Open letter to the Trades Club about accessibility

An open letter to The Trades Club in Hebden Bridge following my visit there. This was sent on 17th December. I waited for a response from them and include any response from them below. There is further comment and thoughts at the bottom of the post. 

To you all,

Apologies for contacting via facebook, I was unable to find a contact email address.

I made my first visit to The Trades Club on Friday 14^th of December. Knowing the reputation of the place as inclusive and socially liberal I was looking forward to my visit. Sadly that excitement was soon quashed when I realised there was one group of people you are not inclusive for and discriminate against: disabled people. I am fortunate that I can manage stairs, but due to my disability it is not without pain and difficulty. There are many others who simply wouldn’t have made it passed the front door. Understandably considering there is no step free access, no accommodations have been made for wheelchair access such as wide aisles for getting through the main hall or adequate seating options in the bar. However these accommodations don’t just benefit wheelchair uses but help people with other disabilities including mobility issues.

You have no accessibility statement on your website. No accessible toilet (which isn’t just a matter of allowing a wheelchair in). No notices about hearing loops, lighting, seating or signing.

There are no accommodations what so ever for disabled people. As a minority group we have been forgotten or dismissed as not worth a thought or the time and money. Without even an accessibility statement on your website there isn’t even an indication that accessibility for disabled people has been considered at all.

What particularly makes this a sore issue, apart from people not even being able to get into the venue, are your multiple statements and posters stating that you are an inclusive venue. You promote acceptance and outlaw discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality and ethnicity. This is wonderful. I am included in more than one of those minority groups and appreciate that sentiment. But it is a bitter pill to swallow when you continue to discriminate against disabled people and I was lucky to get into the venue at all.

I understand the building is difficult. I understand you are not a big corporation with plenty of financial backing. But I don’t believe that is an excuse. How you choose to spend your budget, what you choose to say, what modifications to the building you do and don’t make are choices. I don’t expect every business and building to be a flagship of accessibility, but I do expect that groups which espouse inclusivity, acceptance and equality to make choices that do not discriminate against disabled people.

I am disappointed.

I am let down.

I am unlikely to visit again unless changes are made.

As is my standard practice I will be posting this as an open letter on my blog Axes n Yarn in one week’s time. I will include any reply I have received from you. I do this because disableism is an issue that needs to talked about and because disabled people as a minority group need their voices to be heard.

Though this is a personal email based on personal experience I should also disclose that I work freelance as an accessibility consultant and advisor via my website www.Accesscheck.net

Yours sincerely.

Robin Tynan

Their response on facebook on the 17th of December:

Hi Robin - thanks for your email. I can assure you, making the Trades Club accessable for all is at the top of our priorities. Will elaborate on email, of course. Best wishes Mal Campbell [email address redacted]

I gave them my email address so they could contact me there. I then received the following email on December 18th

Thanks for forwarding your email address. The Trades Club secretary, Michael Coneys, will be back with a response shortly.

Final Thoughts

As of writing this blog on 31/01/2018 I have had not further contact from The Trades Club. My original letter said I would publish this post a week after sending, but due to various factors I've left it until now - roughly two weeks. I appreciate that during that period it has been Christmas and the associated public holidays. However, I should note that The Trades Club has been open during this period.

I think my concerns and feelings on the subject are clear from the letter I sent to them. I am of course not pleased with their lack of response. It does not leave me feeling assured that accessibility is a top priority. It is difficult to believe that accessibility and ending discrimination toward disabled people is a priority when a business has no mention of accessibility or disability on their website or any of their public information. It is difficult to accept that accessibility is a priority when a business has been open for over 35 years and no modifications or adaptations have been made, save for a single line of small print text stating that they are not accessible on their website.

I am of course disappointed at the lack of response from the Trades Club. Though it has many qualities to recommend it, I am somewhat soured by this experience and even if accessibility weren't an issue (there are some days when I wouldn't make it past their front door) I would be hesitant to support them in the future. I honestly feel that any venue or business that claims to be inclusive and welcoming of all minorities and yet fails to address the barriers which are excluding a group of people is disingenuous and needs to examine their ethics closely.

Should I receive any further correspondence from The Trades Club I will post an update.

UPDATE 08/01/19

I received the following email on 07/01/19. I haven't replied as I am not sure if a reply is necessary at this point. I may follow up their offer to telephone to talk over various points but will be doing so in a professional capacity as Access:Check. I am accepting of their apology and acknowledgement of problems. I continue to dislike, from any group, passing blame on to landlords. That is not because I believe the landlords are without fault, but because I believe there is a shared responsibility between tenants and landlords to address structural accessibility concerns, especially in long term leases.

Hi, Robin,
Mal passed on your comments regarding the Trades Club.
Firstly, could I apologise for the delay in responding and secondly,
for the Clubs shortcomings.We fully acknowledge your critical
comments.
While major structural changes are in the hands of our landlord ,(plans have been drawn up to link the lower and upper floor ),
there can be no excuse on our behalf for the lack of information
on the website . Clearly,we will set about trying to implement many of your suggestions.
In the meantime if you wish to discuss this in more detail, please
feel free to contact me. [redacted]
Kind Regards ,
Michael Coneys, Secretary ,The Trades Club

Sunday Short - Can't we have pretty things?

So I need a new shower stool right. But I have this thing where I loathe things commonly sold as "shower stools" in the UK. They are so often aluminium and white or grey plastic. At first I thought this was some sort of internalised disableism, and in part it may be, but it's actually mostly something else.

The grey plastic and aluminium is very institutional, very medicalised. It is reminiscent of, in-fact often the same items as, those used in hospitals.

And I hate being pathologised like that. I hate being reduced to a disability and being classified as a medical problem.

Just because I have a chronic illness, just because I am disabled does not mean that I shouldn't be allowed to have personal preferences or style. 

photograph showing shower stools and adaptive devices made of aluminium and grey and white plastic.

This is just a part of the wider problem of how disabled people are treated in the UK. It is a symptom of “othering” and of creating an “us” and “them”. Disabled people are the “them” of society, segregated and kept in place, identified and marked out by their aluminium and grey. These hospital style contraptions are the modern black triangle patches*.

Only when we start recognising that disabled people are, shockingly I know, people who are individuals with their own lives and interests that have nothing to do with their health will we start to break down the barriers between “us” and “them”.

And in the mean time I have to deal with the fact that something as basic as a wooden shower stool is seen as a luxury item costing £50 and up: my choices are to buy something cheap and not fit for purpose or a sturdy but ugly and medical styled aluminium stool.

*Disabled people were designated with black triangle patches in Nazi Germany as part of the asocial group. However some modern disability rights groups are reclaiming the symbol for their campaigns.

