critics through the national backlash and write them off as the ridiculous people who caused the whole spectacle.

I refuse to do that because disabled people don’t become wrong when Ted Cruz discovers their fight. If patrons felt the Last Ditch had built its credibility on their access and then pulled back when that access got expensive, that grievance belongs inside the relationship that produced it, and the later behavior of strangers can’t go back and change what the decision meant to the people it hit.

The spectacle makes that distinction matter more, because disabled people have spent their whole lives getting turned into symbols by people who don’t care whether they live. Conservatives who have never shown much interest in expanding disability access can suddenly find enormous concern for a local disability dispute when it lets them laugh at queers. People defending the bar can turn around and treat the disabled patrons as embarrassing obstacles to lesbian institutional survival. Either way, disabled people get consumed for somebody else’s argument.

They deserve accessible social infrastructure, and enough of it that one bar’s decision could never shrink somebody’s entire social world. The fact that it did shows how little of that infrastructure exists. If there were several accessible lesbian spaces within driving distance, the Last Ditch’s choice would still matter, because exclusion stings whether or not there’s a backup, but it wouldn’t be able to wipe out a whole category of somebody’s life. Scarcity magnifies every institutional failure, since every surviving institution ends up responsible for more of the world, so tearing down an inadequate bar can’t count as a win when the actual problem is that there aren’t enough adequate ones. Sometimes you have to change the institution you actually have, because the perfect one you’re imagining behind it doesn’t exist.

AN INSTITUTION CAN HURT YOU AND REMAIN PART OF YOUR SOCIAL WORLD

We need some way of saying that an institution hurt people and is still worth keeping. Anybody serious about building anything needs that, because anything that lasts long enough is going to fail somebody. If institutions only get to stay worthy while they’re innocent, every institution old enough to matter eventually becomes indefensible.

Keeping something has to mean more than defending whatever currently exists. An institution survives by changing while holding on to enough continuity that people still recognize what they share. What’s worth keeping about the Last Ditch lives in that basement: the relationships, and the expectation that lesbians can find each other there. Keeping those doesn’t require defending every policy or every decision the people running it made.

Unconditional defense and destruction both skip the part where anything changes. Defending the bar against every criticism because lesbian institutions are scarce turns scarcity into a hall pass. Destroying it because it failed disabled patrons leaves disabled patrons in possession of exactly zero additional accessible lesbian bars. We keep treating removal as though it builds the replacement, and it doesn’t. You can destroy a bad institution in an afternoon and spend twenty years discovering that nobody built another one. Once the relationships and the trust are gone, rebuilding them takes a lot more than finding another basement and putting up a sign.

So the question is whether what exists inside the Last Ditch can become a bar better able to meet the needs its failure exposed. That takes criticism, since somebody has to name what went wrong, and it takes keeping the place open, since there has to be something left to change. Everybody who builds anything eventually hits this point, where the beautiful new thing the founders imagined turns into the annoying real thing everybody has to maintain.

RECONCILIATION IS A FORM OF POLITICAL POWER

I know how “reconciliation” sounds because it sounds like something a nonprofit says after it runs out of analysis and wants to end the retreat on a hopeful note. What I mean is about capacity: a community that can only end damaged relationships has one move, and that move gets more expensive every time.

Our movements have a huge vocabulary for rupture and almost none for the way back. We know how to describe who hurt whom and who shouldn’t be in which space, and I’ve used that vocabulary and will use it again. We don’t know how a damaged relationship becomes possible again on new terms, or what the person who got hurt gets to demand besides somebody’s departure.

Punishment is easy to see because it changes somebody’s social position where everybody can watch. She loses the platform or the invite, everyone points at the outcome, and accountability gets marked complete. Reconciliation is harder to see, because what it produces is a relationship that works again under changed conditions, with both people different from who they were when things broke. That takes judgment about whether anything actually changed and whether it changed enough.

Not every relationship can be repaired, and nobody should have to stay in relationship with someone whose presence makes safety impossible. A theory of reconciliation that doesn’t leave room for permanent separation is just compulsory reconciliation, which reproduces domination in a softer voice. The hard part is telling which relationships can’t continue and which ones could if the terms changed, and a community that can’t tell the difference gets stuck choosing between tolerating harm and breaking itself into pieces, which is an extremely weak position from which to build power.

People get scared to admit wrongdoing when admitting it looks like a one-way ticket to social death, and organizations get defensive when owning a failure could end them, so denial starts looking like the smart survival strategy. If there are real routes back, those incentives shift. Someone can admit she behaved terribly because there’s language for what she’s supposed to do next, and the person she hurt can demand concrete change because the demand is aimed at the relationship. Sometimes it fails anyway, because one side can’t or won’t meet the conditions, and that doesn’t make the capacity useless.

Organizing means people have to keep dealing with each other after discovering that shared ideology didn’t turn them into creatures incapable of hurting one another. If your organization lasts long enough, somebody is going to fuck the wrong person and somebody is going to misuse whatever authority she has. People turn resentments like that into political positions, because human beings are spectacularly talented at converting interpersonal misery into theory. The question is whether the institution has enough structure to keep every fight from becoming existential, and a community that can transform relationships has more power than one that can only end them.

EXILE ALSO PRODUCES POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES

The people you exile don’t disappear because they still have relationships and sometimes an audience, and now they might also have a grievance big enough to build a whole political identity around the scene that kicked them out.

Anybody who’s spent time in the girls’ Discord servers and group chats has watched this happen. Somebody gets removed with screenshots and a pinned callout, and everybody treats the removal as the end of it. Then she’s posting from an alt, or she’s moved two states over and is telling her version of the story to a new crowd of dolls who never heard the other one. The ban doesn’t follow her to the next server, and the block button doesn’t reach into the physical world, where she’s still on the same surgeon’s waitlist as you and still broke in the same ways you’re broke.

A lesbian doesn’t stop being a lesbian because other lesbians hate her. A trans woman doesn’t stop sharing material conditions with other trans women because a Discord server banned her. Social relations are considerably less obedient than block buttons.

Sometimes exclusion is still necessary, because the harm of letting somebody stay outweighs whatever her exile will cost. That calculation still has to count the cost. A scene that keeps producing people with nothing left to lose in relation to it should get curious about what happens to them afterward, because in a population this small they don’t go anywhere. They come back through another platform or another faction, and the people who exiled them act shocked every time.

Reconciliation won’t fit every case. A community that can bring back people who actually change just has fewer reasons to manufacture permanent enemies out of every serious fight, and that matters most when people stay tangled up geographically and socially whether they like each other or not. Western Massachusetts is still going to contain everybody who fought about the Last Ditch long after the internet stops caring about them, and they should probably develop a politics appropriate to that fact.

LESBIANS NEED INSTITUTIONS BECAUSE VISIBILITY CANNOT ORGANIZE US

Lesbians have more cultural visibility right now than at almost any point I can think of, and our physical infrastructure is so thin that one basement bar changing its mask rule turned into a regional crisis for disabled dykes. Those facts sit right next to each other because representation and organization produce different kinds of power. Representation changes how lesbians show up in culture, and organization changes what lesbians can do together.

A TV character can make lesbian existence legible to millions of people without creating a single relationship between the lesbians watching her. A bar with a few dozen regulars reaches almost nobody culturally and still puts the same women in the same room over and over until they can act together. Women don’t become an organized class just because we share a position under patriarchy. Shared conditions make political identification possible, and it takes institutions to give women places where they can find out their private problems are connected to other women’s lives.

Mostly that happens through repetition. You see the same woman enough times to learn about her life, and eventually something you thought was your own private disaster starts looking less private, because the woman on the next stool is describing her version of it. That can stay completely informal. The bar never has to become a seminar, since social knowledge moves through ordinary relationships long before anybody gives it a theoretical name. That’s part of why I keep saying women need institutions: a class that wants to act collectively needs places where its members meet each other as more than isolated individuals who happen to share a demographic category. Lesbian spaces make unusually dense relationships among women whose lives aren’t organized around a husband, and those relationships can turn political even when nobody walked in that night planning to organize anything. Sometimes the political significance of the room is simply that the same women keep coming back.

LESBIANS NEED PLACES WHERE NOTHING IS HAPPENING

I’ve become convinced that one of the things queer life has lost is ordinary time together. So much of it runs on events now, where gathering needs an explicit excuse. There’s a performance or a fundraiser, everybody shows up around the same time, and everybody scatters when the scheduled part ends. Events can be wonderful, and an event still can’t do what an institution does, which is give you somewhere to come back to after the exciting part is over.

Ordinary time lets relationships develop without anybody needing a reason. You get familiar with somebody because she’s there again next week, and eventually you know enough about each other that the conversation doesn’t start from zero every time. That familiarity turns into infrastructure, because people become resources for one another just by staying in contact. Workers’ clubs and socialist social spaces mattered to political movements partly for this reason. The formal political education mattered, and the relationships around it gave people reasons to keep coming and networks their ideas could travel through, since people rarely become durable political subjects through information alone.

Lesbians need rooms where seeing another lesbian becomes ordinary enough that every encounter doesn’t carry the pressure of being an Event for Queer People. We need somewhere to become boring to one another. Boredom means the relationship survived the novelty, and you’ve gotten past the version of her you made up the first time you went home with her to the woman who actually lives her life. The Last Ditch mattered partly because it was a room where that slow accumulation could happen, and losing rooms like that weakens lesbian social life even while thousands of lesbian events keep happening, because events reproduce attendance and institutions reproduce relationships.

A WOMEN’S MOVEMENT CANNOT BE BUILT FROM PEOPLE WHO CANNOT SURVIVE CONFLICT

I want women organized as a class, and that desire means nothing if our idea of organization assumes women only stay together until somebody behaves badly. Women have conflicting interests, because class position, race and sexuality keep structuring our lives even though patriarchy puts us in a shared material relation. Any women’s movement big enough to matter is going to contain serious internal conflict, and no organizational technique is going to make that stop being true.

We need institutions that can process those conflicts without letting every contradiction dissolve the organization holding it. That’s one reason I find fantasies of a perfectly safe political community so limiting. Organizing drags people into relationships where their interests and interpretations collide, so safety has to include ways of dealing with conflict before it becomes domination. That takes rules and institutional memory, so a scene learns from its last disaster instead of improvising justice from scratch every time somebody gets hurt.

The Last Ditch is tiny next to a women’s movement, and the problem is the same. Can people recognize harm without treating that recognition as proof the relationship is over, and can an institution change enough to deserve people coming back? Can the people who got hurt get real influence over what changes without the institution having to die to prove their pain mattered? If we can’t answer that inside one lesbian bar, we’re going to have a spectacular time trying to answer it inside a mass women’s movement.

KEEP THE FUCKING BAR OPEN LONG ENOUGH TO CHANGE IT

I don’t want the ending where everybody keeps her position pure while the Last Ditch disappears. That ending gives you an extremely clean discourse and a materially poorer lesbian world, where everybody won the argument and nobody has anywhere to go on Saturday night.

The national audience will move on, because the internet always finds another local disaster to consume. Conservatives will find some other queers having a human moment to turn into an afternoon of content, and people elsewhere on the left will find another fight to prove their politics on. Western Massachusetts will still be there after the audience leaves. Disabled lesbians will still need accessible social space, and the Last Ditch closing won’t magically build the accessible bar that ought to replace it. The people running the bar will still have to face why patrons who trusted them felt abandoned, and everybody around the bar will still have to answer the money question this whole mess exposed, since accessibility can’t survive forever as an unfunded moral expectation dumped on whichever struggling business happens to still be open.

I want the Last Ditch to take seriously what disabled patrons went through, because keeping an institution means letting the people who depend on it change it. I also want the people who care about accessibility to treat keeping accessible places alive as a material problem that needs resources, because politics gets useless fast when the demands float free of the conditions needed to meet them. Then everybody has to figure out how to share a social world again. They don’t have to love each other or agree about every piece of what happened, because they need enough commitment to lesbian life continuing that a fight can change their relationships without automatically wrecking the infrastructure those relationships grew out of.

A relationship patched up by forgetting just reruns the same fight later, so reconciliation has to fold the fight into the relationship’s history and change the terms it continues on. The Last Ditch could become a better bar precisely because it failed. The disabled patrons who called it out could end up with real say over how accessibility gets kept, and the lesbians around it could come out understanding that institutions need collective investment if we expect them to provide things the market won’t. That would actually produce something, while another cancellation would produce an empty room.

I’m tired of watching the girls lose the rooms, and I’m tired of getting more visible every year while the physical places we could ever build power in keep closing. I want lesbians to have institutions sturdy enough to survive our disagreements and organizations that can accumulate history, because every generation starting over from zero keeps us politically adolescent forever. I want the people who fuck up to face what they did and change enough that coming back becomes possible, when the harm allows for it.

The Last Ditch is one basement bar in Western Massachusetts, and I’m not pretending its survival decides the future of feminism. The fight over it just exposes how much better we’ve gotten at explaining why relationships should end than at explaining how damaged ones can turn into different ones.

Eventually the internet will leave Greenfield alone, while the lesbians will still be there with whatever institutions survived them and the disabled people will still be there with whatever access the community managed to build. They’ll inherit the material consequences of a fight that thousands of strangers watched as entertainment, and I hope they keep the fucking bar open long enough to change it.

I’m getting bottom surgery next week, and if you’ve gotten anything out of my writing over the last few years and have the means to help, I would really appreciate a donation to my Ko-fi.

https://ko-fi.com/bundleofstyyx

Also Also, Dump Your Polycule is now on Amazon

Before you read another word of this article, go check in with organizers who are actively involved with the situation.

The people involved in Philadelphia explain the immediate situation better than I can from outside their organizing community, and I would rather you hear the basic story from people closer to it before I start explaining why I think the story matters far beyond one woman.

I also need to establish something about my evidence before we get into this because the subject of this essay makes evidentiary discipline unusually important. Organizers involved in the situation gave me access to a substantial collection of material about Hannah Gann and later informed me that the document compiling it was intended to circulate privately within trusted organizing networks. I am respecting that request. I will discuss evidence they showed me where it is necessary to understand the story while keeping the document itself private and citing public records wherever those records independently establish what I am describing. There is something almost too stupidly perfect about writing an article concerning the political abuse of trust and then violating the trust of the people who supplied the evidence, so we will be avoiding that particular contribution to the genre.

