Puppygate: A Retrospective

And Lessons in Theoretical Uselessness and Utility

This story is free to read. Paid subscriptions, donations, and Ko-fi zine purchases are genuinely how I cover groceries and keep doing this full time, so if the work means something to you, I’d really appreciate the support.

Donate here:

https://ko-fi.com/bundleofstyyx

For everything related to me, my work, and this project:

Bluesky: Bundleofstyxx.bsky.social
Instagram: Bundleof.Styx
Twitter: Bundleofstyyx
TikTok: Bundleof.styx

For those of you who missed Puppygate entirely, congratulations on your screen time settings, and let me ruin them. This spring I published an essay called Dump Your Puppygirl, about a specific deal in queer domestic life where one woman’s fragility becomes the law of the house and another woman’s labor becomes the tax everyone agrees not to mention. Within days the timeline had decided the essay was an act of violence, then an act of eugenics, then attempted murder, which is a capability no prose has ever had and which forensic science should probably get around to studying. I was accused of hating disabled trans women by people who have never once driven one to an appointment. I was accused of cruelty by people whose most strenuous act of care this fiscal year was a quote tweet. A woman who writes about dishes and rent spent a month being discussed in the vocabulary usually reserved for war criminals and landlords, and the discussion was conducted by adults, allegedly.

I answered with The Girl in the Bed, which entered the same bedroom from the other side of the bed, and then, once the drag essay triggered the second cycle of the same argument, with This Was Never About Puppygirls or Drag, and then I swore I was done with the subject.

I am visibly not done. The community keeps teaching the same class about the notorious dangerous some might even call invariant Tara mf knight and grading it pass-fail with exile, and I have reached the stage of annoyance where writing it all down is cheaper than screaming into a couch cushion.

There are controversies that teach you what people believe, and there are controversies that teach you what people are willing to protect once belief becomes inconvenient. Puppygate did both. It began, at least publicly, as an argument about one essay, one metaphor, one exhausted trans woman finally saying that a certain way of living in queer life had become unbearable, and it became a referendum on care, disability, kink, dependence, labor, sex, romance, feminism, transmisogyny, accountability, desire, and whether a trans woman is allowed to describe the house she is being eaten in before the house gets to describe her as dangerous.

The article failed every time it got tested in public and did its actual job every time somebody used it in private, sometimes over the same essay, sometimes in the same woman’s inbox in the same week.

The weaponized helplessness that organized the whole public defense campaigned as the protection of trans women. in a way that resembled the anti ERA protesters (but somehow more lame) it turns me into the wicked witch and them as the true defenders of trans women. It protected a household with a nineteenth-century floor plan. Radical costume, reactionary function, and the costume change is where you catch it.

i. the house

Dump Your Puppygirl named a bargain I had watched take shape across queer homes, trans lesbian relationships, polycules, Discord servers, crisis chats, couches, bedrooms, and the little domestic governments we build because the official world would rather we die quietly. It named the kind of relationship where one woman’s fragility becomes the law of the household, the kind of caretaking where exhaustion is punished as cruelty, leaving is framed as abandonment, criticism becomes violence, and the person cooking and cleaning and managing the breakdowns and smoothing over the social fallout is told she is doing liberation badly because she still has a body that gets tired.

The way I spoke came from the subject. There is no polite vocabulary for a deal where one woman’s sleep, sex, cooking, and crisis shifts pay the mortgage on somebody else’s comfort, so I declined to invent one, and I let the meanness run at the same temperature as the thing it was measuring. The jokes were load-bearing. The whole operation survives on its own softness, on the plushies, the pet names, the pastel fonts, the language of gentleness laid over the extraction, and a joke is the fastest instrument ever built for showing somebody the invoice under the gift wrap. Exploitation described respectfully earns itself a panel discussion. I described it laughing.

The backlash came fast enough that it almost seemed rehearsed, which would have been flattering if it had not been so stupid. The apparatus assembled itself in an afternoon: the screenshot folders opened, the subtweets found their choreography, and somewhere a shared document with a color-coded harm timeline began accepting contributions, because a color-coded harm timeline is what this generation built instead of feminist organizations. Overnight I had written an essay against disabled trans women, against traumatized trans women, against kink, softness, sex, love, care, and every tender thing the internet could staple to the body of a woman in a collar. Describing a dynamic where one partner’s incapacity had become another partner’s prison was now indistinguishable from wanting that partner dead, and a Black trans woman writing about exploited domestic labor was being taught kindness by people whose entire political imagination seemed to begin and end at “what if the exhausted woman simply tried harder?” Incredible work from the theory class, truly.

Everyone who came for me had read the theory, every single one of them; that detail should embarrass an entire political culture. The people who called Dump Your Puppygirl attempted murder could cite disability justice frameworks from memory. The people who organized the pile-on had Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha’s Care Work on their shelves and Mia Mingus in their bios, and they could explain interdependence and access intimacy, Mingus’s word for the ease of somebody who gets your access needs without a seminar, with a fluency I would call impressive if it had ever once been attached to an action. They had the citations and the language and the correct posture of grief-stricken moral clarity, which remains the most renewable resource in queer community after unwashed dishes.

What the theory produced, in the moment it was tested, was a defense attorney for a household where one woman’s incapacity had been installed as the organizing principle of everyone else’s labor, and where the woman doing that labor had been told her exhaustion was ableism.

That is what theory did the one time it actually mattered. It lawyered the deal instead of dismantling it.

ii. the uselessness lesson

Theory in our intellectual scene rarely functions as an instrument for changing anybody’s living conditions. It functions as a legal system for defending them. The essays described a polycule organized around one trans woman’s enforced fragility, her accountability rerouted into evidence of cruelty done to her, her partner’s labor extracted on a schedule that never ends because ending it has been defined in advance as violence. Nobody actually disputed that the polycule I described exists, and nobody could, because half the people yelling at me were living in it, adjacent to it, managing it, benefiting from it, or quietly thanking God that someone else had finally said it where they did not have to. What they disputed was my right to describe it.

The theory came out of the holster for exactly that purpose. Disability justice was deployed to argue that naming extraction is eugenics, care ethics was deployed to argue that the tired woman’s tiredness is a political failure on her part, and anti-carceral language was deployed to make any criticism of private domestic tyranny sound like a cop coming through the front door. Kink positivity was deployed to make the image of a woman choosing dependency impossible to separate from the reality of a woman using helplessness as leverage, and transfeminism was deployed, somehow, to discipline a transsexual woman for describing the sexual and domestic economy trans women are trapped in. The best liberatory vocabulary ever assembled was pointed, in real time, at a broke trans woman writing on a phone, to defend a setup where another broke trans woman was not allowed to leave the bedroom she was disappearing inside of.

Look at what all that lawyering was protecting. Strip the vocabulary off and inventory the furniture: one party’s fragility is sovereign; her needs arrive as law; her distress is weather the household must shelter from; and another woman’s labor runs around the clock under the name of love. The discourse invented none of it. This is the oldest gender contract on file: the delicate woman whose incapacity organizes the house. The Victorians liked it so much they built furniture for it. The fainting couch is back. Ours came off Facebook Marketplace, and it has a chore chart taped underneath that only one woman is ever asked to read.

Weaponized helplessness has a résumé that predates every server involved. Under patriarchy it was the one power route left open to women when every other route was bricked up, incapacity working as leverage and collapse working as command, the whole household rescheduled around a headache. Feminists spent two centuries naming that trap so women could put it down. Virginia Woolf told the woman writer her first job was killing the Angel in the House, the creature who sacrificed herself daily and never had a wish of her own. A century later our scene checked the Angel for a pulse, found one, put her on the chore rotation, and called the resurrection radical.

So run the test the community refuses to run. If the campaign was for the protection of trans women, it had a problem, because there were two trans women in that house. The caretaker was a trans woman. The woman cooking and cleaning and managing the breakdowns, the one disappearing under the schedule, sits squarely inside the demographic the theory claims to shield, and nobody deployed one syllable of transfeminism on her behalf. Nobody read her exhaustion as a crisis. The protection flowed in exactly one direction, toward whoever’s incapacity was already enthroned, and protection that has to choose which trans woman counts is a hierarchy, which is the one piece of machinery radicalism exists to jam.

