I never did any formal vocal therapy, but I do speak differently than I used to, and itās generally good enough to get me maāamed on the phone. Iām not even sure I could talk the way I used to if I tried, and Iām afraid my voice would get stuck there if I did, lol. My brother and I used to be indistinguishable on the phone, as evidenced by the fact that, in the days before caller ID, our parents never could tell which one of us was calling until we told them who we were. That is definitely no longer true. We arenāt twins, either. Heās two years older. We just had the same vocal cords, apparently.
Filing that away for a couple of my patients who find their speaking voice very distressing. Yay more info!!
I actually keep my hair fairly short these days. Itās not even shoulder length. I still sometimes get some in my mouth, but not often.
File under āadvantages of being a bald man.ā Itās a thin file.
Many years ago I went through a stage where I had, I guess, the afab version of a denial beard in the form of waist-length hair and it got everywhere, including in my mouth constantly. And it kept getting caught in the zipper to my winter jacket.
My hair is fairly short as well. However, itās just long enough to get in my mouth
Your jealousy is appreciated. 
Itās important to note that this was just a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction, and not a ruling on the merits of the case itself. The trial hasnāt happened yet. Howeverā¦wow. The judge did all but rule on the merits of the case, and he brought all of the receipts. I donāt have time to read the whole thing right now (Iām finishing up my revisions to my paper on this very topic, and this has the potential to derail me from finishing lol), but itās 50 pages long! Thatās an awfully detailed opinion for a preliminary injunction order. Anyway, I love this part at the beginning:
Over the next 50-plus pages, the Court will explain why Idahoās Vulnerable Child Protection Act violates the Fourteenth Amendment. But before wading into that analysis, it is important to briefly address a criticism common to court decisions that apply the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down legislative enactments. Critics say such decisions are anti-democratic and frustrate the will of the people as expressed by their elected legislature. And they are right. But that is precisely how our constitutional democracy is supposed to work. The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment fully understood and intended that the amendment would prevent state legislatures from passing laws that denied equal protection of the laws or invaded the fundamental rights of the people.
In other words, āI donāt want to hear any nonsense about activist judges. Youāre damned right Iām an activist judge. Itās my job.ā
Iām highlighting this because of how often āthe will of the peopleā is used as a reason to hold back LGBTQI rightsāas with all the anti-marriage amendments that were invalidated by Obergefell, and even earlier with laws like Coloradoās Amendment 2. Given a certain Supreme Court justiceās recent call to ārevisitā such cases the 14th amendment is going to be very important.
And I appreciate that the judge here put it clearly in terms that challenge the so-called āstrict constructionistsā.
Also interesting is that this judge is a 71 year old cishet white dude. From Idaho. Fuck stereotypes, and you go, Judge Dude!
Hey, man, I am a nearly-60yo, cis, het, white dude from WV. Indeed, fuck stereotypes. They are pretty much always wrong and just lazy.
The dawning realization that some of their platform might be a stinking albatross in the voting booth?
The true MAGAts will never allow that thought to roost in their brains.