With that out of the way, what the fuck, because Hannah Gann had been embedded in Philadelphia political and educational organizing for years before any of this became public. The West Philly Participatory Defense Hub says she joined in 2019 after teaching for several years in Rwanda, and its public biography places her in the Racial Justice Organizing Committee as well. Rethinking Schools reports that she joined RJOC after moving to Philadelphia in 2018 and later helped organize Palestine-focused teacher education after traveling through the West Bank with Breaking the Silence in 2023. The teach-in she helped organize became part of the formation of Philly Educators for Palestine, which put her inside an increasingly visible network of educators organizing around Palestine.

The public record also shows something important about how she became legible to people outside those organizations. A 2024 Rethinking Schools article described Gann as having “extended family in Palestine-Israel,” which already placed family proximity to the conflict inside the story being told about her. A September 2024 article from Al-Bustan went considerably further when it introduced her at a Gaza education teach-in as a “Palestinian American teacher.” She spoke there alongside Palestinian writer Susan Abulhawa and other activists while discussing Gaza and education. Whatever private process produced that description, an identity that organizers now dispute had already escaped the intimacy of a political scene and entered public media as fact.

That detail matters because people have already tried to flatten this story into a weird misunderstanding about ancestry, and the public record makes the situation harder to explain that way. The question cannot be limited to whether Gann once used an ambiguous phrase in conversation and somebody else filled in the blanks. She was publicly introduced as Palestinian American while occupying visible roles in Palestine solidarity organizing, and people around her say they had understood her through that identity over an extended period.

The organizers who shared evidence with me describe a confrontation in which Gann was asked directly about this difference. She spoke about telling people that she had ancestors from Palestine, and when she was asked whether she understood that claiming ancestors there was different from calling herself Palestinian, she agreed that it was. She also apologized for the violation of trust. That acknowledgment does not reveal every thought she had across years of organizing, although it makes the simple misunderstanding explanation increasingly difficult to sustain because the distinction at the center of the controversy was intelligible to her.

The family story becomes stranger once we move into material that can be checked publicly. A published obituary identifies Hannah Gann as the granddaughter of Helaine Gann and identifies Helaine’s children as including Hal Gann and Lisa Gann. A 2001 article in J. The Jewish News of Northern California describes Lisa Gann-Perkal as a Baltimore native who had lived in Israel from 1980 to 1999 and was preparing to move back to Jerusalem with her husband and daughters after directing San Francisco’s Israel Center. These public sources establish substantial Israeli family ties without requiring anybody to rely upon rumor or an activist dossier.

The organizers who spoke with me say references to “family in Palestine” were one of the ways people around Gann came to understand her relationship to the struggle. They showed me accounts from people who remember hearing about family suffering there and interpreting those statements through the Palestinian identity they believed she possessed. The resulting contradiction is almost impossible to miss because public records show family relationships to Israelis while people in activist spaces understood stories about family in Palestine through a Palestinian framework.

I am being careful here because a family connection to Israel does not itself prove that somebody cannot also have Palestinian ancestry, just as Israeli citizenship and Palestinian identity are not mutually exclusive categories in every case. Palestinian citizens of Israel exist, family histories cross contemporary borders, and anyone pretending otherwise would be simplifying the region into something that fits better inside an Instagram slide. The relevant evidence is the disputed ancestry itself, the identity people say Gann claimed, and her acknowledgment that she understood the distinction between telling people about ancestors from Palestine and calling herself Palestinian.

The evidence organizers showed me also extends beyond Palestinian identity. They collected first-hand accounts from people who say they understood Gann at different times as Black, mixed-race, Tunisian, or Rwandan. I am deliberately phrasing this as what those people reported because most of those conversations happened privately and I was not standing there with a little reporter’s notebook like the world’s most annoying party guest. What matters for the argument is the pattern they describe, where different audiences appear to have received different accounts of who Gann was.

The Rwanda connection provides a useful example of how a real relationship can become entangled with an identity claim. Gann did in fact teach in rural Rwanda for several years according to her public West Philly Hub biography. Living and working somewhere can obviously shape a person profoundly, although the experience does not transform residence into ancestry. The distinction feels insultingly obvious when stated in the abstract, and the entire reason this story is worth examining is that activist culture has developed habits that can make such distinctions less obvious once identity begins carrying political authority.

One detail organizers emphasized to me made this especially clear because Palestinian organizers involved in the reckoning say some of them knew Gann primarily as an ally while other people in the surrounding movement understood her as Palestinian. They describe a pattern where the Palestinian claim could become more salient in spaces where Palestinian representation was thin. I am keeping the private testimony private because they asked me to, although the political significance of what they described is central to this essay because the identity appears to have done different work in different rooms.

That is when I stopped finding the story interesting merely as an identity fraud scandal and started asking what the identity accomplished.

WHAT WAS THE IDENTITY DOING?

Activist culture has a perfectly serious reason to care about who is speaking because people learn things through the positions they occupy, and a person living inside a social relation can acquire knowledge that remains unavailable to somebody observing it from the outside. Palestinian people can know Palestine through family history and political conditions that an American supporter cannot reproduce by reading more books. A Black woman knows racism through a relationship to racialization that exceeds abstract knowledge about racism. I know transsexual life through a body that has been medically transformed and through institutions that classify me accordingly, which gives me forms of knowledge that somebody theorizing transsexuality from a distance does not possess.

This insight becomes politically important because movements have an extremely long history of allowing outsiders to become authoritative interpreters of people whose lives they do not share. The insistence that people directly affected should speak for themselves developed as a response to that problem, which is why there is nothing irrational about wanting Palestinian people present in organizations concerned with Palestine because their relationship to the struggle matters.

The contradiction enters when authority produced by a material relationship begins attaching itself to the identity that names the relationship. The two can appear identical because the label usually functions as a shorthand for something real. If somebody tells you she is Palestinian, you reasonably assume the word refers to an actual relationship to Palestinian people and history. Political communities cannot conduct genealogy hearings every time somebody introduces herself, and nobody should want them to, although the shorthand becomes vulnerable once political authority starts flowing through it.

A person understood as Palestinian in a Palestine solidarity organization can be interpreted as somebody speaking from inside the population whose condition is being discussed. That affects how other people understand her presence before they have evaluated a single argument, and it can affect who people invite to speak, who becomes a recognizable representative, and who is presumed to possess knowledge generated by lived experience. These effects rarely arrive through a formal rule saying that one identity receives twelve political authority points while another gets six because human relationships are mercifully less like a video game than some online communities would prefer, and instead they arrive socially.

Someone introduces you in a particular way, another organizer assumes that description is accurate, and eventually the identity becomes embedded in the network of relationships surrounding you. People who trust the organizer who introduced you inherit some of that trust, and you become known through a story that no individual person necessarily created even though everybody participates in maintaining it once they believe it.

This is why I am reluctant to reduce what happened in Philadelphia to the stupidity of one scene because the mechanism is ordinary. Human beings use reputation because social life would become impossible without it, and the political problem begins when reputation and identity combine to create authority that becomes difficult to interrogate without appearing to challenge the very principles the movement is trying to protect.

Imagine a meeting where somebody observes that there are no Palestinians in the room. That concern is politically meaningful because an organization talking about Palestinian liberation should care about Palestinian participation. If another person is understood to be Palestinian, her presence resolves part of the concern because nobody has to announce that she now possesses special powers for the representation itself to change what the organization can say about who is present.

The organizers who shared evidence with me say this kind of dynamic occurred around Gann. Their concern is not limited to somebody getting an ethnicity wrong at a dinner party because they believe the identity affected how she occupied political space. This distinction should matter to anyone serious about understanding what happened because political identity has consequences when organizations use identity to solve questions of representation, which raises the much more interesting question of what somebody gains by moving from solidarity into the identity of the people with whom she claims solidarity.

An Israeli or Jewish American activist can oppose Israeli government policy and support Palestinian liberation without claiming Palestinian identity. That position already exists, and someone can spend her entire political life supporting a struggle that did not originate in her own biography. The commitment may be especially meaningful when it requires confronting people within her own national or familial world, because solidarity depends upon the possibility of acting across differences that do not disappear simply because people have chosen to struggle together.

I do not need somebody else’s suffering incorporated into my autobiography before I am allowed to oppose what is happening to her. The ability to act across difference is one of the foundations of collective politics, while being understood as the subject of the struggle creates another relationship because an ally says through her political activity that she stands beside Palestinians and a person speaking as Palestinian is understood as belonging to the population whose history gives the movement its reason to exist. The distinction affects the standpoint listeners assume she possesses even when the words coming out of her mouth remain identical.

The identity therefore carries political value because the material position carries political meaning, which is where activist culture develops a contradiction that people tend to misunderstand whenever I discuss it. Marginalized identities can possess symbolic authority inside a political scene while the people who actually occupy those identities remain materially disadvantaged in the society around them, and those two facts coexist because the symbolic authority emerges from recognition of the material disadvantage.

The Palestinian activist is listened to differently because Palestine continues to matter materially. The Black woman may receive particular authority on racism because anti-Black racism continues structuring people’s lives, while transsexual women can possess knowledge about transmisogyny because the social relation producing that knowledge has not disappeared. The material disadvantage therefore has to remain for the activist benefit to exist, and that sentence is the key to understanding why the idea that oppression can become “political currency” does not mean oppressed people have secretly become privileged.

Their continuing disadvantage produces the symbolic value. If the social relation disappeared completely, the standpoint generated through living inside it would no longer mean the same thing, which creates an ugly possibility when somebody falsely claims the identity because the people materially occupying the oppressed position continue paying the cost while someone recognized as belonging to the population can potentially receive some of the symbolic authority generated by recognition of that cost.

The Palestinian person carries the history that makes Palestinian testimony politically significant, while somebody falsely understood as Palestinian needs other people to believe she carries that history. The exploit appears when the material injury stays with one population while recognition of the injury becomes portable.

This also explains why someone can receive an advantage from an oppressed identity without wanting the oppression itself. She does not have to desire displacement, racism, or misogyny because she needs access to an environment where other people respond to those conditions by giving greater weight to the people understood to have experienced them.

Most people never exploit that relationship through outright fabrication because most people can maintain solidarity without turning another population’s history into a costume. Political systems still have to be judged partly by what happens when somebody behaves badly because a structure that functions only when everyone is honest is less a political structure than a prayer.

This is why I care about consequences more than the private motives inside Gann’s head. Motive may eventually become clearer through her own account, although the social effect can already be studied. If people understood her as Palestinian while she occupied visible roles in Palestine organizing, then the identity shaped her political position whether she woke up every morning consciously calculating that benefit or gradually allowed a story around her to become something she no longer corrected, and while that distinction matters for individual culpability, the structural problem survives either version.

Once activist culture links identity to political authority, identity becomes something worth possessing socially. People can become closer to the center of an issue by being understood as closer to the suffering that produced the issue, and the result is a politics where biographies begin performing work that should belong to arguments and organizations.

This is how oppression starts becoming résumé material, and the phrase sounds cruel because suffering remains materially horrible, which is exactly why the résumé can carry weight. A person says she comes from the population affected, and everyone around her reasonably understands that statement as evidence of a relationship to the conditions under discussion. The résumé only works because the conditions remain serious enough for the claim to matter, while the person falsely claiming the identity can stop performing eventually even though the person whose life actually occupies the relation does not receive that option.

This asymmetry is why I reject every attempt to interpret my argument as hostility toward standpoint because standpoint is precisely what makes the fraud politically meaningful. If Palestinian experience offered no knowledge produced by Palestinian material conditions, falsely claiming to possess the experience would achieve very little. The deception works because everybody agrees at some level that the difference between outsider and subject matters, and the failure occurs when the label replaces the relationship.

THE STORY LEAVES PHILADELPHIA BEFORE THE PERSON DOES

The way this happened also matters because we no longer live in political cultures confined to meetings, marches, unions, or physical organizations. The identity through which somebody becomes known can travel much farther than the person carrying it, which is where the Hannah Gann story begins colliding with something I have been thinking about for a while and which I am going to call e-activism.

I mean something more specific than posting about politics online because e-activism describes the political world that emerges when writers, theorists, organizers, educators, commentators, and people cursed with the word “influencer” develop audiences beyond the communities where they physically live. Their work can become part of political education somewhere they have never organized because social media allows the product of political thought to travel independently of the relationships that produced it.

I realized how weird my own place inside this had become when I saw a girl on Bluesky refer to me as “Comrade Knight.” She lives in Peru, and I laughed because apparently the dictatorship of the proletariat now arrives through push notification, although the interaction stayed with me after the joke wore off because I am an American woman sitting behind a screen and I have never participated in her local organizations. I know dramatically less about the conditions around her than she does, yet somehow my work had crossed enough distance for “Comrade Knight” to make sense as a way of addressing me.

My body never crossed the border while my politics did, which is e-activism in miniature because someone can encounter a political writer thousands of miles away without sharing the institutions that once gave political authority boundaries. She can read essays, watch videos, screenshot posts, translate concepts, send them into a group chat, or incorporate them into conversations among people the writer will never know exist. The writer can therefore become culturally present inside a political environment while remaining materially absent from the conditions that environment is trying to change.

This does not automatically turn every person with followers into an organizer because organization involves durable relationships and forms of accountability that an audience does not create by itself. The relationship still produces political effects because ideas used by organizers do not become apolitical merely because their author was somewhere else when they arrived.

Research on social media gives us the broader terrain in which this happens. Pew found that social platforms are significant venues for political information and activism across many countries, with majorities in 20 of the 27 countries it surveyed saying social media had been good for democracy in their societies. The same research found the United States was unusually negative about social media’s domestic democratic effects. Within the United States, Pew has also documented that substantial shares of users encounter political material even on platforms where politics is not their primary reason for logging in.

The American position inside this global circulation deserves particular attention because American media power did not vanish when the internet arrived. Brand Finance’s 2026 Global Soft Power Index still ranks the United States first overall for influence and familiarity, including first place in its Media & Communications pillar, even as American reputation has declined sharply on other measures. I do not treat a corporate soft-power index like scripture, although its results illustrate the broader reality that American cultural production retains extraordinary international reach.

People like me participate in a tiny decentralized layer of that system because we are not Hollywood and we are not CNN, thankfully for everyone involved, although American online political creators benefit from an information environment where American concepts already travel easily. A young theorist with tens of thousands of followers can become recognizable to people in countries she has never visited, especially inside smaller political subcultures where a few recurring accounts can occupy a surprising amount of attention.

This relationship can feel intimate because social media collapses scale. Someone can reply directly to me from another country and receive a response minutes later, which makes the relationship feel closer than television ever did. The intimacy can disguise the fact that political information is moving through an enormous asymmetry because the creator may know almost nothing about the local conditions into which her argument arrives.