She was also a trans woman does she not also deserve grace?

Reaction is any politics that conserves the current distribution of labor and power against the people describing it, and reaction will wear whatever is in the closet. This season it wore a care lanyard and a disability justice tote, and it defended the same sexual division of labor the movement was founded to burn down. A scene that rewards helplessness and punishes description has simply reissued the nineteenth century with better fonts, and calling the reissue liberation does not change who is holding the mop.

Theory can be true and still be used by cowards, and a framework can emerge from real struggle and still become a decorative weapon in the hands of people protecting their comfort. Disability justice is real, interdependence is real, access intimacy is real, and so is the fact that disabled people deserve care, dignity, patience, accommodation, love, and a world built around human need instead of capitalist disposal. The problem is that our community has learned to recite those truths while refusing to ask who is doing the care, who is absorbing the crisis, who is losing sleep, who is paying the rent, who is being sexually available, who is managing the fallout, and who is disappearing under the moral glow of everyone else’s needs.

The question of who does the labor is where many radical scenes go to die, poor things. They enter with Fanon, Federici, Serano , Foucault, Sakai, Lorde, and a reading list long enough to kill a Victorian child, and then someone has to clean the bathroom, and suddenly we are back in the nineteenth century with better pronouns. Federici settled this fifty years ago, in a pamphlet you can read in the time it takes to fold a load of laundry. “They say it is love. We say it is unwaged work.” She wrote that in 1975 about housewives, about the trick where the household’s survival gets renamed as a woman’s natural affection so nobody has to pay for it. The polycule read the pamphlet, nodded gravely, and assigned the unwaged work to the girl with the earliest alarm. Arlie Hochschild came along in the eighties and named the second shift, the unpaid job waiting for wives after the paid one ended, and our scene invented a third shift, the crisis management after the housework after the wage labor, and named it intimacy.

Your Polycule Is Not a Revolution mattered before Puppygate ever happened. It had already named the fraud beneath a lot of queer romantic politics, the fantasy that living differently is automatically living free. A polycule can reproduce the family and a chosen family can reproduce the abusive household, while the queer home reproduces the exact division of labor it congratulates itself for escaping. A trans lesbian relationship can still contain domination; a femme can still be drained; a sick girl can still be manipulative; and a traumatized woman can still become the center of a tiny regime. A community can still decide that the person naming harm is the harm, because naming it threatens the peace, and peace in these spaces usually means the suffering has been assigned efficiently enough that the loudest people can sleep.

Puppygate was the sequel nobody wanted because the first argument had already made the Reddit mafia nervous, and the hookup essay made it worse because it placed desire back into the material world. After the Hookup Revolution argued against the lazy romance that eroticism itself saves us. Wanting each other does not dissolve power, and fucking each other does not abolish hierarchy. Sexual availability can be turned into currency, obligation, punishment, performance, proof, and social membership. Queer sex can be surveilled by queer community; lesbian desire can be policed by people who call the policing processing; and the wrong woman’s boundaries get reclassified as reactionary on arrival. The erotic can become another workplace where the same women clock in and call it freedom because the job description has glitter on it.

That adjacent argument made Puppygate intelligible. People were furious because the essays were never only about one aesthetic. They were about the domestic and sexual economy of queer life after community failed, about what happens when people with no money, no safety net, no state protection, no stable housing, no family, no institution worth trusting, and no durable infrastructure try to make love carry the weight of a society. The result is often beautiful. The result is also often a labor camp with plushies.

iii. the girl in the bed

I wrote The Girl in the Bed because the first essay landed too hard in places it had not been aimed, and that was true. Some women wrote to me during the worst of it, and none of them were pile-on tourists or bored cruelty merchants trying to farm a Black trans woman’s public humiliation for likes. They were women who felt seen and wounded at the same time, who recognized themselves in the image and were afraid the image had flattened them. They had been the girl who could not answer the phone, the girl whose body turned heavy under depression, the girl in bed with the cat and the unwritten play and the whole future pinned to a partner whose face had started to look tired. They had been dependent, frightened, ashamed, difficult, and still human, and they were right that the first essay did not fully enter that bedroom from inside her skin.