On the Subjugation of Animals for Human Entertainment.

An open letter to the curator of the exhibition held in Studio 24, Leeds, 16th & 17th November.

This letter was sent to the Curator of the exhibition on Saturday the 17th November. As of today, Sunday 25th November, I have not had a reply so am publishing without a response. Should I receive a reply I will update the post to include it.

I visited the Orwell Room 103 exhibition on Friday evening and for the most part really enjoyed it and appreciated many of the pieces of art on display. There was however one piece that gave me great concern and that I want to raise with you as curator.

Sadly I am unable to remember the artists name but the piece was I believe titled "Goldfish Bowl". At first I was struck by the powerful yet simple symbolism. I also assumed that the fish was fake, an illusion created by clever painting or resin pouring, a projection or even a well made puppet. But then I realised it was in fact a live fish. That was when my appreciation of a clever piece of art became horror and disgust.

The bowl was tiny and entirely unsuitable for housing a fish of that size as it does not allow for free and natural movement. It also didn't have a filter in to provide suitable oxygen for the fish to breathe and there was no cover again restricting natural behaviour and increasing stress. This is essentially a method of slowly torturing a fish. There is plenty of documentation available about the correct care and housing of fish of this type and size, and the days of a goldfish in a tiny bare bowl as the norm are long gone and criticised by the pet industry and aquatics enthusiasts alike. This would imply that the artist conceived of the idea of using a live animal as art and either did no research on proper care and animal ethics or did do the research and dismissed it in favour of making an artistic statement.

The piece then takes on a significantly different meaning - it highlights that we as a population, as a species, as people are content with the subjugation and ill treatment of living creatures as long as we can justify it with lofty terms like "art" and "symbolism" or even a more simply "entertainment". This itself is a critique of humanity in line with Orwellian ideology and a cruel reflection of ourselves, but to subjugate and mistreat an animal in an Orwell exhibit would seem to go against the man's own ethics and beliefs.

Even if that was the intention I can not agree with it. It would be one of those ideas that is wonderful in theory but that can not be put into practice because of basic ethical considerations. If the artist was cognisant of this and that sort of statement was intentional then to display the piece without commentary, explanation or at least a disclaimer about the care of the animal is irresponsible.

It may be that every evening the fish is removed and placed into a suitable environment but I and many others would argue that even temporary deliberate cruelty toward an animal is still not acceptable. Again to do so without any disclaimer or explanation is also irresponsible as it spreads the message to people that fish and other animals are essentially disposable and to be used as any inanimate object for the will of humans without thought or care.

While much of my complaint focuses on the decisions of the artist, as curator I believe you also share responsibility here. You choose to include the piece in your show. You chose to do so without requiring disclaimer or commentary. In doing so you give implicit support to this practice. From a legal perspective there is strong argument that this breaches the Animal Welfare Act of 2006 which requires need for a normal environment, need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, and need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

I understand that this is a very short exhibition and you may receive this message to late to be able to make alterations or remove the goldfish. However I would appreciate it if you give my comments proper consideration and issue a public statement on the matter to ensure that the use of live animals in art without the proper care or information is not considered acceptable.

I would hope that the artist is given proper feedback and critique so that this piece is a one off example and not repeated elsewhere.

Thank you for your time and I sincerely hope you understand that I appreciate and enjoyed the rest of the exhibition and that my critique is entirely meant to be constructive and informative as well as conveying my personal ethics and opinions.


Yours sincerely

Robin Tynan

Selling Art for Lyme Disease

I have talked about my experience of Lyme disease several times on this blog. It's a big part of my life.
The 28th of October was my 7th anniversary of being infected with Lyme disease: I was bitten by the tick that infected me on 28th of October 2011.

Each year I like to do something to mark it, and if possible to raise money for Lyme Disease Action, one of the few registered charities that is both educating and supporting research into Lyme Disease.

I decided to mark the occasion this year with some art. Both the animals I chose to paint are carriers of ticks in the UK and may be carriers of Lyme Disease. The hedgehog of course holds particular significance to me as I was roleplaying as a hedgehog at the time of being bitten. Never say I don't really get into character.

Each painting started with an ink and fountain pen sketch and was then coloured with water colours before being finished off with a little more ink. While I went down a natural route for the hedgehog I decided to go a little more whimsical with the badger which is painted in a beautiful mixture of teal and magenta handmade water colour paints.

image description: painting in shades of blue and magenta of a badger.
Original Painting by Robin Tynan available to purchase for £35

image description: watercolour painting of  a hedgehog with a mottled green and brown background.
Original Painting by Robin Tynan - SOLD

Both paintings are available as prints from Society6  and all profit will go to Lyme Disease Action.

The original painting of the badger is available to purchase for £35.
Please contact for details.

Let's talk about death

It being Halloween, All Hallows Eve, Samhain, Dia de los Muertos and so on, this seems like a good time to have a conversation about death and dying.

No, not the horrors of death, undead corpses walking around and spooky ghosts, but the actual realities of death and dying. For many people of different faiths and cultures, Halloween is more than an opportunity for costumes and scary films, it is a time where we consider grief and loss. There are often remembrances for the dead or the opportunity to accept loss and grieving and to move on. This ritual of being at peace with death and loss doesn't have to stop at others, it can extend to yourself too. Often this is metaphorical - saying goodbye to difficult circumstances or grieving a loss of self due to illness.
But maybe it can be more practical too. One of the many ways we can be more at peace with the concept of death in general and our own deaths in particular is toactually take time to think about what happens at the time. This doesn't just mean spiritual beliefs about the afterlife or what happens to a persons soul or spirit but can and should include practical considerations about how you physically want your death handled.

Ideally by considering these things and being open with loved ones about your own wishes you can encourage others to open up and talk about their wishes. While the thought of a loved one dying might be filled with sadness and fear, knowing what their beliefs are and what their wishes are can help to bring us to terms with their death (long) before the fateful day. If the only benefit is not having to worry about guessing at their wishes and making the practical aspect easier, that's still a weight off the shoulders of a grieving person.

In the therapy practice DBT this would probably be counted as the "coping ahead" skill in which a person visualises and works through a potentially distressing event in advance in order to lessen the impact of future feelings and to understand and cope with things which may be difficult.

But starting those conversations can be difficult. So let me go first.

I don't know what I believe about the afterlife. I am open to the concept of spiritual afterlives such as some non-Christian version of heaven. I don't really believe in reincarnation and I don't really believe in ghosts and the spirits of the dead haunting the living plane. I also don't believe that what you do to the body of the deceased impacts on any potential afterlife.

That doesn't mean I don't care what happens to my body. I actually do. I live my life in a manner which tries to be as environmentally friendly as possible within my circumstances and I would like that to be taken into account with what could be called my final act.