The woman in Peru who called me Comrade Knight knows Peru better than I do, and nothing about the size of my audience changes that. If she reads my work and finds an argument useful for understanding something in her own political environment, my lack of local expertise also does not erase the fact that my work influenced her. Both realities have to be held together because the first gives us humility and the second gives us responsibility, especially when our influence can exceed our competence.

This is where online political figures get into trouble because recognition feels suspiciously similar to authority. People start calling you a theorist, asking you to explain events, sending you conflicts from cities you have never visited, and expecting your analysis because your work helped them understand something else. If you are not careful, the ability to speak to an audience begins feeling like evidence that you understand every audience speaking back.

American creators are especially vulnerable to this delusion because our home culture already assumes a bizarre universalism. An American argument becomes “the discourse” much more easily than a dispute from a smaller country becomes universal political common sense. We export categories created from our own racial histories, institutional structures, activist conflicts, and class relations because the platforms carrying them do not attach customs forms explaining where the ideas came from.

E-activism speeds this process up because the content travels faster than contextual correction. A carousel can enter another country in seconds while the material conditions that produced it cannot follow at the same speed, which means people begin learning the political figure through whatever survives the journey and that usually means the identity, the argument, the aesthetic, and the public story surrounding the person. The social relationships capable of correcting misunderstandings stay home.

This is why online political identity becomes so powerful because identity compresses history into something portable. A profile can tell an audience that somebody is Palestinian in one line while the audience cannot download her family relationships, citizenship history, community recognition, and the concrete conditions that make the category meaningful with the same efficiency. The identity therefore arrives before the evidence underneath it because the identity was designed socially to summarize the evidence.

The same happens with every politically significant identity. Someone can become known internationally as a Black feminist, a working-class theorist, or a transsexual writer through a handful of public signs long before her distant audience could know enough about her life to independently evaluate any of those descriptions. Usually this is fine because most people are approximately who they say they are and human society would become psychotic if every introduction required forensic investigation, although the system becomes interesting when somebody lies because then we discover how much political authority had been resting on recognition.

AMERICAN SOFT POWER CAN CROSS AN OCEAN AND STILL TRIP OVER PHILADELPHIA

This is where e-activism connects back to Hannah Gann because I think American political media has developed a deeply funny contradiction in which our cultural power can influence political narratives almost anywhere on Earth while our activist communities remain capable of profound confusion in our own backyard.

American discourse about identity travels constantly because concepts developed through American academic and activist struggles become common language for people who have never experienced the specific American histories that produced them. Arguments about positionality, lived experience, privilege, representation, and decolonization move through social media until people thousands of miles away are using them to interpret their own conflicts.

Sometimes this translation is productive because ideas can travel and become something new through contact with other conditions, while sometimes it creates absurdities because a framework built around the American racial order lands somewhere with a different history and everyone pretends the categories survived the flight unchanged. Either way, American political culture has influence.

Then Philadelphia happens, and here we have an activist environment fluent in the political importance of standpoint, deeply invested in Palestinian solidarity, and sophisticated enough to organize educational programming around colonialism and racial politics. Within that environment, organizers say a person could spend years being understood through a Palestinian identity they now dispute while public media could introduce her as Palestinian American.

The contradiction is almost offensively neat because we became capable of exporting elaborate theories about social location around the planet while remaining vulnerable to confusion about the social location of someone standing in the room.

E-activism did not create every part of this problem because people lied about identities long before anyone had Wi-Fi. It changed the environment in which identity operates by teaching political communities to encounter people through portable representations.

The profile trained us, the bio trained us, and the personal essay trained us until eventually those habits returned to physical organizing and people began entering movements already carrying a public image assembled across platforms. Someone has followers, affiliations, old photographs, a reputation, and a biography other people have repeated enough times that the story becomes the social person encountered before anybody knows her privately.

This is why the boundary between “online politics” and “real organizing” has become increasingly useless because a person can build online credibility and carry it into a physical organization while someone else can build organizational credibility and convert it into an online audience. Each form of recognition certifies the other until nobody remembers which one came first.

Hannah Gann had the second route available to her because she had real organizing history. Public sources establish that history independently of the disputed identity because she worked with Philadelphia organizations for years and participated in visible Palestine-related education work.

That real history matters because the story would be easier if everything about her were fabricated. We could dismiss her as a random grifter who wandered into a movement, invented an entire personality, and left once somebody caught her. The evidence points toward something more uncomfortable because people say she actually worked, organized, taught, built relationships, and participated in campaigns while the identity claims around her became increasingly consequential.

Humans hate cases like this because we prefer moral stories where the good acts were fake once the bad act appears, although reality is rarely generous enough to simplify itself that way. Someone can contribute real labor while lying, care sincerely about a cause while seeking authority inside it, and have genuine relationships while allowing those relationships to rest partly upon deception. The contradiction does not disappear because we choose one side of the person and declare the other side unreal.

That is why the political response has to exceed personal condemnation. Calling her a terrible person may feel satisfying, although it explains almost nothing about why the deception functioned because the scene did not create the lie even if the scene created the political conditions under which the lie could matter.

WHEN THE SCREEN TRAINS THE ROOM

The more I thought about this story, the more I realized that Philadelphia exposes a shift in how communities themselves operate because we still talk about “community” as though it were a place where people know one another directly. That image makes sense historically because communities were often bounded by neighborhood, workplace, church, school, or organization, and you knew somebody because you had seen her repeatedly inside a shared institution.

Online political culture stretches that relationship until direct knowledge and mediated recognition become tangled together because you can know somebody’s politics before you know her, know her identity before you know how she treats anybody, and know every controversy surrounding her before you have ever sat across from her at dinner. Then you enter the same physical organization and arrive carrying information supplied by the digital version of that person.

The screen trains the room, and that line is central to how I understand Gann’s case because physical proximity did not protect the Philadelphia organizers from the problems created by mediated recognition. People can stand beside somebody every week while still understanding her through a social story distributed across other relationships.

This happens because community itself runs on inherited trust and nobody independently verifies every person entering an organization. A friend introduces you, somebody else says she has known you for years, and your repeated participation creates familiarity, which gradually becomes reputation because human beings need shortcuts to maintain social life.

The process becomes circular once social embeddedness starts functioning as evidence because people trust somebody partly because trusted people know her, while those trusted people keep trusting her because she has been around long enough to appear trustworthy. Eventually the age of the relationship becomes part of the evidence protecting the relationship from scrutiny.

This is the mechanism behind a great deal of what I call faith in community, and it is why I keep returning to the phrase no faith in community even though people become furious every time they hear it. I am describing community as something with enormous material value precisely because people rely upon one another, and communities feed people, provide housing, drive somebody to surgery, teach political skills, raise money when someone’s life collapses, and maintain forms of care institutions routinely fail to provide.

That practical power also means communities distribute resources and trust, and anything capable of helping you can become capable of harming you when its internal relationships go unquestioned. I want trust without sanctification because trust can change when evidence changes, while faith becomes dangerous politically when uncertainty itself feels like betrayal. A community capable of acknowledging that someone beloved has deceived people is stronger than a community that protects its self-image by refusing to revise anything it once believed.

The people who trusted Gann are not culpable merely because they believed someone with whom they organized. A political culture built around blaming people for having been deceived would destroy the possibility of trust altogether, which is why the useful question concerns what happens next and whether the community treats the discovery as evidence that one uniquely evil person infiltrated an otherwise flawless system or examines the social mechanisms that allowed a false identity to carry authority.

The first response preserves everyone’s innocence while the second might actually teach us something, which is why I find the idea that “community knows” so dangerous because community knows whatever its members know and members can be wrong together. A social consensus can reproduce a falsehood extremely efficiently once everyone assumes somebody else verified it.

You can watch this happen online every day when an account says something, a larger account reposts it, people assume the larger account checked, and somebody writes an article citing the circulating claim until the article becomes evidence for the thing that originated from the post. Political community can create the same loop offline because a person arrives with enough social certification that questioning the underlying claim begins to feel unnecessary.

Once identity enters the loop, the pressure becomes stronger because scrutiny itself carries political risk. Asking intrusive questions about somebody’s ethnicity can be racist, and demanding that marginalized people produce documentary proof of themselves can reproduce the surveillance movements claim to oppose. Nobody sane wants political organizations turning into amateur border control, which creates a genuine organizational problem because communities need ways to respond to consequential identity claims without normalizing suspicion toward everyone.

The solution cannot be universal verification because the more promising solution is to reduce how much political authority is automatically granted through identity in the first place. If a movement depends less heavily upon identity as a substitute for political judgment, the incentive to counterfeit identity declines with it.

This is where representation and organization diverge because representation asks whether people from the affected population are present while organization asks what powers individuals actually possess and how those powers can be challenged. A representative movement can still have terrible organization because the correct demographics do not automatically create democratic structures.

This matters in the Philly case because a person being understood as Palestinian could help answer the representational question while leaving the organizational question untouched. If everybody believes a Palestinian organizer is present, the organization can feel more legitimate without examining how the person became authoritative or how anyone would contest her if the story changed, and the identity becomes a shortcut for political structure until somebody discovers where the shortcut leads.

MATERIALISM IS RUDE TO BIOGRAPHY

This is where my own theoretical work on invariance enters the story because the Gann controversy gives us a remarkably clean example of why materialism remains useful when identity becomes unstable.

I use invariance to describe a method for identifying a social relation by following what remains operative across changes in the people, language, institutions, and ideological forms surrounding it, which means asking what keeps structuring life even as the way people describe that structure changes.

Race matters because racialization remains materially consequential through employment, housing, geography, institutions, and social classification even while racial categories themselves change historically. Sex matters because bodies remain organized through medicine and reproduction while legal classifications and cultural explanations shift around them, and class survives aesthetic transformation because changing how somebody presents herself does not automatically change her relationship to resources or production.

The same method helps us understand nationality and peoplehood because the category does not float free from history. Palestinian identity has meaning through relationships to Palestinian people and the histories that produced contemporary Palestinian life. Individual Palestinians inhabit those relationships differently because a refugee in Lebanon, a citizen of Israel, and somebody born in the United States will not share one identical experience, although the variation does not dissolve the material relationship because the category still points toward a history larger than private self-description.

Recognition can change without rewriting that history, and that is the brutally simple thing identity politics sometimes loses once recognition becomes the dominant mechanism through which identity is socially managed. Other people can begin treating somebody as Palestinian tomorrow, and their recognition can have real social effects tomorrow, but the recognition cannot travel backward through history and manufacture the relationships everyone assumes the label describes.

This is where a false identity becomes theoretically revealing because the performance can succeed socially while failing materially, meaning the person can become recognized while the underlying relation remains unchanged. That gap is exactly what materialism asks us to examine.

This is also why standpoint theory needs rescuing from the version of itself that has become popular online because standpoint is valuable when social position influences knowledge and the position produces experiences through which people learn things about the world. The identity word does not contain that knowledge like a password.

A Palestinian knows what she knows through the life surrounding the category. Someone can learn an enormous amount about Palestine from outside that position, perhaps even more than a particular Palestinian knows about a specific historical question, because lived experience does not replace study and the two forms of knowledge remain distinct.

Activist culture gets itself into trouble when it turns “this person may know something through experience” into “this identity gives the person epistemic authority.” The shift feels compassionate because it emerged from attempts to stop privileged outsiders from constantly speaking over marginalized people, although it also turns biography into political infrastructure and false biography therefore becomes a form of sabotage.

That is why the Gann story makes the public/private discrepancy so interesting. Rethinking Schools could describe “extended family in Palestine-Israel,” while Al-Bustan could describe a Palestinian American teacher, and organizers could privately hear stronger claims that they now contest. Each layer of representation changes how an audience interprets the person without changing the historical relationship underneath, so the public image accumulates until the image begins producing authority of its own.

E-activism scales the process because the public image can become the only version thousands of people ever encounter, which allows the material person to stay in Philadelphia while the representation can go anywhere.

THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CREATOR HAS TO ADMIT SHE HAS POWER

This is the part where I implicate myself because there is something embarrassingly convenient about criticizing political influencers as though I am writing these essays into a private diary.

I have an audience, people read my work in countries I have never visited, and some of them apparently call me Comrade Knight, which means something regardless of whatever I want to tell myself about being “just a writer.”

The refusal to acknowledge informal power is one of the most annoying habits people develop once they acquire it because someone insists she has no authority because she holds no formal office while tens of thousands of people see her interpretation of an issue before they see anyone else’s. She imagines power only as the ability to issue orders, which conveniently allows her to enjoy influence without accepting responsibility for influence.

E-activism makes this excuse increasingly ridiculous because if your work becomes part of how people interpret politics, you possess a kind of cultural power even when nobody elected you and everyone remains free to unfollow. The power is unstable and it can evaporate through an algorithm change or a scandal, although it still exists while it exists.

American creators need to be especially conscious of this because our work enters countries through an information system already saturated with American media. Brand Finance’s 2026 data ranks the United States first for global influence and Media & Communications while documenting simultaneous declines in American reputation. The contradiction is useful because a country can be disliked and still dominate attention.

Influence does not require admiration because people can organize themselves against American power using concepts learned through American institutions and American social media, which is one of those dialectical jokes history likes telling because apparently reality also enjoys posting.

The responsible conclusion is not that American theorists should shut up whenever somebody abroad reads us because ideas have always traveled and restricting them according to national borders would be both impossible and intellectually pathetic. The responsibility lies in understanding that the distance between influence and knowledge grows as the work travels.

I can write something useful to a woman in Peru without knowing enough to tell Peruvian organizers what their strategic line should be, and those statements coexist comfortably once you stop confusing being read with being in charge.

This distinction becomes even more important when online figures start participating directly in local conflicts abroad because their larger audience can overwhelm people whose understanding of the situation is much deeper. An American account can quote-tweet a dispute from a small political scene and instantly place thousands of outsiders into an argument they learned about thirty seconds ago.

Our cultural reach can therefore become materially consequential for people we barely know, and that is e-activism at its most dangerous because the creator possesses media leverage without organizational accountability. There is no committee capable of recalling her, the people affected may have no relationship through which to correct her, and her audience exists across jurisdictions and communities until we start wondering why political creators begin acting like tiny sovereign states.

The strange thing about Philadelphia is that the same dynamic can occur inside a local movement because people now carry media power into physical organizations. Someone with visibility can become valuable to organizations that need attention, and an organizer can become valuable online because physical movement credentials establish authenticity, so each side converts legitimacy from the other.

This is why Gann’s public political history matters so much because she was already active enough to become the subject of national political attacks before this controversy over her identity emerged. Rethinking Schools documented a billboard campaign targeting her at her school and described the wider conflict around pro-Palestine educators in Philadelphia. Whatever one thinks of her politics, she had become publicly recognizable enough for opponents to invest resources in attacking her.

That kind of conflict can intensify internal trust because outside attack encourages political communities to defend their own people. When someone has been targeted by ideological opponents, scrutiny from inside the movement can feel like assisting the enemy, which does not excuse deception but does explain another reason communities can become reluctant to examine contradictions around prominent members.

External pressure can turn loyalty into a survival mechanism because the person becomes fused with the struggle against the people attacking her, and then any criticism appears to threaten more than the individual. A healthy organization has to resist that fusion because movements eventually destroy themselves when every visible member becomes too symbolically valuable to question and nobody should become identical with the cause.

THE ALLY WAS ALREADY ENOUGH

This brings me back to the part of the story I find almost sad because if the organizers’ account is correct, Gann already had a politically meaningful position available to her without claiming Palestinian identity.

She was a Jewish American woman with Israeli family connections who had become committed to Palestinian solidarity, and that biography contained its own political significance because a person can come from a family with one relationship to a conflict and decide that her own politics will move somewhere else. People break with inherited assumptions constantly and sometimes spend their lives organizing against institutions their families supported.

There is something deeply human in that possibility because politics would otherwise become hereditary and you would inherit your moral position alongside your grandmother’s photographs, while solidarity gives us a way out of that determinism.

An Israeli can support Palestinians while remaining Israeli, a white person can fight racism while remaining white, and someone outside an oppressed population can dedicate herself to the population’s liberation without converting sympathy into membership.

This relationship asks something more difficult than identity because the person has to accept that she will never possess the standpoint of the people she supports while still contributing without becoming the center.

Activist culture sometimes struggles with this because allyship has acquired an almost embarrassing connotation. People imagine “ally” as somebody standing timidly at the edge of the room apologizing for having opinions, which produces an understandable desire to escape the category, although the solution is to develop a stronger theory of solidarity.

Solidarity does not require political passivity because it requires clarity about the relationship. The ally can work, sacrifice, and become strategically important without needing ownership over the injury, and that last distinction matters because one of the worst tendencies inside identity politics has been the transformation of suffering into evidence that somebody deserves to be politically central.

People begin recounting trauma before making arguments because trauma establishes standing, and they learn to explain exactly how an issue affects them personally because personal proximity authorizes intervention until every political discussion starts turning into a competition over who possesses the most legitimate relationship to the wound.

I understand how we arrived here because movements became tired of outsiders dominating every conversation, although the correction became a social hierarchy that sometimes measures political authority through proximity to suffering. Once that happens, the temptation to narrate yourself closer to suffering increases, and while most people simply remain honest because basic decency is more common than the internet makes it appear, the system still rewards the movement toward the center.

Solidarity solves the problem by giving political importance to commitment across difference because you can matter without becoming the person most directly harmed. That is a healthier foundation because it lets us organize people whose lives do not match while still recognizing that those differences produce different forms of knowledge.

REPRESENTATION CANNOT DO ORGANIZATION’S JOB

The other lesson from Philadelphia concerns the political obsession with representation because representation is easy to see. You can look at a photograph and determine who appears to be present, count speakers at a conference, and inspect the identities of leadership, and these practices can reveal real exclusions because organizations often reproduce social hierarchies in who receives public visibility.

The problem begins when representation becomes a substitute for organization because organization asks harder questions about how decisions happen and how authority can be challenged. It asks what members can do when somebody has accumulated too much informal power, how information moves, and what happens when trust breaks down.

Demographic representation cannot answer those questions because a perfectly representative organization can still have terrible political structures, and the Gann case makes the limitation almost painfully obvious. If an organization’s confidence that Palestinians are represented depends heavily upon whether somebody identifies herself as Palestinian, then the system is vulnerable to an inaccurate claim.

This does not mean movements should verify everyone’s identity through intrusive documentation because that would transform organizing into bureaucracy organized around suspicion and would create obvious dangers for undocumented people, queer people, and anyone whose family history does not fit neatly into official records. The more promising solution is to make identity carry less individual authority.

A Palestinian organizer can contribute knowledge created through her standpoint without becoming the embodiment of Palestine, while another Palestinian should be able to disagree with her without the organization holding an emergency tribunal to decide who is more authentically Palestinian. An ally should be able to contribute political analysis without pretending her support gives her Palestinian experience.

Once arguments and structures matter more, identity can return to the useful role of locating people within social relations rather than determining whose conclusions are automatically authoritative. This also makes movements harder to manipulate because deception produces fewer rewards when political authority is distributed through accountable organization.

Somebody can still lie, although the lie has less structural leverage, and that is what serious political design looks like because the goal is not to produce a community containing no bad actors since that community does not exist and never will. The goal is to produce structures capable of surviving them.

WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY CAN ACTUALLY MEAN

The organizers involved in Philadelphia have to decide what happens with Gann inside their own spaces, and I have no interest in using my audience to dictate the outcome of a process whose direct consequences I do not bear.

They have every reason to be angry because people who believe somebody misrepresented herself to them have to reconstruct years of relationships through new information. Palestinian organizers in particular may reasonably experience the deception as appropriation of a political position rooted in their own history, and the people directly affected also know details I do not know even after receiving more evidence than most people discussing this online.

That matters under the same theory of standpoint I have spent this entire essay defending because I am an outside writer analyzing the political mechanism rather than a member of their organization, and those positions should remain distinguishable.

I still think this situation poses an important question for anyone committed to restorative justice because our politics tends to oscillate between impunity and permanent exile. Somebody does something serious, and everyone begins arguing about whether she deserves forgiveness before anyone has established what repair would even require.

Accountability begins with truth because the people harmed need an accurate account of what happened before they can decide whether a relationship can continue, and restoration is never guaranteed even though the possibility matters because a politics that treats every serious wrong as evidence that somebody must disappear forever reproduces the punitive worldview abolitionists have spent years criticizing elsewhere.

At the same time, restorative language becomes meaningless when people use it to pressure communities into restoring access before trust has been rebuilt because people get to establish boundaries and organizations get to decide that someone no longer belongs in a particular space. The existence of a path toward human change does not create an entitlement to every previous relationship.

This is especially important in a case involving political representation because the repair cannot simply consist of an apology between individuals. If someone acquired political standing through a false identity claim, the organization has to examine what opportunities or trust followed from that claim and whether other people were displaced as a result.

That process turns the scandal back toward structure because it requires asking who became visible, who remained invisible, how the group knew who represented whom, and what informal reputation allowed somebody to do. Those questions are useful even if every allegation ultimately receives a detailed factual resolution because the organizational weaknesses exist independently of one person’s guilt.

A movement that responds to scandal by identifying a villain and changing nothing has simply performed moral hygiene because everyone washes their hands while the plumbing remains broken.

WHY I STILL HAVE NO FAITH IN COMMUNITY

This case will probably make people more suspicious of activist spaces for a while, and some of that suspicion will be directed unfairly at people who had nothing to do with what happened. Anti-Zionist Jewish activists have already expressed concern publicly that the controversy could produce broader distrust toward them, which illustrates why individual deception can damage an entire political category because people rarely keep their distrust perfectly contained.

Someone lies while occupying one social role, and observers begin wondering whether others occupying nearby roles can be trusted, which is another reason the deception matters beyond the individual because the cost of exposure can fall partly upon people who never participated in it.

The community then faces a temptation to suppress scandal in order to protect the larger cause, and that temptation is understandable even though it is destructive because a movement capable of admitting its own failures becomes more credible precisely because people eventually discover the failures anyway.

My lack of faith in community comes from wanting communities sturdy enough to survive truth. I do not want a political life where everyone constantly scans each other for hidden betrayal because paranoia eventually consumes its host, and I want people to trust each other while remembering that trust is a relationship rather than a metaphysical property someone possesses.

You can trust somebody for ten years, and the ten years explain the strength of the trust without converting the person into someone incapable of deception. This is one of those statements that sounds obvious everywhere except inside a crisis because human beings constantly confuse the history of a relationship with proof of its future.

Community becomes dangerous when belonging itself begins functioning as moral evidence because statements like “she is one of us,” “she has done the work,” and “she knows the right people” can all be true while another consequential statement is false. Political maturity requires tolerating that contradiction.

The alternative is a community that protects itself by rewriting people as saints while they belong and monsters once they leave, and I have lived around enough high-conflict political culture to know how quickly this happens. Yesterday somebody’s flaws were harmless quirks because she was inside the circle, while tomorrow every memory becomes retroactive evidence that she had always been evil.

That way of thinking saves everyone from confronting the much harder possibility that people can do genuine good while causing genuine harm, and a materialist politics should be better than that because materialism asks what someone actually did and what relations those actions produced without requiring a pure soul behind the action.

THEY MADE TRANSRACIAL REAL?

Which finally brings me back to the stupid title because asking whether they made transracial real exposes something precisely because the answer remains no. Social recognition can change dramatically without changing the history that gave a racial or national identity its material meaning, while that recognition can still change how others treat a person and the treatment can still produce access and authority without rewriting ancestry or historical relation.

The performance succeeds at the level of recognition while the material relationship remains stubborn, which is what the case forces us to confront because activist culture increasingly behaves as though recognition and relation can be collapsed into each other.

Usually the shortcut works well enough because the person saying “I am Palestinian” actually has the relationship the statement implies, although the rare failure teaches us how much infrastructure was hidden inside the assumption. People trusted the word because the word referred to something they believed mattered, and the deception mattered because Palestine mattered.

That is why the material disadvantage remains central to the entire story because Palestinians continue carrying the conditions that make Palestinian standpoint politically meaningful while a false claimant can potentially acquire some of the recognition generated around those conditions. The symbolic authority can move even while the material burden stays where it was.

E-activism expands the distance because recognition can now travel farther than any social relationship capable of verifying it. Someone in Peru can know me as Comrade Knight while my knowledge of her local world remains almost nonexistent, and someone in another country can encounter an American political figure entirely through the identity and theories attached to her public image.

An activist in Philadelphia can also become known through a political identity repeated across organizations and media until the identity begins preceding the person into the room, which means the same mechanism operates at different scales because the internet allows political representation to outrun material relationship.

American soft power gives some of us unusually long legs, and then we return home and discover that the distance between representation and reality can exist five feet away. That is the part of this story I want people to remember after the gossip dies.

The lesson cannot be that identity is meaningless because the entire scandal proves the opposite by showing that identity carried enough meaning to create consequences. The lesson cannot be that standpoint is useless because the alleged deception mattered precisely because people thought a real standpoint stood behind the identity, and the lesson cannot be that community is pointless because betrayal only carries this kind of force where trust had become meaningful.

The story reveals that each of these things has a limit because identity can locate someone socially without replacing political analysis, standpoint can produce knowledge without creating infallibility, community can produce trust without becoming proof, representation can correct exclusion without becoming the entire structure of a movement, and e-activism can spread ideas across borders without granting an American theorist authority over everyone who reads her.

Holding those limits together requires a politics more mature than the one social media rewards because platforms prefer people to become complete symbols. You are the Palestinian voice, the Black feminist, the transsexual theorist, the abolitionist educator, or whatever combination can fit beneath your profile picture.

Real people are less convenient because we have contradictory histories, occupy relationships that cannot always be explained through a clean identity sentence, and should not have to turn ourselves into avatars of an entire population in order to become politically useful. That demand creates pressure to make biographies politically legible in ways that eventually invite performance.

The healthier political relationship begins when somebody can tell the truth about where she stands and still be useful. The Israeli with Palestinian comrades should be able to remain Israeli, the white antiracist should be able to remain white, and I should be able to write something that matters to a woman in Peru without pretending her recognition transforms me into an expert on Peru.

Difference does not have to disappear before solidarity begins, and that might be the most important thing Hannah Gann’s story exposes because according to the organizers who confronted her, there was already a place for her in the movement. She did not need Palestinian identity to care about Palestinians, did not need another racial identity to work beside Black organizers, and did not need to transform political commitment into biography because she could have stood where she actually stood and organized from there.

Our activist culture needs to make that position politically meaningful enough that people stop feeling like every struggle must become personally theirs before they can belong to it because when oppression becomes something you have to possess in order to speak, somebody will eventually try to possess more of it than belongs to her. When identity becomes political authority, somebody will discover that identity can be performed, and when recognition becomes evidence, somebody will exploit recognition.

None of those possibilities require us to abandon people whose lives generate the knowledge movements need because they require us to build organizations capable of distinguishing a person from the category through which she becomes visible. That distinction also protects marginalized people because nobody should have to represent an entire population every time she opens her mouth.

A Palestinian organizer should be able to be wrong without Palestine becoming wrong, a Black woman should be able to disagree with another Black woman without everyone turning the disagreement into a racial authenticity contest, and a transsexual woman should be able to criticize another transsexual woman without her identity functioning as armor against the argument.

Once identity stops carrying that impossible burden, people can speak from their positions while political judgment remains political, and that is where materialism helps because materialism keeps returning us to the relationships underneath the stories by asking what actually happened, what position somebody occupied, what resources moved, and what remained true after recognition changed.

Those questions do not offer the emotional satisfaction of sorting everyone immediately into good and evil, although they give us something much more useful because they let us understand the mechanism.

The mechanism here is painfully clear because a real history of oppression created a legitimate demand to listen to people living within that history, activist culture converted some of that demand into social authority attached to identity, a political environment built through physical organizing and social media made identity increasingly portable, and community relationships allowed recognition to become stable because people trusted one another until organizers discovered that the identity through which someone had become legible did not correspond to the material relationship they believed it described.

Recognition moved while reality did not, and that distance between the two is where this entire story happened.

It is also where more of twenty-first-century politics is going to happen because e-activism is only becoming more important. Political writers will keep reaching audiences outside our countries, organizers will keep entering physical movements with reputations constructed online, and identities will keep moving through platforms faster than the histories underneath them.

We can pretend that world is still “just posting” until somebody’s post becomes a political education program on the other side of the planet, pretend activist communities know themselves perfectly until the next trusted person turns out to have been living inside a story nobody checked, or pretend identity automatically carries the knowledge associated with its material position until somebody demonstrates how easily recognition can be detached from relation.

