Disability, when faced by inequitable accessibility, becomes an oppressed identity. The barriers disabled people face are not inherent to their bodies or minds, but are produced and sustained by social systems. A lack of sensory or accessibility awareness in a space, sometimes purposefully, lessens or erases disabled people and their partners from those spaces. In an accessible world, many impairments would pose far fewer obstacles to a enjoyable  life. However, disabled people often encounter environments, institutional systems, and policies/practices that exclude them.  Disability is not seen as natural part of human diversity because at its core many people are unable to comprehend or are afraid of what being disabled means. This creates a system in which being disabled is socially constructed to endure neglect, discrimination, and structural inequity. 

Accessibility in our common spaces  is a key site where this oppression becomes visible. When public transportation lacks ramps or elevators, when websites are not screen-reader friendly, when classrooms or workplaces fail to provide accommodations, society signals that disabled people are an afterthought. Or worse, that their participation is conditional on their ability to conform and engage in able-bodied norms. These structural barriers limit independence, employment, education, healthcare, and civic engagement, reinforcing the idea that disabled people are less capable or less deserving. In this way, inaccessibility functions as a form of systemic exclusion, similar to how racism, sexism, or classism operate through structural oppressions.

Inaccessibility is often justified through cost, convenience, or tradition, which shifts responsibility away from society and onto disabled individuals themselves. This narrative reinforces oppression by treating accessibility as optional rather than as a fundamental human right. When disabled people are forced to advocate repeatedly for basic inclusion, they expend emotional and physical labor simply to gain access to spaces that others enter freely. Recognizing disability as an oppressed identity means understanding that oppression is not rooted in disability itself, but in the social systems that fail to accommodate diverse bodies and minds. When accessibility is prioritized, disabled people are not burdens; they are full participants whose inclusion strengthens communities. dismantling these systemic barriers is essential for achieving genuine equity and social justice.

Gender in itself is a construct of our long standing history in humanity. While we have seen a correlation with gender identity and sexual organs in humans for our history on this planet; there still well-known evidence that humans have always had people who don't identify within their sex given at birth. Being that it is a construct and system that most of our societies have upheld and idolized for its sexual and manipulative nature. Defining Gender as a system means that it has more than the barest of definitions; this system functions on the perception of the self and the people around you. Women and men are given a chance at life all the same, but we all know the creative differences between the ways we parents and instruct younger girls in comparison to boys. This all comes down to the ways each gender perceives themselves, and the other identities around them. Many men are compelled to not show emotion or compassion for others as a way of gaining strength; however, this is a self-harm tactic that most men have learned from those around them and older than them. 

When we begin to reframe our experiences surrounding gender, we are merely looking at a the same image with different glasses. While a person may be a person and without identification they remain genderless; however, the moment I tell you she is here or he is there, a completely new perception of the interaction is taking place. This is one of many ways that the way we have made gender a system in our everyday lives. Exploring the understanding of any of our genders, is to go beyond anything our sex at birth might convey. Our gender expression is that of what we have been manipulated over the years to be what it is today. This doesn't mean that your expression is incorrect it just means a lot of interactions helped you form that expression. The different groups of people out there today believe the gender expression somehow infringes on the lives around the person expressing their gender differently, while it has no real impact on those around them. Many people of stereotypical gender expression have experienced several times where the impression of their expression gave someone else a false impression of who they were based on stereotyping. This means that gender is a system that serves very few people in the bigger institutions of modern day capitalism which typically consist of rich white males. 

Gender can be expressed on a spectrum of femininity and masculinity, but at the basis of breaking down gender norms and constructs we have freedom of expression. There may be a gender attached to someone's identity but you can act, dress, and be whomever you want in this world. (Of course this sounds a lot more glamorous than it may be in reality.)

Deconstructing/Decolonizing the Gender Binary:

Throughout European colonial history people believed that there are two genders, man and women. Gender is a societal construct that allows it only to exist as well as people choose to believe in it, and follow patriarchal values. The belief that there are only two genders, directly stems from the misheld belief that there are only two sexes. Even though there are two ends of the biological sex spectrum, it doesn't mean that there is not an array of biological expressions in between. While sex is never a determination of gender, biological sex can greatly impact the way we interact with the construct of gender, and aspects of self expression. It's important that we keep in mind the ways that people are forced into gender roles, and gender norms, without their consent by their society and community. However, that doesn't mean that sex=gender, and gender should never be a glorification of sexual biology over self expression. When anyone is expressing themselves genuinely, gender is not really present. Gender is a gaze and construct assigned to a type of expression. Even our descriptor words for these things are not exclusive to gender, such as: 'feminine', 'masculine', 'beautiful', 'handsome'. In fact the social gendering of these words is done through societal constructs being replicated and upheld. For many people, fully deconstructing gender can be a hard mental task- especially when we believe so much of our identity is assigned to gender; however, the fact remains that from a biological, neurological, and gender studies perspective, you are without gender right now, other than what society has assigned to you based on your visible sex characteristics. (eg. hair growth patterns, breasts and genitalia, etc)

Due to the high range of hate crimes that occur every day surrounding gender and sexual orientation, it has been very important for everyone who is queer in some way to be careful about who they share that information with. It can be dangerous for some of us to share our identifying factors with others. Calling our Significant Others or Family Members: "Partner", "Spouse", "Significant Other", "Sibling", "Pal", (etc.) and other non-gendered specific names can ensure a bit of extra safety. However those who are most inquisitive of these kinds of things may inquire deeper; this is why we encourage our allies to discuss their non-queer relationships and non-queers familiy members in the same way. This has completely de-stigmatized the word "Partner," and "Spouse," allowing for many more queer individuals to discuss their partners in safety at work or in public.  

Dominant religions, such as Christianity in many Western societies, often function as systems of power that shape not only religious belief but social structure, behavior, and identity. When a religion becomes culturally or politically dominant, its doctrines and norms can take on the force of law, custom, and moral authority. In this context, religious constructs can become tools of oppression, restricting individual autonomy, reinforcing hierarchy, and defining who is worthy, pure, or acceptable. This oppression affects not only those outside the tradition, but also the people within it who are pressured to conform. Religious constructs often dictate rigid norms around gender, sexuality, relationship/family structures, and morality. For followers, these expectations can limit self-expression and create environments where questioning, doubt, or deviation is met with social ridicule or punishment. Women, LGBTQIA2S+ individuals, neurodivergent people, and those who do not fit the idealized religious mold often face intense pressure to suppress their identities to maintain belonging. When religious authority is framed as unquestionable, these constructs gain the power to police behavior and control personal choices. (Reproductive Rights, Marriage Rights)

Furthermore, dominant religious systems often universalize their values, presenting them as natural, objective truths rather than culturally situated beliefs. This universalization is a form of colonialism, through a mechanism of social control: laws, institutions, and educational systems adopt religious norms as default. Society is then able to be manipulated and shaped by those that preform their conformity and loyalty best. Followers may internalize guilt, fear, or self-surveillance, believing that obedience is synonymous with moral worth. In this way, dominant religions can create cycles of oppression by enforcing ideologies that restrict personal freedom and reinforce unequal power dynamics. Understanding this dynamic requires recognizing that religious constructs are not neutral—they are shaped by human institutions that have the capacity to liberate or to control.

Nationality and their defined borders can feel like something fixed and ancient, but it’s a relatively recent invention by humans to have a social system (institutional framework) designed to sort people into tidy categories that rarely match the complexity of real lives. Nations draw borders on maps and then translate those borders into identities, asking people to see themselves through lines they didn’t create. This process turns geography into identity, without even having a true connect with the land. Territory turns into a marker of belonging in a place, even though cultures, languages, and communities have always stretched fluidly across these false boundaries. The power of nationality lies in how seamlessly it’s woven into everyday life. Passports, flags, and civic rituals, give the idea a sense of permanence, as if these symbols reach back forever. In reality, the concept of a nation is developed to organize populations, consolidate political authority, and define who is entitled to resources, trade, mobility, and protection. Nationality becomes a gatekeeper: it determines who can move freely, who must justify their presence, and who is treated as foreign even in spaces their ancestors inhabited long before the nation existed.

Since nationality is tied to global power, it often creates an illusion of unity while masking the true internal inequalities. People living under the same nation-state may experience vastly different levels of safety, opportunity, and recognition due to the social constructs and oppressionary systems in place. Yet nationality encourages a narrative of sameness (an imagined community- that could be real) built through collective myths about origin, assumed purpose of the land, and religious ideologies. These stories can nurture solidarity, but they can also be used to justify exclusion and harm, which are sought to draw hard lines between “us” and “them.” These values can enforce loyalty and safety for some, at the expense of harm and lack of safety for all. Seeing nationality as a constructed identity doesn’t erase its emotional weight. Instead, it opens room to question how these identities are assigned, who they benefit, and how they might evolve. It invites us to imagine forms of belonging grounded less in borders and more in shared humanity, relationship, and community and cultural care.

Hyper- Nationalism and Religious Nationalism

We know that hyper-nationalism for whatever the purpose, has caused serious harm, suffering, death, and genocide. Whether we look at the Native American genocide, the Holocaust genocide, Palestinian Genocide, Sudan genocide, etc. we are looking at the product of white supremacy, colonialism, and patriarchy taking the power of our future and history away. The goal of hyper & religious nationalism is to be the complete dominant figure in the world (or to be dominant with allied nations), whether or not their end goal is eugenics, a slave state, or to have religious control. Zionism, a form of religious-nationalism that has been the cause of the genocide of Palestinians, and the highest cause of death for children this year globally (2025). 

Crime is treated as an objective category, something inherently wrong, universally agreed upon, and easily identified. But crime is a social construct shaped by the values, fears, and power structures of a given society. What a culture labels as “criminal” has far less to do with the inherent harm of an act and far more to do with who is perceived as a threat, who holds authority, and whose interests are being protected. 

Historically, the criminal legal system has drawn its boundaries along lines of race, class, gender, and political power. Behaviors common across all groups are criminalized only when associated with marginalized communities, while harmful actions routinely committed by powerful institutions or individuals may be reclassified as “mistakes (accidental or ignorance),” “simple policy violations,” or “private business decisions.” This labeling reveals that crime is not just about the act; it’s about the social meaning assigned to it. The consequences of this construction play out in policing patterns, sentencing disparities, and the sheer difference between what is illegal and what is harmful. Entire categories of survival behavior are being criminalized, such as: trespassing in search of shelter, migration, street economies (selling things outside of standard business practices), protest, community organizing, and  accessing food and water (etc.). While large-scale environmental destruction, wage theft, or financial exploitation remain under-policed or invisible to our country's justice system, which benefits majority of wealthy white business owners. Crime, then, functions less as a measure of wrongdoing and more as a mechanism for managing and controlling certain populations and their access to resources. Understanding crime as socially constructed doesn’t deny the reality of its potential harm; it clarifies that the criminal label is not a neutral tool for addressing it. In truth, it exposes how societies distribute punishment and protection unevenly. Recognizing this opens the door to alternatives that center accountability, repair, and community safety rather than relying solely on systems built to reinforce existing hierarchies.

Politeness culture is often shown to us as simply, “good behavior,” but it operates as a socially constructed system that manages conflict, emotion, and communication in ways that position unbalanced and underlying power dynamics. Its rules are rarely neutral, as we know the word crime can be weaponized to describe actions in a shallow way. They emerge from collective pressures to protect the comfort of those who benefit most from existing social structures, and they shape who is allowed to speak, how they must speak, and what kinds of truths are considered acceptable. Politeness culture tends to prioritize image and perception over substance and experience. It doesn’t just encourage kindness; it prescribes a narrow emotional range (seemingly articulated, presenting calm, socially submissive) and labels anything outside it as disruptive. This may create a false sense of peace, but it can also suppress necessary expressions of frustration, boundary-setting, confrontation, or appropriate restorative justice. This repression of expressed emotions can greatly impact someone's mental health and their self image and identities. Those with little-to-no institutional or social power often bear the greatest burden: they are expected to manage not only their own emotions but also the reactions of those who might feel challenged by their words. Meanwhile, people who hold power are rarely asked to soften their tone or restructure their communication for the sake of others.

This dynamic shows up in workplaces that punish direct feedback as “unprofessional,” in institutions that code discomfort as disrespect. It also shows up in everyday interactions where marginalized people are told to “calm down,” “be nice,” or “say it a different way,” before their concerns can even be acknowledged. These forms of tone policing shift attention away from the content of a message and toward its delivery, allowing the underlying issues (often related to inequity or danger/harm) to remain unaddressed. Recognizing politeness culture as a social construct doesn’t require rejecting courtesy or empathy. Instead, it invites a shift in what we value in communication: honesty over appeasement, accountability over comfort, and mutual respect over one-sided emotional labor. By rethinking these norms, we create space that is safe for conversations that are truthful, equitable, and genuinely human.

Beauty standards are shaped by systems of power, especially patriarchy and white supremacy culture, and they continue to influence how people move through the world. Patriarchy sets the tone for what kinds of bodies and behaviors are rewarded, often centering women’s (or AFAB person's) value around appearance and compliance sith social norms set forth by the patriarchy. Ideals like thinness, youthfulness, and sexual attractiveness don’t arise organically, they reflect what a patriarchal society wants from women: to be pleasing, non-threatening, and constantly self-monitoring/policing of self and others. These pressures keep people focused on correcting themselves and others rather than questioning the structures that create the insecurity or need in the first place.White supremacy culture also plays a major role by positioning Eurocentric features as the baseline for what is considered beautiful. Lighter skin, straighter hair, blue eyes, and narrower facial features have historically been treated as more “professional,” “refined,” or “desirable.” These standards didn’t just appear; they were reinforced through media, policy, and social norms that rewarded proximity to whiteness and penalized those who didn’t fit the mold. For many people of color, the result has been a long history of being encouraged or required, to change their natural features to gain acceptance or simply to be treated fairly. Both systems operate quietly but powerfully. They shape everything from hiring practices to dating dynamics to who is represented positively in our media. They also drive massive industries built on the promise of self-improvement, profiting from the insecurities these standards create. Understanding how these forces work doesn’t mean rejecting beauty altogether; it means recognizing that the ideals we inherit aren’t neutral. When we see how they function, we’re better equipped to challenge them and to make space for definitions of beauty that reflect real people, real cultures, and real bodies rather than hierarchies of gender and race.