Ideally I would like to donate my body to medical science. I am also a registered organ donor. The process of donating your body to science happens long before you die. You have to submit a form or request to your chosen university of medicine giving your explicit consent while you are alive. It's not possible in most circumstances for somebody else to consent on your behalf after you have passed. If this is something you want then the earlier you arrange it the better. If you are in the UK can read the information on the Human Tissue Authority website. You will have to identify your local facility and contact them individually. I will be submitting a form to Leeds University as that is my local university. Should I move out of their "catchment area" then I will have to submit a form to whatever is the closest medical university there.
However, I also stated that I am an organ donor. Unfortunately this can be incompatible with donating your body to science. Medical researchers generally want whole bodies, so if your organs are donated after your death then the research institute may not be able to accept your body. There are other reasons they may not be able to take your body including some causes of death - each university has guidelines on what they can and can't accept. For this reason it's best not to leave your wishes at simply "donating to science".

image description: picture of a body wrapped in an unbleached linen shroud with yellow primroses resting on a wicker pallet. image from Respect Everybody Shrouds

I need a back up plan should my body not be accepted. For me there are a few considerations.
I specifically do not want to be embalmed and given a traditional British burial: the whole casket, 6ft down in a grave liner thing is not for me. It's too unnatural and too steeped in Christian traditions for me to be comfortable with. Embalming is also pretty nasty stuff. Sure I'll be dead and formaldehyde isn't going to harm me but it is a carcinogenic and there is the potential for harm to embalmers and also to wildlife and plant life should that fluid seep into the earth. Even worse, there have been cases of flooding in cemeteries which have washed that formaldehyde into our general water supply. Let's not do that.
So if I am to be buried I want it to be a natural burial without embalming and preferably in a shroud (I'm not going to lie if there is an eco friendly black option available, I'd love it) or all natural casket rather than the traditional big wooden box with all the fancy bits. This is usually called a Natural Burial or a Green Burial.

The other option I'd be interested in is sadly not licensed in the UK, but if it does become available before my death then it's super cool. It's called Alkaline Hydrolysis but is sometimes called "water cremation" or resomation. It's a process of essentially dissolving the body in an alkaline solution and then filtering the water. It's way more environmentally friendly than traditional cremation, though as it's less understood people are nervous about the thought of water filled with human remains. In reality this is cleaner than the smoke and vapour filled with human remains that gets pumped out of a crematory. My hope is that as it's talked about more people will become more comfortable with it and it will become legal in the UK. To be honest part of me likes this option because it has a slightly sci-fi feel to it.

image description: diagram of how an alkaline hydrolysis machine works showing a body in a cylindrical chamber. diagram from the BBC article "Dissolving the Dead"

And that's it. I have no specific wishes or requirements about funerals, wakes or memorials. I don't think that's up to me. That's something that is important to the living and I am happy to leave it to them to choose something that works for them and their grieving process. My concern is that my body is treated in a way that reflects my values. I would like my loved ones to know and be aware that they can be a part of this process if they want to be - if they want to prepare the body or be there at the burial or water cremation,  if they want a body that can be viewed. I want them to know that they have rights and some measure of control over how they mourn and deal with this event. It doesn't have to be completely taken out of their hands by a formal and clinical funeral home unless that's what they want. And a wake or memorial service can take place at any point and in any place they see fitting. That's ok with me.

I hope this helps you think about your own death in more positive or at least pragmatic terms. Let's start having these conversations and making death a less scary and incomprehensible thing.
There will always be sadness and grief around death and that's ok. But we don't have to make it harder on ourselves if we don't have to.

Reconsidering the "Walkable City"

Based on previous posts (and chatter on facebook if you follow me there) you may be aware that I am interested in the concept of solarpunk and future cities. For those not initiated to the idea of solarpunk it is the concept of a better society that is built using modern (or future) science and is harmonious with the environment and with the people who live in it. If you read my post on Wakanda you will know my delight about a city that is not only environmentally sound, scientifically advanced but also people friendly and accessible and that’s a big deal.

The concept of walkable cities then, surely that fits into my solar punk future science ideal? Well yes and no. A recent article from the Guardian inadvertently provides the perfect example of this. The article itself is well written and well sourced with examples of a number of cities and studies but really the first indication of an issue is the title “a walkable city”. This name itself discounts large proportions of the population who can’t walk at all or easily. You could argue that the title isn’t specific but instead is referring to a concept. However the wording, as innocent it may be, directs people’s thoughts to walking and overlooking those that can’t walk.

A walkable city isn’t always about places being totally pedestrianised but the aim is for pedestrians to take priority and to be safe navigating on foot. The benefits are undoubted - lower levels of pollution, less collisions and accidents, better footfall and sales especially for small businesses. These are undoubtedly good things as is encouraging those who are able to to walk a little more to get more fresh air and be more active. But a potential benefit that is ignored is allowing disabled people to be more independent as well.

The article cites a number of cities and projects and the approaches they have taken. In London they have been using cameras and software to track the movement of cars, pedestrians and cyclists in order to determine the most efficient routes and road layouts to encourage more pedestrians. In Auckland the council have taken steps to make areas more “pedestrian friendly” by adding more trees and benches and removing car parking. Greater Manchester are creating “beelines” a joined up system of paths and cycle routes across their city to aid people walking from place to place and reducing the reliance on cars.

What is missing from all of these projects are considerations or even an acknowledgement of disabled people and the needs they may have or how their experiences may impact what counts as a “walkable” city.

Tracking footfall, bicycles and cars is a useful and important project and will certainly provide important information, however it only leads to an accessible city if those various pathways are wide enough for pedestrians and power chair or mobility scooter users. Trees and benches are great, especially providing seating for those who fatigue easily, but they must be placed in such a way that they don’t provide impediments to those who are blind or partially cited, and leave room for walking and chair based pedestrians alike to use the paths concurrently. Likewise for cycle and footpaths that span cities.

Creating pedestrian zones that allow easy walking is a wonderful idea but we also must recognise that walking across a city centre, even a walk of only a few hundred yards is impossible for some people. There still needs to be adequate disabled parking - and for there to be a cultural shift which doesn’t restrict them to only those who have been granted a Blue Badge (Blue Badges are often awarded based on your PIP award, since not everybody is awarded PIP no matter how high the need, this means people who need the badges may not have them).

But it goes even beyond that. According to some metrics York would be considered a “walkable city” by many. Much of the city centre is pedestrianised with limited traffic flow and priority given to pedestrians. This encourages a high percentage of thriving independent businesses. Anybody with mobility or other access issues would be quick to point out though, that it is most definitely not an accessible city. The streets are narrow and crowded, they are winding and uneven: a mix of narrow kerbs, cobbles, paving stones, sign-posts, bike racks and more. Getting around on foot with mobility issues is difficult: getting around in a chair is prohibitive. That’s even without addressing things like noise and visibility or the additional barrier of steps into buildings. A walkable city is not an accessible city and it’s very easy to end up with one at the cost of the other.

