Re normalization of poly and LGBT, I'm skeptical that "political" vs. "not-political" is a useful distinction here; everything that you and your friends happen to agree on looks "non-political". (Indeed, the contingencies of political coalition-formation would seem to be the only reason to lump "LGBT" together into one term/concept; if it weren't for having social conservatives as a commmon enemy, it's not obvious what (e.g.) androphilic males (G) and gynephilic-males-who-wish-they-were-females (part of the T) would have to do with each other, and the coalition may already be starting to fray.) The underlying psychological variations (towards homosexuality, or towards higher levels of sociosexuality) probably exist everywhere, but our culture's particular reification of "poly" or "LGBT" as sexual orientations is setting up an implicit cultural filter (a "political choice") that may be more visible to [...] than others.
-----
+
+_not_ as a gender-role self-fulfilling-prophecy enforcement attempt (bulldozing the territory to fit a preconceivedly sexist map would be really bad!!)
+
+but as a neutral scientific claim that _could_ be false (like any falsifiable claim), but which I think is true and which I have citations for (attempting to map features of the territory that would probably still be there independently of whether or not they appear on the map, where sexist self-fulfilling prophecies are potentially a real concern, but I'm not that worried about them on the current cultural margin in Berkeley 2021, even though I would worry in other cities and years)
+
+----
+
+walking animation carry angle: https://www.biomotionlab.ca/html5-bml-walker/
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff