A BIG win pertaining to Sex and Marriage in the European Court of Human Rights

Politics is a hellscape right now, but here’s a little glimmer of GOOD news that you may have missed!

Featured MarketplACE vendor of the week

Smarshsuns. Shop, Ko-fi, Instagram, Tumblr.

Transcript Transcribed by Hannah E.

Courtney: Hello, everyone, and welcome back. My name is Courtney. I am here with my spouse, Royce. And together, we are The Ace Couple. And today, we’re talking a little bit of politics, a little bit of judicial rulings, but probably not in the way you expect. If you are an American, like us, you know that everything’s on fire right now. We’re not talking about that today. We will. Don’t get me wrong, we will. We have talked politics on this show for years, at this point. But right now, everything is such a circus. Everything is so horrifying. It’s coming so fast. It is political whiplash. And, A), we want to give that all a little bit of time to just simmer down. We only release one episode a week. And very often, we record an episode several weeks in advance, so if we recorded something about that right now, it probably wouldn’t even be up to date by the time we’d release it — even if we put it out next week. And B), a lot of it is, very unfortunately, not at all surprising. If you listened to our episodes on Project 2025, if you listened to our episodes going through the entire training regimen for 2025, then you shouldn’t be surprised by any of the things happening. I wish I was surprised by all of this, but I saw all of it coming. So the time will come.

Courtney: But, perhaps for a bit of a breath of fresh air, there was a little bit of a win for, in my eyes, the Aspec community, Asexual people, the very definition of marriage and the rights of individuals within a marriage. There was actually a very positive ruling in the European courts. And because everything is so awful and it is so much all the time, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of folks missed this. So, we’re going to take the win today and focus on the positives.

Courtney: So, where to start with this? Because this is very relevant to Ace politics that we have spoken about in a number of ways on a number of episodes. We had our marriage consummation law episode, where we talked not only about the very implication of what those laws mean, but the various ways in which people can be affected by them — including, at times, immigration, where immigration officers will ask couples invasive questions about their sex lives. We talked for four entire episodes about the attack on platonic marriage launched by conservatives back… was that 2021, at this point? ’22?

Royce: Mid ’22. We started in late 2021.

Courtney: That’s right. Okay. So, it was 2022 when there was a letter written to Mitchen McConnell, signed by 83 religious organizations, condemning the Respect for Marriage Act and citing specifically, “No, we can’t codify same-sex marriage rights because it will open the door to platonic marriage!” and — among all these other things that they’re saying is so horrible. And so, for that four-part series — which, if you are a newer listener of ours and you haven’t gone through our backlog, I still really recommend listening to those four episodes, because, even though they were sparked by a specific event that happened in 2022, the ideology is ever-present. The ideology was there before the letter was signed, it is still there now, and it is going to underlie a lot of what we see for at least the next four years, when it comes to marriage and family and even bodily autonomy legislation, which — those episodes, if you are going to go back and listen, that was August of 2022. I remember it was August because that was, like, our entire month, was just going through those organizations. But to make it easier for you, we did actually set up a playlist on YouTube. If you go to our channel, that is our four part series on religious and political discrimination, so you can find those episodes there as well.

Courtney: But the gist of a lot of those organizations — we went to their blogs, we went to what they were saying to their followers, the ideologies they were preaching — and time and time again, we saw them say that marriage and sex are synonymous. And not only marriage and sex being synonymous, but also that it must be between a man and a woman in the conservative sense, where they are talking pure biology because they see sex as a means to procreation. So, we were seeing this sort of Venn diagram of three circles — sex, procreation, and marriage — that they were saying, “These are all tied together. You cannot separate these three things. They are all one and the same. Full package deal.” So that is where a lot of the underlying conservative ideology comes from, where we’ll get goofy Christian conservative people harassing us, saying we’re “Insults to humanity and nature” [laughing] because we’re an Asexual married couple, because they don’t see that as valid or legal. And that’s why things like marriage consummation laws are a problem. People will say to us, like, “Oh, well, no one ever enforces marriage consummation laws.” Well, in a way, the French courts did try to enforce marriage consummation laws at the point of a divorce hearing, and that’s what we’re talking about today.