What frustrates me most about this article is how many of the project authors have been keen to consider inclusivity, for example Action Aid’s app and program to allow people to document streets and buildings they feel safe or unsafe in (and then hopefully passing that on to organisations that can make improvements). It quotes Susan Claris of Arup as saying “[a] huge indicator of a civilised walkable city” is safe public toilets. Clearly some thought and care is going into these studies. But what of people who don’t have access to a public toilet at all, safe or otherwise? Of the many public facilities across the UK (including over 4000 council run toilets) only a fraction of those are labelled accessible, fewer still are actually accessible (it’s not accessible if it’s also your storeroom) and even less are rated by Changing Spaces as suitable for an adult who needs a carer. In these pedestrianised walkable cities in which people aren’t able to dive into their car and speed home if caught short accessible toilets absolutely should be a priority.

Even worse in my eyes is that the article cites the “double buggy” test, being used by the Manchester project to determine if paths are wide enough that somebody could get a double pram down. That is important: parents and pushchairs should be thought about (and let’s not forget many of those parents may be disabled in someway themselves - using a double buggy instead of carrying a child may even be an accessibility adaptation for them) and it inadvertently helps disabled people - if a double buggy can get through so can the majority of mobility scooters, manual and power chairs. But nobody likes being an inadvertent afterthought, or in this case possibly not even an afterthought since we aren’t afforded the column inches by the journalist. It is significant because it would imply that the needs of disabled people aren’t being considered in these plans at all. If a double buggy can get down a path then yes a chair can too. But whereas a parent may be able to push a chair up or down a kerb, and over uneven surfaces or around awkwardly placed signs, a person in a power chair may not be able to and that’s just not a concern for these project builders.

Disabled people already struggle with getting out and about. But their absence from everyday public view on the streets of our cities isn’t because we don’t want to be there, it’s because of the barriers architects, councils, town planners and engineers have put in our way. The reason so many visionaries of future cities seem to have forgotten about us is because we are already kept out of site and out of mind by the societies we live in. Creating a fresh new walkable city or a city of the future is an admirable goal but if you look at your artists impressions and computer simulations and all you see are non-disabled people then you’ve gone wrong. You have neglected and discriminated against a large group of people who have every right to enjoy the businesses, places of work and attractions of a city with the same ease, safety and comfort as any other citizen disabled or not. That shouldn’t be forgotten about and it shouldn’t be reduced to an afterthought.

Truly revolutionary design and development comes by considering all the people who will be using your creation. Truly functional design that stands the test of time is something that can be embraced by the whole population and is fit for purpose, avoiding the need for decades of patching and re-engineering. That absolutely means considering the needs of everybody including disabled people.

So what of my shiny solarpunk dream cities? Would they be “walkable”? No. They would be accessible. Accessible to all who need to be there. For many that will mean safe and easy walking for others that will mean spaces and access routes for personal vehicles (electric and self driving of course, this is my dream after all). Streets that can be navigated with ease, clear road signs with braille or audio that can be picked up by a user’s app. Plenty of seating, and yes, good clean accessible toilets. Designated cycle lanes that don’t encroach on pedestrian space. Charging points for electric chairs and scooters. Smooth surfaces and ramps between different levels. Good lighting (reactive for energy efficiency and to reduce light pollution). Options and services for those people who need help carrying things (drones maybe?). Good public transport with easy access points and methods for getting into the centre of “pedestrian” spaces.

Yes some of these are out of our reach right now but many of them aren’t are are what I would think of as basic and minimal changes to a city to make it both accessible and pedestrian friendly. If the money can be spent on these existing projects then it can be spent on improving accessibility.

I don’t want to see any more think pieces on walkable cities. I want to see think pieces on accessible and inclusive cities. I don’t want to be erased from a future that hasn’t happened yet.

Amazingly, the Guardian has written on this subject themselves with an article called "What would a truly accessible city look like" from February 2018. They just must have forgotten about it. 

Caring is not a heroic task

I am having lots of thoughts and feelings about what happened yesterday that I need to get out. So long post warning. (CN: seizures, drug and alcohol use, homelessness and related issues)

What happened

I was walking along a pretty busy street (Boar Lane) in Leeds heading to get a bus. Just off the pain pavement I saw a guy start to have pretty severe convulsions. It was distinctly not somebody wobbling and stumbling as if drunk. He was still mostly upright at that point but was starting to sag. I went over to help him - he appeared to be unconscious and seizing. I got my arms around him to stop him falling but couldn't lower him to the ground by myself as a fully grown unconscious person is difficult to manoeuvre. I called for help and a man and woman came over to me. The man called for an ambulance and the woman helped me lower the patient to the ground. He was still seizing but we got him into the recovery position. Eventually the convulsions stopped but he remained unconscious. his pulse was weak and his breathing irregular to start with though it did steady eventually.

We stayed like that for 45 minutes waiting for an ambulance monitoring his heart rate and breathing.

During that time three people stopped to see if wee needed help, two security guards asked if we needed him moving, a pair of Leeds BID asked us what he'd taken and and, group of kids stood and watched and told us we were idiots for helping him.

Also a group of homeless guys came over to see what was happening, managed to give us his name, informed us that he suffers from seizures but he'd been using spice so he was just sleeping and then left.

After 45 minutes the guy woke up confused and a little belligerent. I managed to talk to him for a few minutes but we couldn't keep him there and he left. He told us he had been smoking spice not long before it happened. He left to go and smoke more.

The aftermath

So last night and today I felt like crap. Part of me is so angry at all the people who walk past and stare and do nothing. I guess when it's fairly obvious that first aid is happening and somebody is on a phone you don't need to stop because it's under control. But at the point where i was one small person with a walking stick trying to hold on to a fully grown convulsing man how many just ignored it. The people who did help were lovely. They weren't local and were having a short break in Leeds this was their first day.

What's worse though are those who said we shouldn't help. The people who are happy to ignore somebody in distress because they look homeless. From the distance I was at when he started convulsing I could see no indication he was homeless or a euphemistically named "street drinker". I wasn't even sure when I literally had my arms around him with him leaning his full weight on me. I wasn't sure when he was on the ground (though I had a fair idea at that point) and saw the dirt and the purple ears and the abrasions and other signs of spending your days and nights on a street. I was only sure when the other local homeless people came and told us.

But even then why does his status as homeless or a drug user make him less worthy of help?