The better response is to accept that political culture has changed and start building theory adequate to the change, which is why I am calling this e-activism rather than dismissing it as internet drama. The internet has become one of the places where political subjects are produced for other people because it creates reputations, distributes theory, and exports American cultural assumptions far beyond the United States before those products come home and reorganize the way people understand one another inside movements.

The screen trained the room, and the room now has to learn how to think again without throwing away everything worth preserving about solidarity, standpoint, or community.

I still believe people can know things through oppression that outsiders do not know, that those people deserve space to speak, and that communities can save lives, although I also believe every one of those truths becomes dangerous when transformed into an absolute because human beings will eventually discover the leverage hidden inside anything treated as sacred.

So keep standpoint, identity, community, and solidarity across borders while keeping your fucking brain on as you do it, because Hannah Gann’s story matters because somebody appears to have spent years living inside the space between recognition and material reality while the political culture around her gave that space consequences.

The rest of us would be stupid to waste the scandal by learning only her name.

If you value the essays, theory, research, and free educational work I put out, you can support me directly through Ko-fi. My Bottom Surgeey is a week from today and I would deeply appreciate it

Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/bundleofstyyx

I read 4transfeminism when it came out, and after reading ’s response, A Peek Behind the Curtain, I think the argument between them becomes more useful once you stop treating it as a referendum on whether 4tran is politically good or bad. Terror is trying to explain what 4tran does politically. She sees a culture organized around passing, racialized beauty standards, hostility toward some trans people, and the desire to become socially indistinguishable from cis people, and she argues that these tendencies import reactionary assumptions into transfeminism. June responds from inside the culture and argues that Terror has turned jokes, coping mechanisms, resentments, and shared language into a coherent ideology that does not really exist in that form.

I think June is right more often than Terror probably wants her to be, especially when the subject is passing. Terror understands the obsession with passing largely through assimilation and argues that the culture surrounding it can become hostile toward women who remain visibly trans. That hostility is real, and anyone who has spent enough time around trans women has watched passing become a status hierarchy. June still catches something Terror flattens when she points out that many transsexual women want to pass because being perceived differently changes the conditions of their lives.

Passing is constantly discussed as though we need to settle its moral meaning before describing its social function. I find that approach increasingly useless because the effects exist regardless of how anyone feels about them. A passing transsexual woman can enter a social situation and be classified as a woman without also being classified as trans, and that classification can alter how she is treated. If her history becomes known, the interaction can change again. Passing therefore gives us a clear way to observe how classification produces consequences.

That question sits close to the center of my own work. Bodies matter because people interpret them, medical transition matters because bodies can be altered through institutions that control access to those alterations, and passing matters because social interpretation shapes the field of possible treatment. We can study those changes directly instead of treating privilege as something metaphysical that transfers between identities.

This is one reason I developed invariance as a method. If we want to understand sex politically, we can follow the relation while its material elements change. A transsexual woman can alter her endocrine profile, secondary sex characteristics, documents, anatomy, appearance, and social recognition across one lifetime, and each change gives us another point from which to observe what institutions respond to and which relations remain operative. Transsexuality is theoretically useful because sexed embodiment and sexed classification are changing in front of us, which allows us to study the machinery while it moves.

June approaches the same problem when she discusses medical transition. Mainstream trans politics became comfortable with identity because identity can be recognized without redistributing very much. Medical transition immediately forces the conversation into questions of production, access, medicine, cost, law, and bodily autonomy because someone has to manufacture the drug, control its distribution, determine whether it requires a prescription, decide which procedures are covered, and determine who qualifies for care.

This is where trans politics becomes materially serious because recognition alone cannot meet those needs. Calling someone a woman does not produce estrogen or pay for surgery, and affirmation does not answer what happens when institutions deny someone the resources required to alter her body.

June’s discussion of DIY matters for the same reason. 4tran communities have spent years circulating practical information about hormones and transition among people who often arrived in those spaces after formal medicine failed them. That history complicates the idea that the culture can be understood primarily as reactionary contamination entering transfeminism from 4chan. A space can materially assist people while also developing norms that make those same people miserable, and understanding that contradiction makes 4tran much easier to explain without romanticizing it.

The disagreement over socialization exposes another weakness in June’s response. She argues that if socialization produced gender, trans people should simply become the gender society attempted to raise them into. I think this gives socialization more power than feminist theory actually requires it to have. Socialization describes the ways people are acted upon according to the sex other people believe them to be, and the subject can comply with those expectations, resist them, or experience them as alien without erasing the fact that the expectations were imposed.

Transsexual lives complicate this process because the social position itself can change. A trans woman may spend childhood being interpreted one way and later move through the world under a different sexed classification, which means the expectations directed at her can also change. Some earlier conditioning can remain, some can lose relevance, and some may never have taken hold in the way outsiders assumed. Invariance gives us a cleaner method because we can follow what institutions believed the person to be, what treatment followed from that belief, how she responded, what transition changed, and which effects remained.

The racial disagreement between Terror and June is less developed. Terror points toward 4chan’s history of racism and the circulation of racial stereotypes through 4tran culture, while June emphasizes the number of nonwhite users in these spaces and argues that 4tran sometimes discusses the racial character of passing more directly than mainstream trans spaces do. The demographic defense does little for me because a racially diverse community can reproduce anti-Blackness perfectly well.

June becomes more interesting when she turns to racialized passing because femininity has never operated through a raceless standard. Black women have been masculinized through racial ideology for centuries, which means a Black transsexual woman enters transition inside a culture where the standards used to judge femininity were already racialized. Acknowledging that condition is useful, although recognition alone does not explain why the standard exists or why it continues to shape how women are read.

This is one of the places where 4tran regularly reaches toward materialism without having the theory necessary to finish the thought. The culture notices that race changes how femininity is interpreted and can turn that observation into a prediction about individual fate. A feminist analysis has to move further by explaining the historical relations that produced the standard and the institutions that continue reproducing it.

The disagreement over trans men raises the same methodological problem. Terror wants transfeminism to remain capable of describing harms experienced across the trans community, while June is skeptical of frameworks that derive a distinct oppression directly from every identity category. The useful question is what produced the harm. If an institution regulates a trans man through reproductive capacity, for instance, feminism already has tools for studying that relation, while his position as a man can still change how the harm is experienced. Theory becomes more precise when it explains the mechanism instead of assuming the identity of the injured person can explain the mechanism by itself.

Contemporary politics has become extremely good at generating precise names for injured populations while becoming less confident about describing the systems producing the injury. I want the machinery back because political theory loses explanatory power when every analysis stops at identity.

Terror’s argument that 4chan culture should be excised from transfeminism is not convincing to me. People can be removed from communities far more easily than the conditions that produced them can be removed from their lives. If young transsexual women continue gathering in anonymous spaces because those are the places where people will discuss dysphoria, surgery, passing, beauty, medical access, and failed transitions without immediately retreating into affirmation, then condemning the language of those spaces leaves the underlying demand untouched.

I have been writing about this problem through cancellation and community for months because exile is routinely mistaken for resolution. A contradiction can be pushed outside the respectable boundary of a community while remaining fully alive, and once that happens it develops its own culture around the people willing to speak about it.

This is where the exchange becomes useful to our own canon because I think 4tran contains the seeds of a materialist politics. Its users have already discovered through experience that bodies matter, money matters, hormones matter, passing changes social treatment, racialized beauty standards shape femininity, and affirmation cannot substitute for material access to transition.

The problem is that those seeds have very little theoretical ground in which to grow.

There is no developed account of class capable of explaining unequal access to transition, no serious theory of racial formation capable of explaining why standards of femininity are racialized, and no materialist theory of sex strong enough to explain why changing the body changes social treatment without turning every bodily difference into destiny. The observations are already present, while the framework capable of organizing them remains underdeveloped.

That absence matters because ideas still grow in whatever soil is available. In 4tran they often grow through doomposting, folk biology, passing taxonomies, resentment, and attempts to turn social probability into personal fate. A girl measuring her brow ridge at three in the morning may be misunderstanding the source of her distress, but she has still understood that her body is being judged according to standards with material consequences. The problem begins when the standard itself is treated as natural rather than historically produced.

That is what fascinates me about 4tran. The materialist impulse appears repeatedly because the people inside the culture keep encountering material reality whether their politics are prepared for it or not. They notice that transition changes the body, that embodiment changes social treatment, that medicine is distributed unequally, and that beauty is socially consequential. Without a theory of the relations producing those facts, the observations can harden into fatalism.

This is where I disagree with both essays. Terror looks at what grows from this environment and focuses on the reactionary conclusions, while June sees the experiences underneath those conclusions and wants them taken seriously. I think the more useful project is creating the theoretical ground in which those observations could develop into something better.

Mainstream transfeminism cannot accomplish that by purging 4tran language because the questions that generated the language will remain. A politics that cannot explain why passing changes someone’s life, why access to hormones matters differently from affirmation, why racialized beauty standards affect transition, or why some people experience their bodies as politically urgent will leave those questions available to whoever is willing to answer them.

4tran became one of the places where those abandoned questions went.

Its political importance therefore reaches beyond the memes and slang because it shows transsexual materialism repeatedly resurfacing after liberal trans politics increasingly organized transness through identity. The body never disappeared during that shift. Medical dependency remained. Sexed classification remained. Passing remained. Beauty remained. Race remained. The material world continued producing consequences while political language became less willing to describe them.

Invariant Feminism should take these seeds seriously enough to give them somewhere to grow. We can study the body as a material object whose political meaning is historically produced, examine passing as a change in classification that alters social treatment, and follow hormones, surgery, documentation, race, beauty, and recognition through the same life to observe what changes and what persists.

This gives transsexuality a significance to feminist theory that extends well beyond trans discourse because it allows us to watch sexed embodiment and sexed classification transform in real time. The transsexual subject gives us a vantage point from which to study how medicine alters sexed characteristics, how bureaucracy records sex, how strangers infer it, and how institutions reorganize their treatment of a person as those variables change.

After reading June and Terror together, my claim is that 4tran contains the seeds of materialism and has spent years trying to grow them in ground that cannot sustain them. Its users correctly perceive that transition is material and that social recognition changes the conditions of life, while the culture repeatedly converts historically produced constraints into personal destiny because it lacks an account of the relations producing them.

Terror sees the results and wants to remove the culture that produced them. June sees the experiences underneath and wants them understood. I think feminism has to build the garden in which those observations can develop into a theory of sex, race, class, and social relations capable of explaining transsexual life without turning material constraint into fate.

The girls on 4tran have already found the seeds. The unfinished work is giving them somewhere better to grow.

Before the story: I’m having bottom surgery next week, so if you’ve ever wanted to support my work, any donation to my Ko-fi or giving me a paid sub would be deeply appreciated. There’s absolutely no obligation, but it would help tremendously while I’m recovering.

This is also my first proper fiction story, which is mildly terrifying because apparently writing theory wasn’t enough suffering. I hope you enjoy it.

Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/bundleofstyyx

Instagram: @bundleof.styx

Twitter/X: @bundleofstyx_

Subscribe

Chapter One

The Door That Will Lock For Good

Two years later, Lena could remember almost everything about the last party except leaving it.

She remembered the box fan rattling against the living-room window because somebody had folded an old issue of n+1 underneath one corner. She remembered Isa spilling vodka and Diet Coke into the carpet and immediately blaming the landlord for choosing a color that showed stains. She remembered the shoes piled against the wall by the door, including dirty Converse, black platform boots, little leather Mary Janes, a pair of enormous New Balance sneakers belonging to a girl who had been saying for three years that she'd stop dressing like a male graduate student after FFS, and one pair of cheap silver heels whose owner spent most of the night barefoot because estrogen hadn't changed the fact that heels hurt.

There was a gaff drying over the back of a dining chair. Someone's bra was wedged between the couch cushions. A bag of injection supplies had been abandoned beside the fruit bowl because somebody had done her shot before people arrived and then forgotten to put any of it away. Lena remembered thinking that a sharps container beside a bottle of tequila looked completely normal there.

She remembered the heat. The window unit had surrendered before ten, and by eleven everyone had the damp shine of people pretending they weren't sweating. Simone kept hooking two fingers underneath the collar of her white tank top and pulling it away from her chest to let air inside. Whenever the fabric settled again Lena could see the bars through her nipple piercings, which made it difficult to pay attention whenever Simone was talking directly to her.

She remembered being happy enough to think something stupid.

‘These people are going to know me when I'm thirty.’

She was twenty-three, and the apartment was 1801.

Mara lived there, technically. After a while people stopped saying Mara's apartment and simply said 1801. Someone would text, "You going to 1801?" Somebody else would ask, "Wait, who's even there right now." A girl having a bad night might announce that she was heading to 1801 and wait for the group chat to understand this meant she didn't want to be alone. The number developed a life independent of the lease.

Mara had been one of the first people Lena met after she moved north. Lena arrived in the city with three suitcases, eleven months of estrogen behind her, seven hundred dollars in checking, and the private suspicion that every stranger could identify rural poverty by looking at her shoes.

Cities frightened her initially because there were too many witnesses. Where Lena grew up in eastern North Carolina, privacy came from distance. There were soybean fields behind the Food Lion and drainage ditches along roads that became completely black after ten. The nearest gay bar was an expedition. The nearest endocrinologist willing to prescribe estrogen without behaving as though Lena had arrived carrying an unexploded device was even farther.

For most of adolescence she'd never actually seen another trans woman in person, and the first had been herself.

She was seventeen, sitting in her father's truck in a Walmart parking lot almost an hour from home because she'd calculated that fifty-seven miles was probably enough distance to buy lipstick without recognizing the cashier. The lipstick was called Wine Not, and she remembered hating the name.

She applied it using the little mirror above the windshield. Her hand shook badly enough that the left side came out crooked, and she wiped it away with the sleeve of an old hoodie before starting again. Then she stared at herself.

She didn't look convincing. That was the word she used back then, convincing, before she understood how much violence she'd managed to fit inside one adjective.

Still, something happened to her face. The mouth belonged to a woman before anything else did. She looked ridiculous and beautiful and doomed, though mostly she looked possible.

Then she wiped everything away because possibility still had to be home before dinner.

For years, that was Lena's relationship to wanting. She found something she desired and calculated whether surviving possession of it would cost more than going without, whether it was lipstick, a skirt, her own name, or a woman looking back at her for longer than friendship required.

By the time she met Mara, Lena had become better at taking things, though she hadn't become better at trusting that nobody would punish her afterward.

Mara invited Lena to 1801 after meeting her at a dance night held in the back of a bar where everyone seemed to know who had fucked whom except Lena. She spent most of that first evening standing near the wall drinking a vodka soda too fast and pretending she'd chosen the wall deliberately. Girls kept brushing past her smelling like cigarettes, vanilla perfume and sweat. One of them touched Lena's arm and said, "Okay, your eyeliner is insane, who did that," and Lena spent the next hour turning the compliment over like it might be a diagnosis, because she was still at the stage of transition where praise from other trans women felt clinical. Mara noticed.

A week later Lena stood outside apartment 1801 with her hand raised to knock and briefly considered going home. Mara opened the door before she could. She was barefoot, wearing gray sweatpants and an old sports bra. "You can smoke on the balcony," she said, already walking back toward the kitchen like the tour was over. "There's usually food. If you run out of estrogen, check the butter compartment, somebody's always got a vial hiding in there." Lena laughed and said she'd never heard estrogen offered the way normal people offered sugar. Mara smiled and said, "You'll get used to us," before stepping aside. "Come in."

That was how Mara remained in Lena's memory, standing at the door with one hand against the frame. After that, Lena remembered the apartment more clearly than the woman whose name had been on the lease.

People came through constantly. Girls arrived after laser appointments with aloe shining across their upper lips and immediately asked everyone whether the redness looked horrible. Somebody would appear carrying an estradiol vial because she'd worked herself into a panic about doing her first injection, and six people would begin contradicting one another about whether she should use the thigh or the ass. One girl insisted the stomach was better until everyone shouted her down because she'd spent six months injecting into a place none of them could understand and nobody was letting that go.

A girl would announce she'd switched to progesterone and spend the next month attributing every emotion, dream and cup-size fluctuation to it. "It's the prog" became a full sentence, an explanation for anything from crying at a commercial to forgetting your keys. Another would stop because it was making her insane, then start again three months later insisting this time would be different.

Someone was always asking whether her tits had gotten bigger, holding her phone up next to a photo from six months ago like she was presenting evidence. Every girl at 1801 seemed simultaneously convinced estrogen had done nothing and that one missed shot would reverse her entire transition by morning.

Trans men occupied the balcony and complained about women. Trans women joined them and told them, kindly, that this was a symptom of low ambition.

Someone was always changing her name or going back to an old one. Someone would show up boymoding in a giant hoodie and leave three hours later in eyeliner because another girl had cornered her in the bathroom and said, "Give me your face for one second," and refused to be told no.

There were women six years into transition who could clock a surgeon from the shape of a forehead in one photograph and women six weeks in who'd taken four hundred selfies since Monday. A girl saving for bottom surgery called her account Pussy Fund and put twenty dollars in it every Friday like a tithe. Another swore up and down she didn't want bottom surgery and somehow still knew the dilation schedule for two different techniques.

Someone did porn, someone worked retail, and someone worked remotely and answered Slack messages with a drink in her other hand while everybody around her got progressively louder. Somebody always needed rent, and somebody usually knew somebody who could float fifty dollars.

Girls borrowed dresses and traded hormones when the pharmacy ran short. Somebody would leave a gaff behind and text the group chat three days later, has anyone seen the black thing that compresses my shame. Sometimes two girls disappeared into a bedroom for half an hour and came out insisting, unconvincingly, that they had only been talking. Nobody believed them, and nobody particularly cared.

There were nights when nothing happened, and those were the nights Lena loved best. Six people might sit around complaining about work while somebody did her shot at the kitchen table, wincing before the needle even touched her. Another girl would lie across the couch with her skirt halfway up her thighs because she'd forgotten other people could see her underwear, and nobody would say anything. Someone would peel her wig off because her scalp was screaming, make ramen at midnight, or let another woman lean in under the kitchen light and tweeze the little dark hairs laser had missed beneath her chin.

At home, transness had made Lena feel constantly observable. At 1801, it became boring, and she hadn't known boring could feel so luxurious.

People there knew hormone doses, old names, surgery dates, court dates, whose voice dysphoria got worse when she was tired, which trans guy needed help changing his dressings, which woman had Xanax, and whose mother still mailed Christmas cards addressed to a son who hadn't existed in years. They knew whose tuck came undone when she danced too hard, who liked being called princess during sex, who got weird if somebody looked at her breasts for too long, and whose genitals were a neutral fact or a wound or simply part of how she liked to fuck.

Nobody needed to convert those differences into a theory before going back to whatever they had been doing.

Lena mistook this knowledge for protection. At twenty-three, she still believed intimacy accumulated. If one person knew you deeply, that was love. If thirty people knew you deeply, perhaps that became safety.

The arithmetic felt obvious, and so had plenty of things before they happened to her.

Lena became mildly famous within this little world mostly because she posted too much. She had a few thousand followers. She had a talent for becoming funniest when she was angry, which encouraged her to become angry more often. A clip of Lena arguing with someone during a panel had escaped the room and circulated for several months. After that, strangers occasionally approached her at dance nights and told her they loved her account, or hated it, or both in the same breath.

A girl once met Lena in a bathroom and said, immediately, "Okay, I thought you'd be taller." Lena asked what about her internet presence had suggested height. The girl blinked and had no answer.

Her reputation became larger than anything she'd actually done. People who liked her called her brilliant. People who disliked her called her exhausting. She got invited places partly because she could make a room laugh and partly because there was always the possibility she might start something.

Someone had called her dangerous before, and at the time it sounded sexy. Dangerous meant argumentative. It meant somebody had screenshotted her post and sent it to a private Discord with, this bitch again. It meant girls whispered about Lena and still wanted to make out with her afterward.

Sometimes it seemed to make them want her more. There was a kind of transsexual social capital in being the girl everyone warned everyone else about while continuing to invite her over. Half the room could call you impossible and then ask if you were staying the night.

The word hadn't yet become administrative.

The last party happened in July.

Lena arrived shortly before ten carrying two bottles of orange wine she couldn't afford because she'd recently decided she was the kind of woman who brought orange wine to parties.

Someone shouted her name before she'd even gotten the door all the way open. "Celebrity's here," a second voice called from the kitchen. "Shut the fuck up," Lena said, delighted. Somebody wanted to know, "Why are you late?" Lena said, "I was working," and immediately got a chorus of disbelief. "You don't have a job," Isa yelled from somewhere inside. "I'm literally employed," Lena yelled back. "Nobody's ever once seen the evidence, that's a you problem."

Then somebody kissed her on the cheek, somebody else relieved her of the wine, and a hand grabbed hers and dragged her farther into the apartment. There were already twenty people inside.

Simone sat on the kitchen counter, and Lena saw her and forgot whatever she'd been saying.

Simone wore a black skirt short enough that when she crossed one leg over the other Lena could see the edge of her underwear. Her white tank top had gone slightly translucent with sweat. There was a faint shadow along her jaw because she'd skipped laser that week and apparently decided everyone else could deal with it.

Lena loved that too.

Simone watched her notice. That was her favorite trick.

"You look ridiculous," Lena told her, stopping in front of her. Simone glanced down at herself like she was surprised to find clothes there and asked, "Good ridiculous?" Lena told her, "You know which kind." Simone opened her knees.

Lena stepped between them.

They had been sleeping together intermittently for six months, which meant they occupied the sort of T4T relationship that required a flowchart whenever anybody asked what they were. They were friends who fucked, except sometimes they went on dates. They weren't girlfriends, except Simone had cried once when Lena slept with another woman. They weren't exclusive, except both of them had committed minor acts of espionage through Instagram stories.

Simone had Lena's estrogen schedule memorized but claimed this meant nothing. Lena knew which nights Simone slept without underwear because dysphoria made anything tight around her hips unbearable. They had each seen the other cry naked, which seemed more intimate than sex and substantially more embarrassing.

Simone hooked a finger through Lena's belt loop and pulled her closer. "You're disgusting, you're sweating on me." Lena told her, "You're sweating too." Simone said, "I'm glowing." Lena replied, "You smell like cigarettes." Simone said, "That's also glowing."

Then Simone kissed her.

She always kissed Lena like she'd already been thinking about doing it for an hour. There was no tentative first contact. Simone went straight for Lena's lower lip and pulled her closer until Lena's knees touched the cabinet beneath the counter.

Lena still held one bottle of wine awkwardly against Simone's hip.

Somebody behind them complained they were blocking the freezer. Simone broke the kiss just long enough to announce that nobody in this apartment respected lesbian intimacy anymore. The girl said neither of them had respected lesbian intimacy for as long as she'd known them, actually, and could she please get to the ice.

Lena laughed into Simone's mouth. Their teeth bumped, and somehow that made Lena want her more.

She put one hand against Simone's bare thigh. Simone shifted closer and hooked one leg loosely around Lena's hip, enough that Lena could feel the heat of her through both their clothes.

For perhaps ten seconds Lena forgot there was anybody else in the kitchen.

Then the refrigerator door hit her ass. "Jesus Christ," Lena said, and the girl told her to move, then. "You're animals," Lena told her. The girl said, "You're the one dry-humping in front of the ice." Lena replied, "It's my constitutional right." Simone murmured against her mouth, "I don't think the Constitution covers this." Lena told her, "I've never read it." Simone said, "I know. You can't even read your medication instructions." Lena reminded her, "You overdosed your estrogen for six months." Simone said, "My tits looked incredible." Lena admitted, "They did."

Simone smiled.

That smile was the problem.

Two years later, Lena would remember the small chip in Simone's front tooth, the way one side of her mouth lifted before the other, and the way she looked at Lena when she knew she'd won. She would remember loving that face.

At twenty-three, she thought loving a face meant you'd continue to know it.

Chapter Two

The Last Party

By eleven, nobody was arriving anymore and nobody wanted to leave.

Someone sat cross-legged beside the coffee table rolling joints with the concentration of a surgeon. Eli arrived carrying beer and got immediate complaints about the brand. A girl was redoing her eyeliner using her phone camera because she'd convinced herself one wing made her forehead look masculine. "It doesn't," three women told her in the exact same tone, and she erased it anyway.

Someone's estrogen alarm went off from beneath a couch cushion and three people checked their phones at once. A girl in a tiny skirt had peeled off her shapewear and stuffed it into her purse. "I'd rather get clocked than suffocate," she announced to no one in particular. Another woman was on the kitchen counter explaining to a trans guy why she'd widened her Grindr age range again. Someone shouted that nobody wanted to hear this, and everybody kept listening anyway.

Lena drank too quickly. She had always been more careful when miserable. Happiness made her irresponsible.

At some point she ended up on the carpet beside Jules, who had been on estrogen for three weeks and had already developed the familiar early-transition conviction that every twenty-four hours should contain observable morphological change.

"My nipples hurt like hell," Jules told her. Lena said, "Congratulations." Jules insisted, "I'm serious." Lena replied, "No, genuinely, congratulations." Jules asked, "When does it stop?" Lena said, "I don't remember," which was true and unhelpful.

Jules pulled out her phone and held up two selfies taken nine days apart. "Does my face look different." Lena studied them and said, "Maybe a little." Jules told her, "You're lying." Lena said, "I've been on estrogen for twenty-one days, Jules, I'm not an expert." Jules corrected her, "Twenty-three." Lena said, "Forgive me, elder."

Jules rolled her eyes and shoved her shoulder, then went back to staring at the photograph like it might rearrange itself if she looked hard enough.

Lena recognized the expression.

"Do you think my face is actually going to change," Jules asked. Lena said, "Yes." Jules asked, "How much?" Lena told her, "I don't know. Enough." Jules asked, "What does enough mean?" Lena said, "It means stop staring at yourself." Jules told her, "That's not an answer." Lena replied, "No answer's gonna make you stop checking."

Jules went quiet. Then, without looking up, she asked, "Do you think I'm going to be pretty?"

Lena looked at her.

For a moment she was seventeen again with Wine Not trembling around her mouth. She knew what Jules was asking because every transsexual woman eventually learned the language beneath the language.

‘Tell me there's a future body waiting for me that I'll be able to live inside.’

"You're already pretty," Lena said. Jules told her, "That's bullshit." Lena said, "Fine. You're gonna get hotter." Jules said, "Promise." Lena replied, "I can't legally guarantee estrogen results, Jules." Jules said, "Bitch," and held out her pinky anyway.

Lena hooked hers around it and promised.

Two years later Jules was beautiful. Her hair reached past her shoulders, her cheeks had changed, and she'd become very good at eyeliner.

They didn't speak.

Lena never found out whether Jules had independently decided she was dangerous or merely learned that Lena belonged to the category of women one should be careful around. For months afterward Lena wondered whether Jules remembered the promise.

She hoped she did, and she hoped she'd forgotten.

Both hopes hurt for different reasons.

Around midnight Lena went onto the balcony with Eli.

He wore a white tank top and jeans, and testosterone had been offensively generous to his shoulders. Lena stole his cigarette even though she had her own pack.

"You have your own," he pointed out. Lena said, "Yours tastes better." Eli replied, "That's not how cigarettes work." Lena told him, "It's not how testosterone making you hotter than me works either, but here we are." Eli asked, "Wait, do you think I'm hotter than you?" Lena said, "I never said that." Eli told her, "You absolutely just said that." Lena diagnosed, "Male pattern delusion," and Eli laughed and took the cigarette back.

Below them, headlights moved between buildings. From eighteen floors up, the city seemed almost quiet.

"I spent my whole childhood wanting to live somewhere like this," Lena said. Eli asked, "Did that survive contact with Providence rent?" Lena replied, "Barely." Eli asked, "What'd you think cities were gonna be like?" Lena said, "Anonymous." Eli told her, "You're the least anonymous person I know." Lena said, "I know thirty transsexuals and five normal people." Eli replied, "That's everybody." Lena told him, "There's millions of other people, Eli." Eli said, "None you need to meet," and Lena smiled, and then they went quiet.

Two years later she'd interrogate that silence, trying to remember Eli's face and whether somebody had already spoken to him about her.

Memory refused to become evidence.

Eventually Lena would understand that repeatedly cross-examining a memory only taught it how to lie.

Eli looked toward the street. "You know people love you, right?" Lena asked, "What the fuck kind of thing is that to say." Eli told her, "It means people love you." Lena said, "That's ominous." Eli replied, "You make everything ominous." Lena said, "Nobody says that unless they're about to euthanize you." Eli told her, "You're insane." Lena said, "So I've heard," and Eli put an arm around her shoulders, and she rested her head against him, and he kissed the top of her hair.

‘You know people love you, right?’

Two years later, she heard the sentence exclusively in the past tense.