So I addressed it. I wrote her fear and her tenderness and her fantasy of being loved without being managed like a crisis, and I wrote the humiliation of needing too much and knowing it, the way incapacity can become a cage before it becomes a weapon, and the place where the puppygirl stops being a villain and becomes a trans woman trying to survive with the tools available to her, where the tragedy is that some of those tools cut the people closest to her. I did the repair in public, while the people demanding accountability were still chanting for my disappearance like medieval villagers who discovered Wi-Fi.

Nobody who accused me of attempted murder cared about that essay, and they could not care about it, because accountability was never the demand. What the crowd wanted was disappearance, then retraction, then a confession written in the standard dialect of queer public shame, vague enough to satisfy everyone, abject enough to be screenshot, bloodless enough that no real argument survives.

Accountability in this community means handing the crowd a document they can use as proof of jurisdiction. The ritual has nothing to do with repair or revision or learning, and nothing to do with going back to the work, finding the wound, and stitching it without pretending the original cut never happened. Accountability becomes a ceremony where the accused must agree with the accusation, accept the frame, surrender the argument, and then live forever under the terms of the people least interested in truth. The work vanishes, then the household, then the women inside it, and all that remains is the public body of the offender, where everyone gets to practice politics by throwing one more stone. Sarah Schulman wrote an entire book about the difference between conflict and abuse, about how inflating harm hands the group a permission slip and how being uncomfortable is not the same thing as being endangered, and this scene bought it in hardcover, shelved it face out, and went right on prosecuting discomfort as violence.

I refused to disappear, and I repaired the work instead. That refusal is the closest thing to praxis the whole cycle contains. I can always admit wrong. Can they.

Puppygate also taught me that discipline includes repair, and our scene has almost no working concept of disciplined repair. What we have instead is confession, branding, distancing, silence, deletion, pile-on management, and the occasional four-paragraph apology that sounds like it was assembled by a conflict-resolution chatbot having a nervous breakdown. We do not have a serious practice of saying: this argument is true; this part harmed people it did not need to harm; I am going to fix that part while keeping the argument alive.

I did not retract the analysis, because the analysis was true, and I did not pretend the first essay had no casualties, because some women told me honestly that it did. I wrote the other side; I expanded the map; and I made the argument sharper by making it less lazy about the person it risked flattening. Repair kept the argument in the hands of the women it was written for, which is exactly what surrender would have taken from them, and the crowd’s whole demand was that I confuse serving those women with erasing myself.

The crowd hated that, because repair kept the work alive. They wanted to say: the bad essay died; the bad woman learned; the home can go back to being sacred; and nobody has to ask who is doing the laundry. A repaired argument is dangerous because it survives the first impact, proves that criticism can improve a piece without handing the piece over to the people who want it destroyed, and shows other writers that they can hold the line and still adjust their aim. That is unforgivable in a scene addicted to total victory, because total victory is easier than thought.

iv. the siblings

Then the adjacent backlash arrived, because apparently one public punishment ritual was too modest a meal. The drag essay, the community essays, the safety essays, and the essays on known predators all entered the same machinery. Each time I described how one of these households actually ran, people pretended I had attacked an identity, and each time I named a pattern, somebody located the most emotionally fragile possible reading and built a gallows out of it. Every time I said the word community had started laundering power, a volunteer arrived to prove the point with the discipline of a lab assistant.

Every Community Has a Known Rapist made people nervous for the same reason Puppygate made people nervous. It asked what the whole party already knows. The missing stair came out of the kink blogs more than a decade ago: the predator a house learns to route around instead of repairing, the way everyone hops the broken fourth step and remembers to warn the guests, except the one who needed the warning. The essay asked why everyone knows the stair and nobody fixes it, why the labor of knowing falls on women, why warnings circulate through whispers, why the person who says the thing aloud becomes the problem, and why due process only ever appears once the accused has friends. That essay and Puppygate are siblings, one about sexual predation and the open secret, the other about domestic extraction and the open deal, and both about the same community reflex, which is to preserve the house and punish the woman who names the upkeep.