Several people said "oh it's just spice." or some variant on that. But it doesn't matter. he had a seizure. Maybe if he was just asleep it wouldn't matter, it would be "just spice" but he had a seizure. That's not normal. That's not good. OK using spice isn't exactly good for you and but neither is sleeping rough. But that doesn't make having a seizure any less of a medical red flag or to be taken any less seriously.

I was particularly angry at the Leeds BID (Business Improvement District) reps who walked up and the first thing they said was "what has he taken?". No concern for his welfare. No concern for our welfare. Just an assumption and a judgement that he had taken sometihng. At that point we didn't know anyway. When we responded with "maybe nothing, he had a seizure" they just walked away.

Since they first appeared I have had a strong distrust of Leeds BID and their bowler hatted reps. Their purpose is to make Leeds attractive to investors and business. Their methodology is to remove anything on the street that isn't aesthetically pleasing or is in someway distasteful or a nuisance. They make me think (not helped by their uniforms) of some sort of Nazi era brigade charged with ridding our city of the unclean and unwanted, those who are a stain on their plans of creating a capitalist utopia. I don't believe they have any real power to move or harass homeless people but they do. I have a horrible nagging suspicion that they would deploy the same tactics on disabled people if they could especially those who use chairs and scooters and don't look "inspiring" enough.

Image shows three people wearing matching Leeds BID uniforms of white shirt, black skirt or trousers, black waistcoat, yellow tie and a black bowler hat with a yellow band. The are stood in a street and are smiling.

Certainly this interaction didn't do anything to improve my opinion of them. It just made me sad and angry.

Thankfully the couple helping me seemed to share by views and put up with my emotional socialist rambles.

The other group that had a big impact on me were the kids. This was toward the end of our tenure as carers. A group of kids maybe aged around 12 years old? (I find it really hard to age kids, especially boy presenting kids who are over the age of about 8 and under 14). They stopped and leaned on the railing and watched and jeered. They couldn't understand why we were helping him. They kept saying "he's just asleep. It's just spice". First of all why were they so familiar with spice. That was so terribly sad. I don't want to pretend that at that age I was unfamiliar with drugs or their specific names but I don't think I would have been so blase about it when seeing somebody unconscious in the street. What was even worse is they were right. He had taken spice. How are these kids so familiar with it that they can tell when somebody has used it and just not care.

How are these kids so uncaring that a man passed out in the street that it doesn't bother them? Is it uncaring? Is it a lack of compassion or is it just that for whatever reason they have learned that this is nothing to be concerned about. I know it is highly unlikely that all or even any of those kids were genuine psychopaths, rather that these were learned experiences from listening to and watching adults or even worse based on their exposure and familiarisation with this sort of event. While their reactions were aggravating and unhelpful at the time, really it was overwhelmingly sad. It was heartbreaking to think that these kids were growing up learning not to care. That they were growing up intimately familiar with dangerous drug use. That they were growing up thinking it's ok to abandon somebody in need because they may be a drug user. I just don't know what to do about that. I can only hope that seeing three people taking time out of their day to care may sink in. I can only hope that the explanations we gave - that it doesn't matter the reason, that we didn't want him to hit his head, that seizures aren't a normal reaction and should be taken seriously - were enough to convince them that maybe it is worth caring even if it's "just spice".

For some reason the fact that those kids witnessed the guy waking up, had it confirmed that he had been using spice and saw him walk away just made it all the more bitter. I fear that all their bias was confirmed. It was just spice. He was "just sleeping". We were just silly people who cared too much.

I keep coming back to that. Even the ambulance service, who I know are stretched thin, didn't think a person who had been unresponsive for 45 minutes following a seizure was worth responding too. Possibly just the location - an area with a lot of street drinkers and drug users during the day - was enough to make them lower the severity of the call. Maybe I am naive to stop and help. Maybe I should have walked away. Maybe it was "just spice" and he was "just asleep" and it wasn't worth my effort.

Because afterwards I was physically exhausted. Adrenaline hurts my body. I mean really hurts. Afterwards I was shaking and exhausted and in pain. I had a panic attack and was looked after by a nice barista who saw me shaking and saw my Stickman Communication cards. I could hardly stand up. I could hardly talk. But there's the person we just spent 45 minutes crouched over monitoring his breathing, keeping his airway clear staggering away and rolling another joint so it can all happen again.

photograph shows two stacks of laminated cards on a table next to a glass of water and a hot chocolate. The cards are brightly coloured with text and stickman drawings on 

I know the maxim "put your own oxygen mask on first" meaning see to your own welfare before that of others - because if you aren't OK you can't look after others. Maybe that's all that the people who walked past and said nothing were doing - putting on their own oxygen mask. Don't have the skills or temperament or physical or mental capacity to help, don't get involved. I can't judge that. I really can't because sometimes you do have to consider your own well being and I can't begrudge somebody who doesn't have the skills to get involved in something they may not understand. So why do I. Why don't I put my own needs first. Am I really that stupid and naive to think that it is worth it? It's not the first time.

What the hell is this world we are living in that I am left to feel ashamed and stupid for caring about somebody? Why is it that the first and accepted response is "what has he taken?" and then to move on?

So here I am the day after what turned out not to be a medical emergency but may actually have been a medical emergency tired and sore and broken and vacillating from sadness to anger to self doubt.

I don't want to be told I am a hero or that I am a good person. It shouldn't stand out. It should just be what people do. But it isn't and I don't understand that.

I am so incredibly lucky that the people who stopped to help were of the same mind and that same willingness to help regardless of if it was "just spice."



If you like my writing why not support me by  

Art Therapy and my mental health.