Inside, Simone was lying sideways across the couch with her legs across Carmen's lap and Carmen's hand resting high on her thigh.

Jealousy hit Lena instantly, which was stupid. They weren't exclusive, and everybody Lena knew could explain nonmonogamy, relationship anarchy, compulsory monogamy, lesbian possession and attachment theory while remaining emotionally governed by the Bronze Age.

Lena sat on the arm of the couch. Simone looked up, smiled, and slid her hand underneath the hem of Lena's skirt.

Jealousy disappeared.

‘Theory had apparently reached its jurisdictional limit.’

"You two are disgusting," Carmen told them. Lena said, "You're the one with your hand on her ass." Carmen replied, "That's different, she likes me." Simone said, "I like both of you," unhelpfully, and Lena looked down at her and there was the smile again.

She wanted to bend down and bite it off her face.

Instead she kissed her.

Carmen made a theatrical gagging sound and someone threw a pillow.

For the next few minutes Lena half sat, half lay across the couch with Simone's head against her shoulder and Carmen's legs underneath hers. Simone absentmindedly traced circles against the inside of Lena's thigh while telling somebody, at length, that a specific facial surgeon had started over-filling lips.

"Your skirt's basically at your waist," Carmen informed Lena. "Everyone can see your underwear." Lena said, "Cool." Simone told her, "It's cute, at least." Lena replied, "You've seen this exact pair, Simone." Simone said, "Still cute today," like that settled it.

That was another part of T4T Lena could never explain properly to people outside it.

Eroticism could become completely domestic without becoming less erotic. A hand under your skirt while somebody discussed insurance, a girl kissing the side of your breast and then asking if you had spare syringes, or a girlfriend rubbing moisturizer over the razor burn beneath your jaw and then biting your shoulder hard enough to leave a mark could all belong to the same evening without contradiction.

Lena had spent adolescence imagining trans sexuality as something extreme because the world only showed it to her as pornography or pathology. Then she found women who could grind against her at a party and interrupt themselves to ask whether her injection site had stopped bruising.

The ordinariness moved her more than novelty ever could.

Later, Simone pulled Lena into the bedroom.

Nothing particularly dramatic happened, and that was why Lena remembered it so clearly.

They sat on the edge of the bed kissing while somebody searched for a missing phone outside the door. Simone pushed Lena's shirt upward and kissed underneath her ribs.

Lena's body had changed quickly during the previous year. Her breasts had come in late and then suddenly enough that some old tops stopped fitting. Pale stretch marks ran along her hips and toward the inside of her thighs.

She hated them. Simone liked them.

"These are getting longer," Simone said, tracing one with her thumb. Lena told her, "Don't inspect me." Simone said, "I like them." Lena replied, "They look like I got attacked." Simone said, "That's hot." Lena told her, "You think yeast infections are hot too, apparently." Simone replied, "I never said that." Lena reminded her, "You called me cute while I had one." Simone said, "I called you cute while you were complaining about it. There's a difference." Lena told her, "There was no difference in the moment."

Simone laughed and leaned down and kissed the mark. Lena stopped talking. Simone kissed another one, and Lena put one hand in her hair.

Outside the door, somebody shouted that they'd found the phone. Nobody inside answered.

Simone's mouth moved along Lena's thigh slowly enough that Lena felt heat rise into her face.

"You're blushing," Simone said. Lena told her, "I'm drunk." Simone said, "You blush when you're horny." Lena replied, "Shut up." Simone told her, "I'm right, though."

"Simone," Lena said, and the way she said it changed something.

For a moment the joke left Simone's face. She rested her cheek against Lena's thigh. "You're really pretty, you know that?"

Lena hated being told that when she wanted to believe it.

"Don't." Simone said, "I'm serious." Lena replied, "I know." Simone asked, "Why are you being weird about it." Lena told her, "Because you're looking at me like that." Simone said, "That's generally how looking at someone works," and Lena laughed despite herself.

Simone reached up and took her hand. Something about the gesture was more intimate than anything else they'd been doing.

Neither spoke while the music from the living room came through the wall as a dull pulse.

Simone squeezed her hand.

Lena squeezed back.

‘Please stay exactly like this.’

She hated the thought as soon as she had it.

Wanting permanence was embarrassing.

Neither of them believed in permanence. They had discussed how relationships became property, how lesbians reproduced domestic expectations, and how monogamy could become possession.

None of the analysis had prevented Lena from wanting Simone's toothbrush beside hers.

Eventually somebody knocked because her jacket was underneath the pile on the bed. Simone pulled Lena's shirt down, and they went back to the party.

Nobody asked what they'd been doing.

Around one, alcohol transformed everybody into planners.

Somebody wanted a surgery recovery fund. Another girl wanted a shared spreadsheet of doctors who'd prescribe hormones without requiring patients to perform desperation for them. Carmen wanted a queer housing network. "People need to stop solving interpersonal problems by inventing institutions," Eli said, which Carmen informed him was exactly why men had no political imagination. "You tried to move in with an ex after three dates," he reminded her. Carmen replied, "That's personal, that's outside the scope of this."

Somebody proposed an emergency estrogen stockpile. Someone else pointed out they already had one by accident, since nobody ever threw anything away.

Eventually Isa announced that everybody should just rent a house together.

"That would destroy every relationship in this room," Eli said immediately, and got booed. Lena told him, "You're spiritually forty-eight." Eli said, "I have roommates. That's called evidence." Isa offered, "We'd have chore charts." Eli asked, "Has anyone currently living at 1801 washed a bathroom towel this month," and nobody answered, and the housing collective died there.

Then Lena and Isa decided to go camping.

"I've never been," Isa admitted. Lena asked, "How." Isa said, "I'm from New Jersey." Lena replied, "That explains a lot." Isa said, "Fuck off," mildly. Lena told her, "I'll take you." Isa asked, "Where." Lena said, "Somewhere with no service." Isa replied, "Absolutely not." Lena reminded her, "You already agreed." Isa said, "You're withholding material information." Lena told her, "I can't use Instagram in the woods." Isa replied, "You can't use Instagram without starting a controversy, that's not a woods thing." Lena said, "That has nothing to do with camping." Isa told her, "It has everything to do with your credibility," and Lena laughed.

They spent fifteen minutes planning a trip neither of them would ever take. Isa demanded a real bathroom. Lena refused. "I'll simply die," Isa said. "Fine, I'll bury you somewhere beautiful," Lena told her.

Eventually they hooked pinkies, and Lena remembered Isa's nails, almond-shaped with one rhinestone missing.

They never went.

Three weeks later, Isa began answering messages differently. Paragraphs became hearts, plans became maybe, and eventually Lena noticed she'd disappeared from Isa's private account.

By September she was blocked.

There was no clean beginning to the exile. Nobody called a meeting or issued a decision. People simply made choices until enough choices in the same direction became geography.

At 1801, Lena still believed intimacy multiplied into something larger than itself. If one woman loved you, that was a relationship. If thirty people loved you, surely that became community.

Years later, she understood that thirty relationships remained thirty relationships.

Around two, Lena sat at the kitchen table with Carmen and Simone while Carmen complained about a woman she'd stopped dating. The woman had posted something vague online that Carmen insisted was obviously about her.

"How do you know it's about you," Simone asked, and Carmen looked at her like she'd asked how gravity worked. Lena told Simone, "Nobody in history has ever vague-posted without one specific person in mind." Carmen pointed at her and said, "Exactly."

Simone rolled her eyes, and they laughed.

Lena remembered how casually everybody discussed absent people. Someone was difficult. Someone was unsafe. Somebody had treated her girlfriend horribly. Someone lied, manipulated people, wanted attention, dated the wrong person, or just stopped showing up and became the subject of six competing theories about why.

The information moved through the room with the intimacy of gossip and the authority of collective memory.

Lena participated. She had warned girls about people, removed someone from a guest list because another woman said she'd be uncomfortable, and repeated private stories because she believed somebody else needed to know.

Sometimes she'd protected people, and sometimes she'd probably been unfair.

At twenty-three, Lena believed the distinction would remain visible because everybody involved had good politics.

At twenty-five, she found that belief almost touching.

Marginalization had taught them plenty, but it hadn't removed vanity, jealousy, fear, status, attraction or cowardice from the human nervous system.

Around three, the downstairs neighbor complained about the music and someone turned it down.

The party softened. People spread across furniture and floor. A girl took her wig off and set it over a lamp. Someone used a makeup wipe to get lipstick off another woman's mouth without being asked. A couple who had spent the first half of the night pretending not to be fighting had fallen asleep touching feet.

Simone sat between Lena's knees while Lena braided and unbraided a small section of her hair.

"You coming Thursday?" Simone asked. Lena said, "What's Thursday?" Simone replied, "Are you fucking serious right now." Lena said, "Oh. That." Simone told her, "I've been talking about it for a week." Lena replied, "I talk about a lot of things." Simone said, "So you're coming." Lena answered, "Probably." Simone twisted around to look at her. "No. I want you there."

Lena looked down at her. Simone had that particular irritation she got when she'd accidentally been sincere.

Lena smiled.

"I'll be there." Simone said, "Before one." Lena replied, "Midnight." Simone said, "Eleven-thirty." Lena repeated, "Midnight," and Simone gave up.

Lena went Thursday, and Simone went too.

Nothing happened.

Years later, that became the tragedy.

There was eventually a night when Lena walked into a room and Simone didn't come over, and another when Simone smiled from across a bar and remained beside someone else.

There had to have been a first time, but Lena never discovered which one it was.

Relationships were rude that way. They became history without announcing the date.

At four, someone played a song Lena had listened to constantly before transition.

She started crying.

Nobody had hurt her. She was drunk enough that nostalgia had become physical.

"What happened," Simone asked. Lena said, "Nothing." Simone told her, "You're crying." Lena said, "I know." Simone asked, "Why?" Lena replied, "I hate this song." Simone told her, "You're smiling." Lena wiped her face and said, "I'm drunk, bitch," and Simone laughed and moved beside her, and Lena leaned against her shoulder.

Across the room, Jules slept beneath somebody's denim jacket. Eli was talking quietly on the balcony. Isa sat on the kitchen counter eating cold pizza directly from the box. Carmen had fallen asleep with her head in another girl's lap, and somebody had removed one false eyelash and forgotten the other, so she looked permanently skeptical even while unconscious.

Lena looked around, then made the mistake of becoming sincere.

"I never had this," she told Simone. Simone glanced around and asked, "A disgusting apartment?" Lena said, "People."

The joke left Simone's face.

Lena immediately wished she could take the sentence back. Where Lena came from, sincerity had usually preceded humiliation.

"Growing up, I thought I'd never meet another girl like me," she said. Simone kissed the side of her head. "You have way too many now." Lena agreed, "Way too many." Simone said, "You're welcome." Lena replied, "You didn't hear me say thank you."

Simone put an arm around her anyway.

Lena watched Jules under the jacket, Isa eating pizza, Eli outside, Carmen asleep, somebody's wig sitting over the lamp, an empty progesterone bottle beside an ashtray, and a packet of makeup wipes next to a bag of syringes.

The apartment was filthy and smelled terrible.

Lena had never seen anything more beautiful.

‘I finally found them.’

That was the shape of the belief.

She thought she'd found the girls she'd imagined somewhere beyond her little town when she was seventeen and wiping lipstick from her mouth. She had spent years believing there must be a place where women like her recognized one another and recognition meant something.

1801 felt like proof.

At five, Isa started cleaning.

Lena tried to help and nearly dropped a glass.

"You're drunk and holding glass," Isa said, taking it from her. "You're creating future labor." Lena insisted, "I'm helping." Isa said, "You're a workplace hazard." Lena replied, "This is anti-worker." Isa pointed out, "You don't currently work." Lena said, "That's what they all say," and Isa laughed, then looked at her differently.

"You okay?" Isa asked. Lena said, "Why does everybody keep asking me that tonight." Isa told her, "You seem weird." Lena replied, "I'm always weird." Isa said, "Other weird." Lena asked, "What does that mean." Isa shrugged. "Tired, maybe." Lena said, "I'm tired."

Isa nodded, and that was all.

For two years Lena would wonder whether Isa had known something, or whether she had simply loved Lena enough to notice she seemed tired.

Eventually Lena stopped making the party predict its own destruction.

People had loved her that night. Their later choices didn't travel backward through time and falsify the affection.

That was what made everything worse.

At dawn, only a handful of them remained awake.

Simone lay with her head in Lena's lap. Eli had migrated to the floor. Somebody slept underneath the table. The city beyond the windows slowly changed from black to gray.

Lena ran her fingers through Simone's hair.

Nobody spoke. For once there was nothing to negotiate or explain.

They were simply exhausted together.

Lena looked at them.

‘This is my family.’

Two years later, that was the thought she wished she could reach backward and stop.

Chapter Three

The Wrong Tense

The first strange message arrived two weeks later.

A woman Lena knew casually asked if they could talk. The conversation was painfully polite.

"Some people have concerns about you," she said. Lena asked, "What concerns." The woman replied, "I don't want to speak for anyone else." Lena asked, "Then who exactly are you speaking for." The woman said, "Nobody, exactly. There's just, there's feelings in the community right now." Lena asked, "What the hell does that mean." The woman said, "I think you should reflect." Lena asked, "On what." The woman replied, "You're being kind of defensive about this," and Lena laughed about it afterward.

That was her first mistake.

Then invitations slowed. A dinner happened without her. Someone forgot to tell her about a party. A girl who usually greeted Lena by wrapping both arms around her smiled from the opposite side of a bar and stayed there.

The change was small enough that Lena could accuse herself of paranoia.

Soon she began inspecting evidence against herself: who watched her story, who stopped liking posts, whose girlfriend unfollowed her, who became suddenly busy.

She hated this version of herself and continued anyway.

Then dangerous came back.

This time the word was no longer flirtatious.

Depending on who Lena asked, she'd become reactionary, enjoyed provocation, treated disagreement like spectacle, made people uncomfortable, liked attention too much, or had started moving in ways that concerned people.

"There's a pattern," someone told her. Lena asked, "What pattern." The answer was, "You'd have to ask around."

The answer referred her to somebody else, who referred her to another person, until the pattern seemed partly composed of the fact that enough people had heard there was one.

Lena didn't think she was innocent.

She had been cruel. She had used information she should have kept private, made quieter girls feel stupid because she could talk circles around them, fucked people she should have left alone, and apologized badly. Sometimes she'd refused to apologize because she thought humiliation was being sold to her as accountability.

There were people she'd hurt, and there were also accusations she thought were absurd.