Courtney: There was a French couple who were married in 1984. They have four children together. And the woman in this marriage initiated divorce proceedings in the year 2012. And her reasoning for the divorce was that her husband had become, quote, “Irritable, violent, and hurtful,” and along with that, being very wrapped up on his career, not giving their family proper attention, always working, those kinds of things. So the woman said, “My husband sucks,” used the word “violent” and “hurtful,” “Therefore I want to divorce him.” But he countered that she had refused to have sex with him and therefore alleged marital misconduct against her.

Royce: “Marital misconduct.” That is a phrase I haven’t heard before.

Courtney: Yeah! I mean, this is all from a framework where, if you’re married, you owe your spouse sex. That is where all of this comes from. That’s why this could even be alleged in the first place. And he’s saying she breached her marital duties.

Royce: Sounds like a penalty in a sports-ball game. Like, why is the government involved in this at all?

Courtney: That’s an excellent question. And that very question is kind of the reason why this story has a happy ending, [laughs] is, why is it the government’s business? But we will get to that.

Courtney: So, during testimony for these divorce proceedings, she’s like, “Hey, he’s violent and neglecting us. I want a divorce.” And he’s like, “Yeah, well, she won’t have sex with me.” And she countered, “I haven’t been having sex with him because of health problems.” She apparently had a serious accident that caused a slipped disc. So, this woman’s dealing with back pain. I think that is as valid a reason as any to refuse sex.

Royce: I mean, “Violent, irritable and away from home” is also a reason. [laughs]

Courtney: Also a reason. There’s a myriad good reasons. But you know what also is a good reason? Just don’t feel like it.

Royce: Anything.

Courtney: That’s a good reason.

Royce: Anything is a good reason.

Courtney: Any reason is a good reason. And the reason why this had to actually go to the European Court of Human Rights in the first place is that the French courts found in favor of the husband. They ruled that the divorce was solely her fault on the grounds that she stopped having sex with him. And I don’t know all the ins and outs of the French divorce system, so I’m not going to pretend like I do, but if it is anything like the divorce system that I’m aware with, there are — when it gets to a messy point where there are lawyers involved, there’s courts, like, there is some amount of, “Who is at fault? Is someone at fault?” when it comes to divvying up assets, if kids are still minors, custody, things of that nature. So the court said, “Yeah, you’re the one who filed for divorce in the first place, but no, he’s got a point. You stopped having sex with him.”

Royce: And, given her original claims, it sounds like the French court said, “Yeah, not having sex with your spouse justifies domestic violence.”

Courtney: Yeah, you don’t have to look at it too hard to come to that conclusion. That’s not a huge jump. And that’s why these are all problems. That’s why we need to challenge these base assumptions that sex is a marital obligation. Because going back to our episode talking US policies, when we were talking about marriage consummation laws, we said that there’s kind of a two-tier system. There are the states — a shockingly high number of states, still — that straight-up have, like, “The marriage is not legally binding until consummated,” very baseline consummation law. But then there’s sort of a second underline, like, ehhh, probably unlikely to be a concern, but the fact that, you know, not fulfilling sexual obligations is, like, a legally valid claim for annulment is sort of a second tier under that — that some states might not have the first one but they might have the second one.

Courtney: And so that’s a thing to consider when, even if you aren’t attempting an annulment — or maybe you do go for an annulment rather than a divorce on those grounds — if someone can argue, “Yeah, my spouse is the one at fault for this divorce because lack of sex,” that could be incredibly unfair to a number of people for a number of reasons. And this isn’t just going to be an issue that I think the Ace community should really get behind and care about, but this really is an issue for domestic violence, for marital rape. Like, the first headline I saw about this on France 24 was entitled, “Marriage is no longer sexual servitude,” and I think that puts it very succinctly.

Courtney: And I do think it’s kind of interesting, too, because even if we set aside, you know, the hurt and the violence and the neglect — like, let’s say he’s not as bad, they’ve just grown apart — but the same situation: she is not having sex, he wants to have sex, and she says, “No, I have a slipped disc, and this activity is causing me physical pain.” It is astonishing to me that one of the most famous modern-day wedding vows, wedding refrains, quips you hear over and over is, “In sickness and in health.” Like, that is something that nearly everyone has heard.

Royce: That’s usually even part of the clipped vows that we hear in short-form in movies.