You have probably noticed that the blog has been quiet of late. There's two big reasons. Firstly over the Summer I crew Empire, a LARP run by Profound Decisions. I had played previously but this year I joined the crew team in GOD (Game Operations Desk) and I am so glad I made that decision. Due to my ME I struggled to get as much out of the game as I wanted as a player. Crewing is perfect. I actively enjoy helping other players and then time I get in character is stress free. However Crewing is very hard work and I end up utterly exhausted afterwards. It takes me about a week to be any sort of functional post game and three weeks or so to get back to my "normal" level of functionality which of course still has ME. When games are only six weeks apart and I have other things going on in between, that makes the summer a difficult time and far less productive that I would like. Obviously my ability to blog takes a hit.
The other iss ue has been my mental health and that's really what this blog post is about. I have suffered with mental health issues for the majority of my life. I first showed signs of depression and anxiety when I was about eight years old. I'm 33 now. At times in my life it has been terrible all consuming and even a dangerous illness. A lot of the time it is managed well.
I find it a little odd to talk about at times. I am very open about having mental health issues and always willing to talk about my experience and observations. At the same time I am a vey private and guarded person who doesn't share personal details. What this means is that I will often talk about my dealings with mental health is very general and abstract terms, and quite freely when I am doing well. However I very rarely talk to anybody at all about what I am experiencing directly, when I am experiencing it. I am very good at hiding it from people, not talking about it, glossing over and diverting conversations. An extraordinarily tiny number of people know what goes on inside my head, and an even smaller number know what's happening in real time. Now this isn't super healthy and I am getting better at opening up a little.
I have been working with a therapist over the past 9 months or so who has been tremendously helpful. I have also started doing DBT group work which is also proving helpful in learning how to manage particular events with my mental health.
Now, unsurprisingly I don't want to go into the ins and outs of exactly what is going on in my head, the triggers or causes. It's very personal and incredibly difficult for me to talk about. Part of my issues are caused by my hormones. I have a progestogen deficiency which causes something known as Pr-Menstrual Dysphoria. What this does is cause severe mental health issues including depression, mood swings and anxiety four about two weeks of every month linked to my hormonal cycle.  It is mostly controlled by using things like the progestogen implant but it doesn't cancel out the effects completely.
Additionally, even without that I would probably have depression and other mental health issues caused simply by the way my brain produced chemicals as well as due to events which happened in my past. I can't get away from them.
So I am working with a Dr to find the right dosage of progestogen to take (I will need tablets in addition to the implant) to manage the PMD and the therapist to understand and manage what goes on in my head.
It's actually pretty hard work and exhausting in itself. When it is going on at a time when I am physically exhausted due to events and my ME it can become even tougher.

So on to art therapy. I am not formally doing art therapy, but I do enjoy art and my therapist has come to udnersand that while I struggle immensely to talk about some of my issues I am able to paint and draw things to help explainw hat is going on. So I am encouraged to do so. It helps me and my therapist better understand the situation. Before moving on I want to just make a distinction about art therapy.
Sometimes people think that art therapy is things like colouring books, drawing or doodling as a soothing activity that forms a part of self care allowing people to feel calmer, more connected or centred. This isn't strictly art therapy, but is art as therapy and is subtly different. It's still very valuable but not quite the same. Art therapy on the other hand specifically uses artistic methods as a tool in helping patients to understand explore and communicate their thoughts and feelings. It can simultaneously be a therapeutic process but the focus is on using the art as a way of understanding or managing the mental health issues. Art Therapy is usually directed by a therapist and carried out with heir guidance with some sort of discussion about the art during or after the process of creating. The inclusion of a therapist is important as there are occasions when it can be a difficult or painful process to go through as the artist patient starts to encounter difficult or traumatic feelings.

For this reason what I have been doing sits somewhere on the fence between art therapy and art as therapy. It is specifically me trying to express and visualise some of the experiences I have with my mental health. They help me to understand them better and allow me to discuss and demonstrate to my therapist. However I am free to create them outside of therapy sessions and art itself is a soothing and therapeutic activity for me.

So the paintings themselves. I am sharing them with you because I would love to be more open about my experiences but I physically can not find the words to do so. My own brain won't let me tell you. But I can show you. I can let you see and hope you understand. More than that you might relate to some of the paintings and recognise what is going on. I have already shown these paintings individually on Instagram and have had a few people say that yes, they connect with that imagery.

Painting these has been a benefit to me. They will continue to be a benefit as we dissect them in therapy and as I look back on them and am able to take control of my brain by being able to visualise neatly what is happening.
I am still going to be a little cagey in describing each one. I hope the paintings speak for themselves.
If you do recognise or connect with any of them  then please feel free to leave a comment or if you would like you can email me.

Mental health 1 - Anxiety. fountain pen drawing with watercolours.
[image description: photograph of a large painting. There is a black ink sketch of a brain centre bottom and filling the rest of the sheet directed toward the brain are bold paint stroked of indigo paint. There are blotches of magenta paint interspersed. There are rough horizontal lines drawn randomly over the paint. Some of the paint overlaps the brain.]

Close up of Anxiety showing blue paint over laying the sketch of the brain, splotches of magenta and bold ink lines.

Mental Health 2 - Intrusive thoughts.
[image description: rough pen and ink sketch of a face with eyes screwed shut. The face is surrounded by messy pools of blue watercolour with streaks of dark lavender and yellow ochre. The paint overlaps the edges of the sketch. The paint has a patina or pattern of small white splotches.]

Close up of Intrusive Thoughts showing texture in blue paint caused by sprinkling salt onto wet paint

Close up of Intrusive Thoughts showing strong lines of yellow ochre over the softer patches of blue.

Mental Health 2 Anxiety Attacks
[pen and ink sketch of a naked human body in a fetal position with their hands over their head. The figure is surrounded by jagged grey clouds which sharp lines reaching out toward the figure. Closer to the figure is a soft red hue with tendrils overlapping the figure drawing.]

Close up of Anxiety Attacks showing the tangle of grey and red lines overlapping the figure

Sunday Short - LARP: your prejudice breaks my immersion

This post is inspired by some conversations and mutual rants on my Facebook feed. Names are blanked out as this was not on a public filter. 

The subject of today's post is that of how people fight against the notion of using the correct pronouns and gendered terms for people. I have chosen to take excerpts from a thread of people who were all "on the same side" in this battle and who were collectively venting their frustration at people who look for any excuse not to use the correct pronouns for people when asked to do so.

This mutual annoyance had been triggered by a series of comments on a LARP specific facebook page in which a person had said they had some wooden pronoun badges available for people at an upcoming event. They also shared the relevant rules pages of the event that explained both acceptable in character (IC) and out of character (OC/OOC) language and the in character attitudes toward both gender and people who are trans and/or nonbinary. For the most part the responses were positive and supportive. Many people expressed excitement at how these would be personally helpful, while others expressed mild confusion to the concept along with their support and promises to do their best.
This is exactly the sort of response you would hope for.

Of course though there were those who adamantly insisted that it was all too confusing for them and others who insisted that having to use correct pronouns or seeing setting appropriate pronoun badges would "break their immersion". But more of that later.

I wanted you to see it from this angle as I think often in these situations, the minority group being targeted feels they have to go to great lengths to stay polite and reasonable and any show of anger and annoyance is seen as being unreasonable, demanding and disruptive. What's not understood is that actually these things really do upset people, that restraint is not just tedious but emotionally draining and actually, in safe spaces people have a lot to say. Not only that but that this isn't one or two individuals nor is it just those who are personally impacted there are many others who offer their support.

These excerpts are taken from a much larger discussion.
NB when it is necessary to differentiate between people posting I will refer to them by the colour used to blank out their names.

screen shot of a Facebook post. The posters name and profile picture are obscured. transcript below.