Sydney Sweeney: American Eagle Advertisement 

An example of how racism and eugenics are at the forefront of the beauty and fashion industry. The advert has been compared to nazi style advertisements, and eugenics propaganda from World War I and World War II. 

Society creates these gender roles for us to play into, and with enforcement via the power structures inherent to colonial, patriarchal capitalism. While we frequently discuss the harms of men and cis-hetero individuals in general under patriarchy, both AFAB folks and many groups within LGBTQIA2S+ circles who are seen by many to be 'queering' from 'traditional values' (Christian heteronormative monogamy), are often active participants as reinforcers of the harms of gender roles, against both AFAB and AMAB individuals. 

This can look like 'toxic masculinity' and 'toxic femininity' in action, with people acting out patterns of gendered behavior against each other; for example, a transmasculine individual recreating harmful toxic masculine dynamics such as refusing to participate with household tasks that have a feminine association under patriarchy, such as cooking or cleaning, or a woman attempting to gain power in a space by playing into standard femininity to appeal to existing male-dominated power structures or by attempting to recreate those power structures by acting as a "girlboss", which actually usually ends up modeling 'authority' off of toxic masculine behaviors such as domination and aggression. As a further example, transfeminine people can sometimes tend to lean into either toxic feminine or masculine behaviors as a way to attempt to reclaim power under patriarchy that is stripped from them when they reject their masculine assigned gender at birth. Some cishet men will also perform femininity in order to gain appeal/power with women/in queer spaces for personal or particularly sexual gain. On the flipside, many men like to use the way that we all can tend to play into patriarchy in these ways as justification for the continuation of it, and even as a inlet for them to blame non-men and queer individuals for its existence in the first place.

We hope that we can foster a conversation where the act of sex itself is not sexualized. It is vital that we are able to come together as a species, across both sexes, to understand that sexual activity has historically not always been pleasurable for everyone involved, and the force of birthing and sex on females, has created a generational shift in how one may view sexual activity. When coming at these conversations from a scientific perspective, we have to remain aware that these are functions of our bodies, and for some the lack of function or ability is really difficult to manage. The more we have educated conversations on these topics, the less scared or stigmatizing it will be to experience them. We all have these bodies, yet we still want to live in a world where we pretend we don't know. There is nothing that should be forcibly hidden from the rest of the world, especially if it is about the state of our bodies or lives, we are here on Earth to wittness one another. We should curate a society where there is no justification for unconsensual actions that comes from ever mistaking another human's state of being as 'promiscuity', for that is a grave dishonor to our own species. Promiscuity itself, is a word that should have never needed to exist, only used to describe a women's presentation from a horrendous man's perspective. 

Another example, being able to discuss an orgasm and how they can occur for/in different bodies, without sexualizing the conversation, is imperative for us to have a framework and move through discussing the ways pleasure can occur with another person, without creating unnecessary pressure or being uneducated about potential needs. 

There are many groups of people who do not experience, or define, sexual pleasure in the ways typical society may; and beyond their ability for such, they carry entire lives with them still. We often forget about people's traumas (old or new), and that emotional, physical, or mental these traumas stay with us, changing in the soft ways they might, but they never go away. We have to keep in mind that outside of ability or want, all bodies experience orgasm and pleasure differently in the physical form. This along, with the complexity of different genitalia potentially needing different stimulation to achieve pleasure, can influence the series of actions so that sexual acts are only pleasurable for one person at a time. 

 From a neurological perspective, we have to keep in mind that sexual pleasure and sexual desires have always lived in the part of the brain responsible for fight or flight, and our adrenaline centers, which means for those who've experienced a lot of their life in severe fight or flight, sexual activities may be a different experience. It is often that people experience intense emotional releases when they experience sexual pleasure, which is something that we as a society should be foster more in conversation. 

Many groups of people experience their pleasure in different ways depending on how sexual activities have occured in their lives, and how it affects them. We know that 1 in 6 women have been assaulted, so we understand that there may be direct trauma associated with the act of sex, and sexual pleasure. The act of sexual reproduction for the intention of birth can also bring it's own from of trauma for many people. Experiencing a misscarriage or loss of a child, is a life-changing experience, one that may temporarily or long-term affect the people who are in that relationship. For parents going through infertility, the act of sexual activity can become associated with negative emotions rather than positive ones.  That does not mean that sexual activity isn't pleasurable for people in this situation, but that the pleasure is not being done for the act of pleasure, but to lead to a child.