Courtney: Absolutely! Like, that’s the one that most people know. That is, like, the copy-and-paste wedding vow line. And so it is astonishing to me that in this situation, also, if we set everything else aside, they’re saying, “No, your duty to have sex is actually more important than your spouse’s duty to stay with you in sickness. Like, if you are sick, if you are injured, if you have become disabled, if sex has become painful, you gotta push through it. [laughing] It doesn’t matter that your partner claimed that they’d be with you in sickness and in health. They need to have sex! They need to have sex.”

Courtney: So it’s profoundly upsetting to me, the very implication of this. But this is why we’ve talked about these marital implications before. Usually, we talk about it in a US context, just because those are the laws we know, those are the laws that have affected us personally. But it is very clear that this base assumption of marriage, and any laws that may or may not be actually codified to represent that, do affect countries around the world.

Courtney: So after that initial ruling by the French court that found her fully responsible for the divorce, it did get escalated to the European Court of Human Rights. And that court ultimately found that France had violated this woman’s right to respect for private and family life. They found this under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says, “1), Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence, and 2), There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Courtney: So, specifically under the first one — right to privacy, right to your own family life — they basically said what you asked. They were like, “Why does France care? France, why are you getting in that couple’s bedroom?” [laughs] Which seems, given all of the really insidious implications of laws like this — like, I said, the article title mentions “sexual servitude” being an implication of marriage — there is an issue of spousal assault, marital rape. These are very real concerns that affect thousands and thousands of people. But it isn’t even something as concrete as safety that they’re able to use as a legal basis to protect this woman. They have to default to privacy and be like, “Why should this matter? Why is this being brought into the court case?”

Courtney: Which, okay, if that’s how we have to start fighting these things… Like, I want this to be the effective frontline defense for trans rights that we see getting stripped left and right. Right to privacy: why does the court care? The court doesn’t have to know. Like, general health care, abortion rights: it’s between, you know, the pregnant person and their doctor. They have a right to privacy. They have a right to their family life. The courts don’t need to get involved. The country doesn’t need to get involved. If that’s what we need to do as the baseline, if that is the strongest legal argument we have [laughing] against these major human rights violations, then use it! Use it. Use whatever you can. We need more of this. But it does seem like such a vague… such a vague, broad-sweeping thing, for what I see as, like, this is a very real safety issue and an issue of bodily autonomy. And they can’t even win a case on bodily autonomy. They have to be like, “Hmmm, my client deserves a right to privacy — not necessarily to control her own body, but you don’t have to know what she does or does not do with her body.” [laughs]

Courtney: But the court, in this ruling… Although Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is what ultimately won the case in favor of this French woman, the court did condemn the notion of marital duties being obligation-based. They did assert that these type of base marital assumptions do undermine bodily autonomy. So these things were mentioned. They were brought to the forefront.

Courtney: And it is very interesting, too, because the French government, in defense before this European court, did argue. And part of their overall argument was, “Oh, well, French law does punish sexual assault between spouses.” And indeed, marital rape has been criminalized since 1990 in this court system. So they’re saying, like, “Well, this isn’t perpetuating or advocating for marital rape, because marital rape is illegal in our country.” But it’s so odd, because you are basically saying, “If you’re married, you have an obligation to have sex” with this ruling. So, your court’s ruling… You can say as much as you want: that you condemn marital rape, that it is illegal — and it can be on the books as illegal — but if your other court findings are still upholding very outdated notions of what marriage is and what obligations within a marriage are…?

Royce: Yeah, legislating, like, at-fault divorce due to that essentially is a form of coercion — to put someone into a situation that is dangerous. Because they’re saying, “Well, yeah, violence is illegal and would be prosecuted if you made a case.” And, you know, we all know how low the conviction rates are for sexual violence, particularly in within a relationship. But the fact that the courts are basically saying, like, “Well, yeah, you can choose between financial harm by being at fault in a divorce or, you know, putting yourself at risk or having your bodily autonomy removed.”