The Safest Girl at the Party moved the argument into the body. It asked what happens when the promise of T4T safety becomes another place predators learn to hide, and what happens when the scene’s hatred of cops, its intimacy with drugs, its dependence on housing networks, its fear of outside institutions, and its allergy to confrontation become the exact conditions that allow harm to repeat. Puppygate belongs to that world too. What I named did not fall out of the sky. It came from a scene where dependence is constant, money is scarce, everyone is traumatized, everyone is afraid of being abandoned, and the few people with housing, social capital, substances, beauty, desirability, or access to hormones become little sovereigns. People hate that analysis because it makes their bedroom political in a way their quote graphics cannot manage.

Love Outside Community had already started the turn by asking whether love can survive after the fantasy of automatic belonging collapses, and Puppygate answered in the most obnoxious way possible: yes, but only if we stop calling every demand for labor care and every refusal violence. Love after community requires the death of the romance that community itself is innocent, and it requires looking at the people closest to us without the hallucination that marginalization purifies them. Trans women can hurt each other; disabled trans women can hurt caretakers; and caretakers can curdle into resentment and cruelty. Polycules can become bureaucracies of desire; kink can become a costume for dependence; and softness can become a weapon. No one is saved from power by being adorable. I know this is devastating news for the plushie-based left, but someone had to tell them.

v. the coat at the edge of the crowd

I got to watch the other half of the machine too, because after exile came intake, and nobody else in this scene will admit that this part happens. Within weeks of Puppygate, the reactionaries arrived in my inbox carrying warmth instead of arguments. They offered sympathy and clarity and friendship, attention and tactical praise and the little narcotic of being told that the people who hurt you are hypocrites. A friend, offered like a product sample, from people whose entire politics is my elimination, because they understood something my community did not: a woman who has just been discarded is available, and that availability is a recruitment condition you can manufacture on purpose.

The disavow-and-discard reflex is a TERF supply chain. Every ritual expulsion produces the exact person their movement is built to receive. The scene performs its theory, casts someone out for describing her own kitchen, and the people waiting at the edge of the crowd have a coat, a door, and her name spelled right. I did not walk through the door. Plenty of girls have, and the scene calls them weak and never once asks who carried them to the threshold.

This is one of the most politically useless habits our communities have. They create exile and then moralize the exiled for looking around, and they train trans women to believe one wrong sentence can cost them everyone, then act shocked when a movement built on recruitment through grievance knows how to catch them. Reactionaries do not need to be correct to be effective. They need to be present at the moment a woman has been abandoned by the people who taught her abandonment was the worst thing that could happen, offering relief where the left offers paperwork, and saying “they lied to you” at the exact moment she has evidence.

A politics that cannot hold conflict without exile will keep feeding its enemies. The pipeline runs on a schedule, and somebody has slapped a cute little community accountability sticker on the side of it. Human beings, being the tragic mammals they are, tend to go where they are touched after being struck, and a scene that refuses to touch anyone it has struck is designing its own defections. Kai Cheng Thom asked this scene whether it could choose love over disposability, and the scene cried at the reading, posted the crying, and disposed of somebody before the paperback came out. A left that cannot offer any route back besides humiliation has decided, whether it admits it or not, to outsource recovery to its enemies.

vi. the utility lesson

The essays worked anyway, and they worked the way maps work, and pretending otherwise would just be a different kind of lie. The letters that came in while the timeline was calling me a murderer were from women inside the exact households I had drawn, and they said the same thing in different handwriting: I did not have words for my own house until you drew it.

Some of them left. Some of them stayed and renegotiated, which is harder and which I respect more. One woman read The Girl in the Bed out loud to her girlfriend in a kitchen at one in the morning, and they cried, because apparently people keep having sincere emotional experiences despite my repeated objections to the species, and then they rebuilt their household’s labor from the studs. Another wrote that she had finally said out loud that love had become a shift she could never clock out of, and a third, who had been the girl in the bed herself, understood for the first time that her terror of abandonment had hardened into a set of obligations imposed on somebody else. The last one told me the essay made her angry for three days and then made her do the dishes without being asked, which is the closest thing to a miracle this scene has produced since somebody brought Narcan to a house party and remembered where they put it.