[red person] [LARP list - Empire - small rant cw. misgendering]
I am gonna start by saying I'm angry, but not necessarily at anyone in particular.
Yes, one guy said that PRONOUN BADGES BREAK HIS IMMERSION-ish. And sure he was way privileged but not malicious. Although it annoyed me because this was posted in the AMAZING [name redacted]'s post about their awesomeness to get IC pronoun badges out, supporting transfolk (including me!) And some cis-jebend comes out with this?
Nah bruv. Back of the line!
As was pointed out, there is (meant to be) no gender bias in Empire, but it's not gender blind.
Also if pronound badges break your immersion ... just ... really, it breaks your immersion?!?!
Luckily, though it's not about you or your immersion. It's about avoiding misgendering, which can be HORRID btw.
Sigh. 

Luckily ppl have been amazing in response. 

I mean this sums it up really. It's frustrated and annoyed and the poster just wants to have nice things and not be misgendered.

Yet when a person starts complaining about having to call people by the correct pronouns that's what they are doing. They are knowingly getting a part of somebody's identity wrong. People will come up with all sorts of excuses about why this should be ok , or about why they should be excused from the basic courtesy of calling people by the name and gendered terms they are comfortable with.
As we shall now see.

Screen shot of facebook comments. The first comment is by ORANGE and has two short replies from RED and PINK. There is another comment from PINK. Both comments have a number of like, love and funny reacts.

 [orange person] Know what breaks my immersion? the tractor that empties the toilets. Know what form of immersion I'm happy to deal without? Actual literal tonnes of human waste.
[red person replies] YES!
[pink person replies] Hahahaha. Giggling at my desk here.
[pink person] If a wooden badge breaks his immersion, I dread to think what potion lammies, the caterers, the use of normal money to buy things, monstering battles, referees, the toilets, the continued existence of Silverstone on the edge of hearing and time-out do. But I have a long standing solution to people with immersion problems. It involves a large paddling pool and I didn't need it last event. 

Immersion, for those not familiar with the term in this context, is the concept of being fully immersed in the make-believe world of a LARP. It is how much you feel that it is all real as it is happening and "buy-in" to the game. It's not essential and it's never going to be 100%. At the end of the day we all do know we are at a game and this isn't real life. Some degree of immersion really can make for a better game, there's little argument there. We often strive towards as compelling and "believable" setting, story and characters as we can and that's great. If you don't LARP think about sitting down to watch a film or read a book and getting totally engrossed in it so that the mundane world is temporarily shut out. It's a much different experience than when people are rustling bags of crisps, talking and walking across your view of the movie screen.
But, our orange and pink people above aptly describe, there are always going to be intrusions. In a fest LARP they can range to basic modern sanitation like emptying the portable toilets to things designed to make the games work like referees (I've included a brief glossary of terms at the bottom of this post). We just work around them, accept them and carry on with our game.
The references to Silverstone by the way is because this game happens to take place near Silverstone Race Track and though we never run on major F1 days there are often other race days on which can sound like an alarmingly large swarm of wasps.

To argue that with all that, pronoun badges and calling people the right terms is immersion breaking is a weak excuse. It's churlish and transphobic. It's finding the thought of being reminded to use the correct terms so outlandish and unreasonable as to be more disruptive than a septic tank being emptied.
Not only that it is selfish. Even if it were somehow terribly disruptive to be reminded by a small wooden badge what pronoun a person uses, it presumes that your own sense of immersion and experience of a game is more important than not misgendering somebody for an entire weekend.

OK on to the next round.

Screen shot of a Facebook comment with three replies. two names have been obscured the third is mine. Transcript below

[red person] HALP
What can I reply to comments such as "[name redacted] see this is my problem to me, people are people regardless of these endless labels, we all are just people" ??
That's GREAT that you do and fab. The label, the one you scorn that helped me find who I am "Agender" is part of my IDENTITY. Don't DISMISS MY IDENTITY JUST YOU DON'T SEE IT.
I'M A PERSON RESPECT WHO I AM.
[Robin Tynan] "though we are all just people labels are commonly used in our culture and language. Since we use them all the time for people it's a good idea to make sure we use the correct ones. Also while you may be happy to have any random word used to describe you, others prefer if the language is more precise. It's just personal preference and there's no harm in respecting that."
[green person] With an axe?
[Robin Tynan] ^ wait ignore me, do this.

What we have here being quoted by Red Person is a frustratingly common rhetoric. "We're all just people", "I don't see labels". Yet people do see labels. Most people are comfortable being called by their own name and not by somebody elses, or even by a variant of their name. I have worked with a Steve and a Stephen, they were very different people. Steve hated being called Stephen and vis versa. Equally, a lot of people get ranckled if they get a letter addressed to Miss instead of Mrs, Ms instead of Miss or Mrs instead of Ms: that's not even misgendering, they're all female but we know that in our culture each of those labels confers different meaning and so we like the correct one to be used. Most cis people don't have the discomfort of being routinely misgendered but wouldn't hesitate to correct somebody if they incorrectly used Sir or Madam - and those who got bullied when younger for being "like a boy" or "not manly enough" may particularly be sensitive to what pronouns and gendered terms get used for them.
And that's just us as individuals. Have you ever patted somebodies dog and said "How old is he?" only to be given a firm "She is eight." . So many people are very quick to make sure the "correct" labels are used for creatures (and even things, like boats and cars) who have no concept of English language let alone sex and gender.
This is a common and shared experience. Most people actually do care about and use labels far more than they realise and I can't think of anybody I have ever met who has genuinely appeared not to care. Yet when it comes to asking people to respect the pronouns of people who are trans and/or nonbinary people forget a lifetime of experience and turn into egalitarian hippies who shun labels and social constructs like gender. Its insincere, it looks insincere and it infuriating. Again it's hurtful and transphobic and unnecessarily passive aggressive. If these arguments only apply when you are in a conversation about trans and nonbianry people then you are discriminating against them and acting with prejudice.