Courtney: Yeah! And if you think about some of the most at-risk people… I mean, in this case, this was a 69-year-old woman. They have had their four children. They’ve been married for quite some time. But I’m thinking situations of, like, a stay-at-home mother, someone who’s not making her own income, as one example. By that logic, does it follow that for financial security, she does need to potentially allow her boundaries to be violated to stay in this marriage, or wait until it does actually cross into violence and marital rape to prosecute it on those grounds? It sounds like those are the two safest options to try to have some amount of, you know, financial freedom. Because as much as people often, you know, talk poorly about child support or alimony… I feel like I hear alimony getting critiqued a lot more often than child support, in a broader sense, because people will be like, “Oh, well, you’re an adult, get a job.” But there very much are some people who, in the agreement of their marriage — as is their right to do, as they should be able to do — have decided, “Alright, one spouse is going to stay at home, and that will financially benefit us as a family unit because of the enormous cost of childcare, any number of things.” And that can leave really big gaps in resume. That can, you know, lead to any number of things. And sometimes there are situations where who is at fault for the divorce is going to influence whether or not someone will be awarded something like that, so. And now, our Republicans want to take away no-fault divorce — [laughing] which is a great thing. If a couple wants to have a no-fault divorce, everyone should have that option available to them.

Courtney: So, some of the quotes around the conversation… Once the European Court did find in favor of this woman, one of her lawyers said of the ruling that this should stop French courts from interpreting the law in a way that would force a woman to have sex with their partners, referring to it as, quote, “A major development for women’s rights to control their own bodies, including within marriage.” And I totally get why they’re using this language. Their client is a woman. This is a situation where it is a marriage between a man and a woman. But really, it is broader than that. It is any spouse in any arrangement — any partnership, any relationship of any kind. All parties need to have full control and full consent that can always be withdrawn as desired or needed.

Courtney: A statement from the ECHR following all this says, “The court concluded that the very existence of such a marital obligation ran counter to the freedom and the right to bodily autonomy. Any non-consensual act of a sexual nature constituted a form of sexual violence.” And here’s the interesting thing, too. Because, of course, we’ve been through every single state in our country to look at the current state of marriage consummation laws. According to this article from France 24, there are feminist organizations operating in the country that have criticized the French civil code for very ambiguous phrasing. And I have to admit, they’re right, because this initial ruling from the French courts kind of proves, like, yeah, this vague phrasing is going to be totally up to whatever judge is in front of you that day and what that judge’s views are on marriage.

Courtney: And that’s a big thing we have been talking about in our country, because there is an enormous difference in politics between judges and very definitions of words. People like to pretend like laws are set in stone, and they’re done in a way with a strong precedence, and there’s no ambiguity, and a good, moral, neutral judge should be able to come to the right conclusion. But we have conservative judges who say, “Yeah, sex and marriage are synonymous. Those are the same. In my definition, in my view of life, they are the same.” So they’re going to be interpreting laws very differently from someone who doesn’t have that internal ideology.

Courtney: But according to this article, in the French Civil Code, Article 215 states that, quote, “Spouses are mutually obliged to a communal life,” and apparently there are no explicit references to sexual relations at all. So, even though they don’t say — like some of our laws do — that yes, a marriage needs to be consummated, and so on and so forth, this seems like the same kind of situation that we’ve been raising the alarm bells about for a while now, is who is the judge? Laws and policies should not be written in a way that is exclusively up to one person’s interpretation that can drastically vary based on politics. Because I could see some of the conservatives in our country looking at spouses being obligated to a communal life. I know for a fact there are some conservatives that are like, “Don’t even have to say that much. As soon as you say ‘spouse,’ that automatically means sex. You already said something that means sex to me,” so. Whereas, yeah, I’m reading that, and even if you say, “Okay, yeah, that’s true and I agree with it,” I don’t see sex. I don’t see that “maintaining a communal life” means sex. I don’t think it should. I don’t think it does. But we know and we have so many receipts that there are far too many people out there who will see it that way.

Courtney: Another member of her legal team said, “Marriage is no longer sexual servitude. The ruling is especially significant as nearly half of all rapes are committed by a spouse or partner. Today’s ruling sets a vital precedent that living together does not imply sleeping together.” And I love that! I couldn’t agree more.

Courtney: And we do need to keep an eye on legislation and court rulings like this — usually court rulings, because court rulings tend to precede actual legislation. Because legislation takes a lot more time and is a lot harder to actually enact, where a court case can pop up somewhere at any time — for better or worse. There are a lot of very poor court rulings out there.