Theory hands a woman a drawing of the house she is standing in, accurate enough that she can find the door herself. Theory gives shape to the pressure people have been taught to experience as personal failure. Theory says the thing you thought was your private shame has terms, and terms can be renegotiated. The same body of feminist thought that got weaponized against me in public was, in private, in inboxes, doing the only job it was ever supposed to do. The difference was never in the theory. The difference was in whether the person holding it wanted anything to change.

That is the split Puppygate exposed: theory as a hobby vs theory as a tool, theory held up as proof that you are safe and theory used to make somebody’s actual sleep safer. Decoration dominates our scene because decoration is easier, and decoration asks nothing except fluency. You can decorate your bio with care language, decorate your room with radical books, decorate your cruelty with abolition, decorate your fear of conflict with trauma-informed language, decorate your ghosting with the word boundaries, and decorate your refusal to help with the word capacity, which in this scene behaves like a liquid that evaporates the moment a dish enters the sink and condenses the moment there is a party. You can decorate a whole dead political formation until it looks alive from a distance. A tool is different, because a tool changes the shape of what it touches, gets dull from use, hurts somebody when it is swung carelessly, and needs maintenance. A tool implies work. Decoration never asks why the same girl is always cooking.

vii. the ledger

We have a feminism with more theory per capita than any political formation in the history of the planet, and it cannot get one woman’s rent paid or a partner out of a room, and it cannot survive a single essay without convening a punishment ritual. It has annotated more PDFs than the Stasi and still cannot move a couch. It reads Federici and splits the dishes by vibes, reads Sakai and disavows a Black woman in an afternoon, and reads Dworkin while forgetting that sexual politics includes the unglamorous fact that somebody is always cleaning up after the revolution has a sleepover. It reads disability justice and treats the exhausted caretaker as a renewable resource, reads abolition and builds a prison out of social death, reads about mutual aid and cannot mutual aid its way out of three months of rent, and reads about community defense and then uses the group chat to decide which woman gets fed to the road.

Praxis got redefined as posting somewhere around 2016 and nobody filed the paperwork, so now the scene experiences a quote graphic as an action and an essay as an atrocity, while the division of labor underneath stays exactly where it was, and the ledger never changes: who cooks, who pays, who hosts, who loses followers, who absorbs the crying, who is allowed to be sick, who is allowed to be tired; who gets called unsafe, who gets protected because they are too fragile to confront, who gets abandoned because they are too angry to pity; who has the car, the lease, the hormones, the audience, the screenshot folder, and the kind of whiteness that lets them sound wounded enough to be believed. Those are the questions. Those have always been the questions, and the entire turn after Puppygate has been about dragging the analysis back to that ledger.

Community is not a feeling; safety is not a vibe; and care is not whatever the most dysregulated person at the party says it is. Love is not the absence of boundaries; desire is not proof of liberation; kink is not a legal defense; marginalization is not innocence; and theory is not a scented candle you light over the smell of exploitation. If the work cannot tell you who is being used, who is being protected, and who is being asked to disappear so the scene can keep its self-image, the work is decoration.

This is also why the backlash was so revealing. People kept acting as though I had introduced cruelty into a peaceful scene, when the only thing I interrupted was cruelty’s paperwork.

And she does break. That is the part everyone wants to aestheticize after the fact. The woman who has been doing the care stops answering, snaps, writes the essay, leaves the group chat, cheats, relapses, says the mean thing, publishes the thing everyone told her not to publish, and becomes ugly enough that the people using her can finally call themselves victims. Then the whole house gets to mourn the loss of her patience as though her patience died of natural causes.

Puppygate was ugly because I refused that sequence. I did not wait until the woman doing the labor became a villain in someone else’s story. I named the deal while she was still alive enough to read it. That is why women thanked me. The map arrived before the obituary.

viii. bring your tools

The coming years will not be survivable on the old model, and I am not being dramatic; I am reading the same news you are, which is already more punishment than anyone deserves before breakfast. The state is coming for us in paperwork, prisons, schools, hospitals, borders, clinics, family courts, identification systems, insurance policies, and every other boring administrative chamber where Amerikan violence likes to wear a lanyard. The economy is coming for us in rent, debt, wages, precarity, medical bills, and the soft little nightmare of needing other people who are also drowning. The fascists have no need for us to be stupid; isolated, exhausted, suspicious, poor, and trained to treat conflict as expulsion will do fine, and we have been rehearsing their preferred conditions for years and calling it community safety.

A scene that spends its entire capacity for collective action on internal expulsion rituals will be picked apart with no resistance worth the name, and a scene where every disagreement becomes a loyalty test cannot build infrastructure. A scene where writers are punished for describing who does what for whom loses the ability to think, and a scene where care language protects extraction teaches its caretakers to become cruel or leave. A scene where exile is the first response to conflict keeps delivering wounded women to the roadside with bows on their heads, and a scene that confuses being offended with being organized will learn, very abruptly, that the state does not care about your thread.

What I mean by revolutionary discipline is small and unglamorous, and it will not trend, which is probably how we know it might be useful. Read like you intend to act on what you read. Receive criticism as information about the work instead of a referendum on your right to exist, and give it the same way. Hold an argument steady under fire for as long as the argument remains true, and repair it in public when part of it misses. Put money and hours into the infrastructure that outlives the timeline: the server, the reading group, the press, the girl’s rent, the ride to the clinic, the couch that never becomes a trap, the emergency fund, the print table, the zine distro, the archive, the handbook, and the person willing to answer the phone without converting the phone call into ownership.

Refuse the expulsion ritual even when the target is somebody you dislike, and especially then, because that is the moment your principles stop being decorative. Every body thrown from the moving vehicle is delivered directly to the people waiting on the roadside with a coat. Sometimes the woman thrown out is wrong, or messy, or genuinely hurt people and owes repair, and none of that changes the fact that exile is a political technology the right understands better than we do. They know abandoned people are recruitable, that shame creates hunger, and that warmth after humiliation feels like truth.

Build servers and living rooms where argument can happen without social death, households where care has limits, schedules, witnesses, and exits, and relationships where need does not become law. Build communities where the person naming harm is not automatically treated as the harm itself, a feminism that can survive the sentence her girlfriend is exploiting her without reaching for the nearest disability justice quote like a smoke bomb, and a theory practice that ends in someone getting a ride, a meal, a door, a night of sleep, a safer bed, a less cursed lease, and a group of people who can look at a house and tell the truth about it without asking the leaseholder’s permission.

I am no longer interested in theory as evidence of goodness. I do not care what is in your bio if your politics cannot survive the redistribution of dishes, and I do not care what books you own if every woman who dates you becomes your nurse, secretary, mother, therapist, maid, crisis line, sex object, and publicist. I do not care how tender your language is if every conflict ends with the most exhausted person apologizing for having limits, and I do not care how many times you say care if care always seems to mean someone else doing the work. The useful theory is the theory that changes where the weight lands. Everything else is interior design.

Puppygate cost me a scene I had already stopped believing in and taught me the exact market rate of every framework I was raised on. It also gave me the letters, the women who left, the women who stayed and changed the terms, the girl who did the dishes, and the couple in a kitchen at one in the morning rebuilding their life from a sentence everybody else insisted was violence. It gave me proof that the public scene can be wrong while the private readers are right there, using the map, finding the door, saving each other in the quiet where the crowd cannot farm them.

That is enough for me to keep writing. The community has enough decorations already, enough language, enough quotes, enough moral theater, enough tiny judges in eyeliner, enough people who can turn a bookshelf into a barricade against reality. I am writing for the woman still inside one of these houses, for the woman who thinks her exhaustion is a private failure, for the girl in the bed who knows she is hurting someone and cannot stop turning need into law, for the caretaker who has mistaken her resentment for proof that she is bad instead of proof that the deal is killing her, and for the trans woman standing at the edge of exile before the reactionary with the coat reaches her. I am writing because the map worked.

Bring your tools or stay home.

If this essay was worth something to you: https://ko-fi.com/bundleofstyyx