Both realities existed.

Dangerous was easier.

Isa disappeared first.

One day Lena realized she hadn't heard from her in over a week and texted, "hey, everything okay?"

Isa never answered.

Lena watched the little Delivered underneath the text for several days before removing the thread from her favorites. She didn't delete it because deleting it seemed too dramatic.

By September, Isa had blocked her.

For months Lena would sometimes remember the missing rhinestone on Isa's nail. It annoyed her that grief preserved details nobody needed.

Eli lasted longer.

They met for coffee.

"Are people talking about me," Lena asked directly. Eli said, "Yeah." Lena asked, "What do you believe." Eli rubbed his face and said, "Some people have legitimate reasons to be angry." Lena replied, "I agree." Eli told her, "That's not what I meant." Lena asked, "Then what did you mean." Eli said, "I don't want to mediate this, Lena."

Lena laughed. It came out harsher than she meant it to.

"Is being my friend mediation now?" Lena asked. Eli said, "That's not fair." Lena replied, "I know."

When they left, Eli hugged her with both arms, his chin against her hair.

Lena almost wished he'd refused.

He never blocked her. They simply stopped finding reasons to speak.

Simone took longest.

There was no dramatic breakup because technically there was nothing to break up. They had designed the relationship to resist definitions and discovered this also allowed it to die without requiring a funeral.

The jokes disappeared first, followed by the pictures and the random messages about being horny. Simone stopped sending Lena outfits before going out, and eventually Lena realized she no longer knew when Simone's estrogen day was because Simone had stopped complaining about forgetting it.

One evening Lena sent a photograph of herself in a new bra because she knew Simone liked that color.

Simone reacted with a heart.

Nothing else.

There had once been weeks when a photograph like that would've produced six messages, three obscenities, an unsolicited evaluation of Lena's tits, and an accusation that she was deliberately ruining Simone's concentration at work.

Now there was a heart.

Lena wished Simone had ignored it.

Several days later she typed, "do you still want me," and sent it before she could think better of it.

The typing indicator appeared, disappeared, then returned.

Lena watched it like a vital sign.

Finally: "I don't know what you want me to say."

Lena put the phone face down.

Ten minutes later she checked again.

There was no second message.

The next morning Lena wrote back, "I understand."

She didn't.

For months afterward she'd remember Simone sitting on the bed at 1801, cheek pressed against Lena's thigh, the little scratch of stubble against her skin, Simone's hand resting over her hip and their fingers locked together.

‘Please stay exactly like this.’

The thought became grotesque in retrospect because Simone hadn't lied.

That moment had been real and still failed to become permanent.

For several months Lena expected somebody to intervene.

The people around her talked constantly about accountability, abolition, transformative justice and repair. She imagined somebody would eventually decide that whatever Lena had done required something more sophisticated than social disappearance.

She imagined difficult conversations, specific harms, apologies, limits and some possibility of repair.

Nothing happened.

People made individual choices.

That phrase eventually became funny to Lena in the bleakest possible way.

Nobody had exiled her. People established boundaries. Nobody had coordinated against her. People shared information. Nobody instructed anybody to stop associating with Lena. People explained what continued association might communicate.

Every statement remained reasonable.

Together they produced an exile nobody technically owned.

By winter, women Lena had never met knew not to invite her.

That was when she stopped asking whether she'd been thrown out. What interested her was discovering that there'd never been anything capable of throwing her out in the first place.

There was no trans community in the sense Lena had imagined. There were trans people, friendships, lovers, apartments, organizations and group chats. There were girls who fucked after parties, held one another's hands in emergency rooms, lent money for prescriptions, helped with tucks, brought soup after FFS and sat beside each other through electrolysis.

There were women who loved you and women who hated you, and sometimes they were the same woman six months apart.

Lena had believed all those relationships added up to something with obligations of its own.

That was the faith she lost.

Shared suffering didn't create shared ethics. Knowing abandonment didn't prevent somebody from abandoning another person. Opposing prisons did not remove the human desire for sentences.

Many people who left Lena genuinely believed distance was necessary. Some probably had good reasons. Others were afraid, preferred other people, or had always disliked her.

No conspiracy was required. Ordinary people were sufficient.

Lena stopped saying chosen family.

She had once loved the phrase.

When she was twenty-three, the possibility that family could be chosen had felt miraculous because her original family had taught her that love could be something you survived.

At twenty-five, Lena understood the other word: chosen. The choosing continued.

Nobody became permanent simply because she'd once called you sister.

That didn't mean the affection was false.

Lena had spent months trying to make herself believe it'd been false because betrayal was easier to understand than contingency.

She eventually gave up.

Simone had loved her. Eli had loved her. Isa probably had too.

People could love somebody and leave.

The revelation was banal enough to be unbearable.

Lena's life became smaller for a while, and then it became specific.

A woman named Noelle started coming over on Wednesdays.

They never called it anything.

Noelle worked late and usually arrived after eleven carrying something terrible from a gas station. Sometimes they fucked. Sometimes they watched reality television. Sometimes Lena lay with her head in Noelle's lap while Noelle scrolled through her phone and occasionally showed her pictures of women they both knew.

Sometimes Noelle slept over and left eyeliner on Lena's pillowcase. Lena would wake with one of Noelle's legs hooked over hers, pinned against the edge of the mattress because two women with estrogen-softened hips somehow still managed to occupy ninety percent of a bed.

Once, while Lena prepared her injection, Noelle asked, "You want me to do it?"

Lena almost laughed and handed her the syringe.

"That okay?" Noelle asked, pinching the skin. Lena said, "Yeah."

Noelle injected her, then put a little cartoon bandage over the spot even though Lena told her she was being ridiculous.

Later that night Noelle kissed the bandage before pulling Lena's underwear back up.

Nobody witnessed it.

Noelle had simply remembered Wednesday.

That came to matter more than declarations about what anybody collectively owed anybody else.

T4T survived Lena's loss of faith because it could remain small. It could be someone seeing you naked without turning your body into a question, laughing when an estrogen reminder went off during sex, knowing where you kept your needles, telling you your eyeliner really was fucked up, or answering honestly when you asked whether you looked clocky.

Lena still loved trans women.

She loved women who could discuss FFS with the seriousness of military procurement and then spend forty dollars on cigarettes. Women who complained their boobs hadn't grown while possessing boobs Lena would've committed crimes for at nineteen. Women in little skirts and old men's socks, with expensive perfume over cigarette smoke, wig glue beside condoms and spironolactone bottles loose at the bottom of purses.

She loved women who knew transition could feel sacred at breakfast and become a bureaucratic inconvenience by lunch.

She stopped requiring any of them to prove something about everyone else.

Noelle was Noelle. Simone had been Simone. Isa had been Isa. Eli had been Eli.

The difference sounded small, but it had cost Lena almost everything to learn it.

Two years after the party, Lena found the listing for 1801.

She had been looking at apartments for unrelated reasons when the address appeared.

The apartment had been renovated. The old carpet was gone. The walls were landlord white. The kitchen counters had been replaced with something gray and vaguely marble-looking.

The staged furniture made the living room seem enormous.

Lena had never realized how much room people took up.

She clicked through the photographs: the balcony where she'd stolen Eli's cigarette, the bedroom where Simone had kissed the stretch marks along her thigh, the kitchen where Isa had accused her of creating future labor, and the living room where Jules had hooked her pinky around Lena's and demanded a promise.

She wondered whether the new tenants knew how many estrogen injections had happened on the kitchen counter, or that somebody had once cried in that bathroom because her laser technician missed a strip beneath her chin and three women followed her inside until she laughed.

She wondered whether the bathroom mirror still contained some faint trace of the dry-erase marker they used around the edges.

TAKE YOUR MEDS.
TEXT ME WHEN YOU GET HOME.
YOU'RE HOT.

Lena could no longer remember whether the last one had actually said HOT or FINE.

That bothered her because she wanted the apartment remembered correctly.

The apartment didn't care.

She closed the listing.

Her life had continued. There were women who loved her and women she could call. There were friends who knew everything and friends who had never asked. Some people had heard stories before meeting her and eventually decided for themselves what to do with them.

Lena stopped asking anyone to declare which version of her they believed.

She was twenty-five.

She didn't want another community.

People heard this and assumed she meant she wanted to be alone.

She didn't.

Lena wanted friends, lovers, somebody who could call at two in the morning, women whose rent she might help pay and women who'd drive her home after surgery. She wanted somebody whose body she could learn without requiring the body to symbolize anything.

She wanted obligations that belonged to actual people and could therefore be discussed, broken, repaired or ended by the people who had made them.

She wanted to know whose hand she was holding.

She didn't need the hand to represent everybody.

Sometimes she still thought about the final morning at 1801.

Sometime after six, Lena had fallen asleep on the carpet. When she woke, somebody had placed a blanket over her, and her cheek hurt from the floor.

The apartment smelled like cigarettes, perfume, stale alcohol, cold pizza and people who had been sweating in the same rooms all night.

Simone slept nearby with one arm thrown across her face. The edge of her skirt had ridden up and one strap of her tank top had slipped down her shoulder. There was a faint lipstick mark underneath her jaw that Lena thought might be hers.

Lena reached over and pulled the blanket across Simone's legs.

Simone stirred and, without opening her eyes, found Lena's hand.

Her fingers closed around it.

Lena froze.

Simone squeezed once, pulled Lena's hand underneath her chin and went still again.

Lena lay there listening to her breathe while somebody snored in the hallway and the box fan rattled against the window.

Outside, the city had begun waking.

For a few seconds Lena had no idea where she was.

Then she saw Jules sleeping beneath somebody's denim jacket, Eli curled on the floor with one shoe still on, and Isa against the couch with her hand resting inches from an empty pizza box.

There was lipstick on a mug beside Lena, somebody's estrogen vial on the kitchen counter, a bra hanging from the back of a chair and one silver heel underneath the coffee table while its partner sat by the door.

The apartment looked completely used.

Lena felt Simone's breath against her knuckles.

‘I'm home.’

Two years later, Lena still remembered the exact pressure of Simone's fingers around hers.

That was the cruelty of it.

The apartment, the love, the desire, the stupid estrogen jokes, the girls asleep on the floor, and the woman holding Lena's hand in her sleep had all been real.

None of it had promised permanence.

Lena had added that part herself.

I lowered my Substack price to $12/month because I want more girls to actually be able to read the work instead of staring at the paywall like it personally betrayed them.

$12/month gets you the paid work and keeps a Black transsexual feminist writer fed, housed, caffeinated, and unfortunately still capable of posting.

Hit the paid button. <3

INSTAGRAM: @b…

Read more

If you like my work, follow me everywhere because apparently one website is never enough:

Instagram: @bundleof.styx
Twitter: @bundleofstyx_
Tumblr: @bundleofstx
Bluesky: bundleofstyx.org

I also lowered my Substack prices to make paid subscriptions more accessible. <3 If you read my work regularly and have the money, becoming a paid subscriber directly suppor…

Read more

This one's free, like everything here. Paid subscriptions are the reason I get to write instead of trying to cite theory for meals. I’d appreciate a paid subscription extra for this one as it took me forever to do the research to show these charlatans how fucking stupid they are.

Subscribe

Bluesky: bundleofstyx.org / Twitter: @bundleofstyx_ / Tumblr: @bundleofstx …

Read more

If you want to support my work and keep Bundle of Styx going, become a paid Substack subscriber or donate directly to my Ko-fi. Paid subscriptions are what let me keep researching, writing, and publishing this work instead of attempting to pay rent with feminist theory, which landlords remain irritatingly unwilling to accept.

Subscribe

By Tara Knight

Ko-fi: ko-fi.c…

Read more

I did, in fact, conduct honeymoon “research” for it, so funding the department feels appropriate. Please provide me a paid sub to my substack. This primarily goes towards my rent and groceries.

You can also support me on Ko-fi.

Instagram: @bundleof.styx
Twitter: @bundleofstyx_
Tumblr: @bundleofstx
Bluesky: bundleofstyx.org

Subscribe

By Tara Knight

I went to Spain for my…

Read more

This one's free, like everything here. Paid subscriptions and donations are the reason I write instead of trying to cite theory for meals.

Bluesky: bundleofstyx.org / Twitter: @bundleofstyx_ / Tumblr: @bundleofstx / Instagram: @bundleof.styx

Subscribe

Theorygram was the corner of Instagram where critical theory became social media content. People posted highlighted…

Read more

By Tara Knight

I. Please don’t Invoke my womanhood

A trans man called me a man today because I criticized transandrophobia. He told me to sit down and invoked our forci…

Read more

If you want to support me and keep this work going, hit the button below to become a paid Substack subscriber or donate directly to my Ko-fi. You can also follow me on Twitter @bundleofstyx_ and Tumblr @bundleofstx for everything that doesn’t make it into the newsletter. Paying writers for their labor remains considerably more useful than telling them t…

Read more

Follow My Instagram

I'm getting really fucking tired of being introduced to my own politics through the fact that I'm trans. Every time I write about women, somebody finds a way to shrink the work back down to "trans issues." I write about pornography misogyny, desire, marriage, political organization, the family, women's labor, feminist history, and the structure of male …

Read more

This one’s free, like everything here. Paid subscriptions⁠ are the reason I get to write instead of trying to cite theory for meals.

Subscribe now

Bluesky⁠ · Twitter⁠ · Tumblr⁠ · Instagram⁠

I Am Getting Married.

By the time most of you open this, I will either be married or I will be panicking about being married within the next eight days. Either way, I am currently in…

Read more

This one’s free, like everything here. If you want to keep Bundle of Styx alive, subscribe to the Substack or throw something in the Ko-fi. Paid subscriptions and donations are what let me spend my time writing deranged essays about Mark Fisher instead of trying to cite Hegel for groceries.

You can also follow me everywhere else because apparently one pl…

Read more

Twitter: Bundleofstyx_

Tumblr: Bundle of stx

Instagram: Bundleof.styx

And Donate to my kofi at: https://ko-fi.com/bundleofstyyx

Along with that I appreciate a paid subscription so that I can continue writing articles, essays, and creating videos like this.

Support my work on Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/bundleofstyyx

Ko-fi and paid subscriptions are what helps me pay rent, buy groceries, and keep Bundle of Styx running. If you value the writing and want me to keep doing it, donations genuinely help.

Follow Bundle of Styx:
Instagram: @bundleof.styx
Tumblr: bundleofstyx
TikTok: @bundleof.styx

Jane Schoenbrun has clea…

Read more