Courtney: But we talked about the Swedish case not too long ago that, in an instance not of a divorce separation, but another sort of question of potential distribution of assets and right to inheritance, there was a couple that, you know, without using the phrase “queerplatonic,” seemed very queerplatonic. They were a couple. They seemed to be life partners. They lived together. Everyone knew of them as a unit. And when one of them died, they had not married. But I’ve also sort of mentioned, Sweden doesn’t have as strong of a marriage culture as the US does or some other countries, and there are a lot of legal rights for partners who live together. They’re sambo, as you’d say in Swedish. And the question in that court case came down to, like, “Well, is this, like, a real… relationship?” Because everyone is saying, like, “As far as we know, they don’t actually — like, this isn’t a sexual relationship.” And so the validity of that relationship — and therefore one partner’s right to receiving assets upon the death of the other — was left up to the courts. And that was ruled in their favor. And to me, that is a big win for people in Ace and Aro communities, people who are doing any sort of nontraditional relationship structure. And when I say “traditional,” I unfortunately do mean the, you know, heterosexual, cisgender marriage and sex, probably with procreation — that’s becoming less and less necessary in terms of, you know, public scrutiny and legislation, in law, at least. And so, yeah, we need to keep an eye on laws like this. Because we need court cases to rule like this in more places. We need this to become the legal precedent in as many places as possible.

Courtney: So I was very happy to see this news. It was the one little glimmer of good news amidst an entire shitstorm [laughing] that we’re facing right now in our politics, so. And really, hopefully, I mean, the French representatives went on to say that they will use this ruling to adapt their law and that policymakers should discuss what this means and how to approach it. But given that this was a European court, I really, really hope that this becomes a precedent for more countries, that more people start scrutinizing their antiquated views on what a marriage is or needs to be.

Courtney: And I do want to use these conversations and these court decisions as a jumping-off point to broaden our horizons when it does come to these conversations. Because every major quote that I’ve seen coming from this woman’s legal team, from news media, is all about, “This is a huge win for women. This is a huge win for feminists. This is what feminists are arguing for.” This is, to me, a much bigger, broader issue than that. Yes, I do think that, in most cases where gender does come into play, usually women are going to be disadvantaged as opposed to men, because of the society that we do live in — especially in terms of heterosexual marriage, like this particular case. But it’s really just an issue with the entire legal framework concerning marriage, right from the core. And this can affect men. This can affect… well, I mean, obviously, in our Ace community, we have so many agender people, we have so many genderqueer and gender nonconforming people.

Courtney: This is a huge issue for the Asexual community, I fully believe. And I want the conversation to expand to include that and to emphasize that. Because marriage, unfortunately. in our country and in many others, is a gateway to expanded rights. I don’t think it should be that way. But the way things stand now, there are rights you immediately receive upon getting married that are not accessible to unmarried people. That is a problem. That’s a problem for the Aro and Ace communities. That’s a problem just for people who don’t want to get married or never find the right person, even if they did originally want to get married. I don’t think that rights should be gatekept by the institution of marriage. But considering that this is how strongly encoded into law marriage is in our country — over a thousand rights upon getting married — so this isn’t just one little thing we can undo. This is an entire framework, an entire branching web of rights and interlocking legislation that has created our current system. So I am in favor of making sure that as many people as possible can get married as safely and easily as possible, if they choose to do that, because right now, that is a fast, easy way to access some additional rights. And I do think: get as many people as many rights as possible, while we also try to fight the underlying system that is always going to exclude the most marginalized.

Courtney: And honestly, for as much as people will look at some Ace marriages and say, like, “Oh, well, that’s a sham marriage” — we talked about the concept of “sham marriages” in our consummation law episode also, and I think a couple other times as well. For as much as people look at that as some sort of grand fraud you’re creating: honestly, what’s the big deal? What’s the big deal? Unless you are approaching it from the conservative religious view, where not only do you think this should be policy, but this is, like, your fundamental religious worldview — it’s still wrong to impose on other people, but I suppose I can understand why you think that’s how it needs to be — why does it matter? Literally, why does it matter? If two people want to get married just for the benefits, why not? What is it to you? What does it matter? [laughs] Honestly, I’m pro sham marriage. We’re pro sham marriage around here. [laughs]

Royce: There are so many other situations where so many other people talking amongst their peers will say, like, “Yeah, if you can avoid the tax man, go for it.”

[Courtney laughs]

Royce: Like, “If you can get a little extra money back in your paycheck instead of it going to the government, go for it.” And a lot of conservatives are anti-tax, anti-government.

Courtney: Mhm.

Royce: So they, like, don’t actually believe the things they’re saying.

Courtney: No. No, they rarely do. We frequently call out similar such hypocrisies. But, yeah, truth be told, literally — literally why? But the thing is, like, genuine “sham” marriages — I guess I’m saying “sham” in quotes. If there is a situation where two people are literally like, “For this one benefit or for this small handful of benefits, this is the one reason we’re getting married, and we otherwise wouldn’t, because we, you know…” None of the other things you might expect from marriage — despite the fact that I don’t think any of these are required in marriage. Like, they aren’t romantically attracted, they aren’t sexually attracted, they don’t fully want to combine their lives and become a legal unit, you know? But they’re like, “You know, let’s just do this thing and get these couple of benefits.” Literally, what does it matter?

Courtney: But the thing is, it’s so very, very rare for that to happen. Even though we do have all of these rights and benefits on the books for people who are married, that is very rarely, like, the sole reason that people do get married. It might be one piece of the puzzle in a broader conversation, a broader decision that needs to be made, but it’s actually very rare.

Courtney: And that’s why I do get a little bit irked. Like, I do say, like, “Yeah, I’m pro sham marriage.” I kind of have to say that because so many people just inherently, because of their conservative worldview, are going to look at our marriage and they are always going to call it a sham. And they will say to us online, “This is a sham marriage. This is not real. This is not valid.” And it’s like, I really don’t think our marriage is that peculiar. [laughs] Like, it really isn’t. And in fact, I would argue that we love each other a lot more than some straight couples that are out there [laughs] who do the sex thing, who have the kids, who do, you know, all the things that the conservative worldview demands of them in that situation.

Courtney: So at this point, like, I can say I’m pro sham marriage, but I don’t know if I even believe in the concept of a sham marriage. Because even if, say, for tax benefits or for an immigration-related reason, for any government benefit, pick your favorite, that you might get upon getting married, if two people have a conversation and mutually decide, “Our lives would be better if we signed this contract and did this thing,” on a fundamental level, that’s kind of what all marriage is. Like, theoretically you’re getting married because you think it’s going to make your life better in one way or another. And that might just be something as soft and abstract as, “Well, we’re in love.” Like, it could be something like that. Or it could be, you know, “We want to start a family together, and this is the strongest way we can legally protect that family unit, is by having this marriage contract also, if we have kids,” you know?

Courtney: But, yeah, I mean, long story short: sex and marriage are not synonymous [pronounced syn-om-o-nous]. [repeating] “Synomonous.” That’s a fun way to say that word. Archaic concepts of marital duties, of marital consummation — these all need to be explicitly written out of legislation. And thank you to the European Court of Human Rights for doing the right thing. Hopefully, this was just a little bit of positive political news amongst the dumpster fire we are currently seeing.

Courtney: So I want to make sure that all of you are taking care of yourselves as well as you can. Take care of each other as well as you can. Like I said, it’ll take a little time. We want things to simmer down some before we make an official episode on the current US politics of it all. But we’ve got some great things coming out in the meantime over the next couple of weeks.

Courtney: So, on that note, I think I am going to leave you all off with our featured MarketplACE vendor. This week, we are shouting out Smarshsuns [pronounced “Shmar-shuns”]. Smarshsuns [pronounced “Smar-shuns”]. I really wanted to do, like, a double “sh,” like Smarshsuns [pronounced “Shmar-shuns”], but no, it’s Smarshsuns [enunciating carefully], where you can find art by a nonbinary, Demiromantic, Asexual lesbian. There are some great things here. I actually got a zine called Late Bloomer. How many of us in the Ace community have heard that phrase, “late bloomer”? So, it is a zine about the author’s experience with, and acceptance of, Asexuality. And there are a lot of other great things: several other zines, but there are also art prints. And, especially in this time, I want to put a spotlight on the “Trans body, trans soul” art print that you can get in a couple of different colors. You can get it in the colors of the trans flag or the nonbinary flag. And there are a lot of other great things, actually. [laughs] That’s really funny. I just scrolled past a shirt that says “ADHD: Work harder, not smarter!” [laughs] Oh no! Very fun shop.

Courtney: As always, we are going to put links in the show notes on our website, as well as the description, if you are listening on YouTube. Also in the description and show notes, you can find some links pertaining to this court case that we were discussing on, if you’d like to do some further reading of your own.

Courtney: So, that is all we have for today, and we will talk to you all next time. Goodbye.