Screen shot from facebook showing a comment and subsequent replied from the same person. The second reply itself contains a screenshot from elsewhere on facebook. Name obscured, transcript below

[purple person] YUP THAT THREAS IS 99% AWESOMENESS AND THEN THESE TWO PEOPLE.
like, I'd already ranted about [name redacted]'s first comment last night, and it's like, it's not enough she's not being coddles for not being able to use "they/them", she then has to continue plowing in with her fucking aggravating comments. like SHUT THE FUCK UPPPPPPPPPP [name redacted].
[purple person replies] Honestly, Like, this comment is the only reason I engaged with her second comment. Like, first of all, there's no "problem". Second of all "if I'm uncertain"?? THE POINT OF THIS IS TO MAKE [SURE] YOU'RE NOT UNCERTAIN. THIS THREAD [the original] IS LITERALLY TALKING ABOUT HOW TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE CERTAIN ABOUT SOMEONE'S PRONOUNS.
THIRDLY I AM DONE WITH "I'M OLD SO I'M TRANSPHOBIC/RACIST/SEXIST"
[quoted excerpt from original thread] perfect I am older than the average LARPer and therefor find adjusting my language hard and have been known to cause offence inadvertantly. In an effort to prevent this if I am uncertain I use the person's name instead of pronouns. Problem Solved.
[purple person] AND THEN THAT PITY PARTY OF A THIRD COMMENT. LIKE, WE GET IT, YOU'RE REALLY MAD YOU'VE NOT SUCCESSFULLY MADE THIS THREAD ABOUT YOU BUT STFU PLZ

As you may have noted, Purple Person has some strong feelings here. You might think some of their responses are an over reaction, but I absolutely 100% agree with them and they are far from an over reaction. (keep in mind this response was not said directly to the offending person, the wrath was reserved for elsewhere). I want to focus on the quoted excerpt here. It almost sounds very reasonable and quite nice. They are making an effort aren't they? What's wrong. 

Well read it again, and read it from the point of view of who it is aimed at.

"I am older than the average LARPer and therefor find adjusting my language hard and have been known to cause offence inadvertently." This is actually a good start. Because you see, we're all human, we all make mistakes. People who are trans sometimes make mistakes about their own names and pronouns especially if they haven't "fully" transitioned or have to use one name in one context and another elsewhere. Adjusting language takes time. 

The thing is, most of us realise that firstly, if you make a mistake, most people aren't actually offended. They aren't because, mistakes happen. A single mistake isn't a problem. But reading between the lines here we know that this isn't a one off slip of the tongue. It's multiple mistakes. It's repeated "mistakes" it's mistakes with no effort to really learn and no real concern about the impact. You think you've likely caused offence. You know your actions are less than good. 

Secondly, this sort of statement should really be followed by an apology. There is no apology, just a statement that you know you do it wrong, you know what you do may hurt people and that's it. That's pretty self centred and pretty crap.

Now on to the second part "In an effort to prevent this if I am uncertain I use the person's name instead of pronouns. Problem Solved.". Really as Purple Person pointed out, you have already been given a solution to this, an aid so you don't have to just know or try and remember: pronoun badges, the thing you are grumbling about. This has a number of issues. Pronoun badges are things which many trans and nonbinary people have decided they are comfortable to wear and understand that it makes it easier for people to use and remember their pronouns and genders. When ti comes to dealing with "isms" and discrimination against minority groups it's very important that we listen to those minority groups. They are generally best placed to know what solutions will work best for them as they are the ones with first hand experience. So here we have a number of people who belong to a minority group saying "this is a tool which will help all of us, please use this to reduce a problem we experience". To be completely ignored and then to see somebody declare their own "solution" completely ignores and disenfranchises the minority group. It serves to assert the majority as the dominant voice over the minority.

The "solution" itself is a problem. It ignores the problem and erases a core part of the issue. If the issue is having genders recognised and respected including both nonbinary and binary genders, then a solution that seeks to ignore those and just use a name means you are neither recognising nor respecting the person. It also means that you are treating trans and nonbinary people differently to cis people. Other people are afforded pronouns and appropriate gendered language in a natural use of the English language: trans and nonbinary people will be referred to differently only using their name in a manner that is awkward with common English language usage. 

As previously Purple Person also highlights the use of excuses designed to place a person's comfort above a person's right to be recognised as their own gender (which is literally covered by the Human Rights Act 1996). In this case the excuse isn't "immersion" it is age. People are well aware that people with a lifetime of using one set of language may struggle changing that language, as noted above we all make mistakes and that's ok. However there is a marked difference between those who say "ok it may take me some time to get used to it, it's unfamiliar" and "I'm old so I find it difficult so I'm going to fight it.". Furthermore we aren't actually talking about anything particularly new here. People of any age are used to using a singular they/them - it's something we have done for a long time if we weren't sure of a person's pronouns e.g. "do you know when they called?" or "I got an email from Alex, I will reply to them later.". People are also used to being polite and respectful and using the pronoun, salutation or name asked of them: to use an earlier example "It's Mrs, thank you" "oh, sorry, Mrs Reynolds". Being polite and respectful around what people are called is nothing new and has little to do with age.

Purple Person made a lot of good points and one final thing I'd like to explore from their posts that is important to us all is, as they put it, "the pity party". That's really what a lot of this comes down to and I have already talked about it briefly: the idea that it is all about them. Somebody is making a polite request and sharing some useful information that helps a group of people: people reply in a way that recentres the conversation around them and how they feel about it. Let's be clear here, the original post wasn't a debate, it wasn't even a discussion. It was for the sole purpose of providing information. That it became a point for people of the same minority group to show appreciation was a bonus. There was no need for people not of that minority group to voice their opinions. Asking respectful questions "is it ok if ..?" "where can I find out about ..?" is one thing, challenging and arguing is another. 

Not everything is about you. Or me. Or them. Or that person over there. There are some people who are in more privileged groups, that is they are not in a minority or have any protected characteristics, who are very used to things being about them. The whole reason we have minority groups is often because our culture is set up to serve one particular group of people: names white, British, straight, male, able bodied and cis-gendered. The more of those groups you fit in to the more the world is set up to benefit you. People who find themselves in several of those groups often seem to express shock and annoyance when conversation doesn't revolve around them and there is a natural tendency for them to try and shift the focus. 

This means they are taking the voice away from an already underrepresented group. That's literally discrimination.

Face book screen shot with person's name obscured in blue.

[blue person] OOC prejudice sneaking IC breaks my immersion.

I love this comment. It sums it all up very well in my opinion. Plus I like a bit of dry humour. 

You think a small pronoun badge makes the fanatsy world a little bit less real for you? Well your prejudice makes the real world a lot harder for me and many others.

It's not a competition. It's not about trumping people. It's about being a reasonable person and sometimes putting people's real world needs above petty annoyances. 

A pronoun badge shouldn't break your immersion, but if it does, suck it up.

Glossary

LARP - Live Action Roleplay

IC- In character, when a person is playing as their LARP character. Can also refer to things happening within the game world that the characters are experiencing.

O/OC - Out of Character, when you are being yourself and not your character: things experienced in the real world, not in the game.

Immersion - the sense of being part of the game world and story and experiencing things as your character

Referees - people who help to run the game usually in the function of enforcing or facilitating rules. They may be present IC or OC.

Monstering - the role of playing a non-player-character or monster instead of your own character in order to provide plot or action for others. Often means taking a turn playing "the opposing side" in a battle.