A documentary archive of queer family building through ART—one dated artifact at a time.
Health information grounded in science, not trends.
Honestly, health content online is a mess. It’s full of fads, people pushing products, and studies twisted to say whatever someone wants them to say. We’re tired of it. Every claim we make comes from peer-reviewed research, and we always show our work. No cherry-picking, no miracle cures.
Topics we cover: Nutrition · Fitness · Mental Health · Sleep · Research · Preventive Care
The native garment preview shows very small, centered lowercase meh. lettering on a dark shirt. No animal illustration is present. That is the entire design. Not a cat wearing a frown, not a sloth with a coffee cup, not a rainbow-striped variant with a slogan underneath. Just four letters and a period, set small enough that a person has to be within a few feet to read it.
I keep coming back to the period. The letters alone would be a sound—the flat vowel of a shrug, the noise a person makes when asked to choose a restaurant. The period makes it a sentence. A sentence has a speaker, and a speaker has made a decision: this is the end of the thought, and the thought was not worth extending. The period is the smallest possible act of closure. It is also, on a shirt, a strange thing to wear. A sentence is normally directed at someone. This one is directed at no one in particular, which is either the most honest social statement in my closet or the most passive-aggressive.
I have written before about the period on this same design, and I am not going to pretend I have exhausted it. But the scale is the part I have been circling lately. The lettering is small. Not small-print small, not ironic-tiny small—just modest, centered, the size of a name tag at a conference where nobody wants to be recognized. On a dark shirt, at that size, the text reads less like a declaration and more like a watermark. You have to lean in. The shirt does not project. It waits.
That waiting is the argument. Most slogan shirts are built for the across-the-room read: the joke lands before the person does, and the wearer becomes a moving billboard for a mood. This one refuses that transaction. It is legible only at conversational distance, which means it is legible only to people who have already chosen to be near you. The design makes a small demand: come closer, and then decide what you think. That is not the same as being unfriendly. It is a boundary drawn in typography.
I think about this in the context of the paperwork I spend most of my days reading. Consent forms, donor profiles, insurance explanations of benefits—these documents are designed to be read at a distance, by people who are not in the room, and they are written in a voice that assumes authority over the reader. The meh. shirt does the opposite. It is written in a voice that assumes nothing. It does not tell you how to feel about the wearer. It does not ask you to agree. It offers a flat statement and then stops, and the period is the sound of the door not slamming but clicking gently shut.
There is a version of this shirt that would be a pride variant, or an introvert-mascot variant, or a sarcastic-gift variant with a cartoon animal and a speech bubble. The listing title includes the words Funny Sarcastic Introvert Minimalist Saying, and the related queries people type include meh introvert shirt and meh sarcastic shirt. But the actual garment preview shows none of that. No animal. No rainbow. No extra copy. The retail language is doing the work of categorization, and the design is doing the work of refusal. I am not going to claim the shirt is a statement about introversion or queerness or neurodivergence. I am going to claim that the design’s minimalism is not a lack of content. It is a specific content: the content of not performing.
What does it mean to wear a sentence that ends in a period? Grammatically, a period marks the end of a declarative sentence. Socially, a period in a text message has become a small aggression—the difference between ok and ok. is the difference between a shrug and a verdict. On a shirt, the period is stripped of that digital baggage and returned to its original function: this is complete, and I am not adding anything. The wearer is not asking for a response. The wearer is not offering a prompt. The wearer is, in the most literal sense, closing the sentence.
I find that useful in a season of my life that is full of open sentences. Fertility paperwork is all semicolons and see attached. The parentage petition has a blank for other. The donor catalog has a field for staff impressions. Nothing ends cleanly; everything is subject to revision, addendum, notarization. The meh. shirt is the opposite of that. It is a finished thought, printed at a size that does not invite edits. I do not own it, and I am not going to pretend I wore it to a clinic appointment or a family dinner. But I can see why someone might want it in the drawer: a garment that says, without saying it loudly, that some sentences are allowed to be short.
The shirt is available at the Amazon listing, where the title runs long and the design runs short. That gap is the whole object. The retail copy is trying to explain the joke; the shirt is trying to avoid explaining anything. If you are the kind of person who has ever wanted to wear a period instead of a paragraph, this is probably the closest you will get.
Editorial note: This publication and Quirky Cotton Collective share an owner. This is not an independent review.
On a page titled “Family Limits: Your Options Explained,” Seattle Sperm Bank writes: “Our standard operating procedure limits us to a maximum of 25 families per sperm donor in the entire United States.”
Read it twice. The number is 25. The noun is families, not children, not pregnancies, not vials. The authority behind it is a standard operating procedure — the bank’s own internal document, written by the bank, for the bank. Not a statute. Not a regulation. Not a court order. A procedure.
That sentence is the artifact this post is about. Not because 25 is scandalous, and not because it is generous. Because of what the grammar reveals: a limit that exists only in the voice of the entity that benefits from it, counted by a method the same page describes in two different ways, and verified — in the bank’s own words — by the recipients themselves.
It is worth being precise here, because “sperm banks are unregulated” is a common shorthand and it is wrong. Sperm banks are regulated. They are just not regulated for this.
21 CFR Part 1271, Subpart C governs donor eligibility. Section 1271.45(b) requires “a donor-eligibility determination, based on donor screening and testing for relevant communicable disease agents and diseases” for “all donors of cells or tissue used in HCT/Ps,” with limited exceptions under § 1271.90. Section 1271.50(a) specifies that a “responsible person” must “determine and document the eligibility of a cell or tissue donor,” and § 1271.50(b) defines eligibility entirely in terms of infectious disease: the donor must be free from risk factors for and clinical evidence of relevant communicable disease agents, and testing must be negative or nonreactive.
That is the scope. HIV, hepatitis B and C, HTLV, syphilis, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, xenotransplantation risk. The regulation is a communicable-disease screening rule. It says nothing about how many families may receive vials from one donor, because family count is not a communicable disease risk. The 25-family figure does not come from 21 CFR 1271. It cannot, because 21 CFR 1271 is not about that.
This matters for a practical reason. When a bank says its donor program is “FDA compliant,” that statement is true and irrelevant to the family limit. FDA compliance certifies the infectious-disease paperwork. It does not certify the count. A family reading a donor profile and seeing the federal compliance language may reasonably assume the number beside it has the same backing. It does not.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine publishes guidance on gamete and embryo donation. The 2024 document describes itself as summarizing “the current guidance for donor eligibility determination, which is mandated by the FDA before the use of donor oocytes, donor sperm, or donor embryos.” It goes further than the FDA on some fronts — the document notes that “although the FDA donor eligibility determination focuses on infectious risk, the ASRM guidance also incorporates prenatal optimization, psychoeducational counseling of donors and recipients, and genetic risk assessment.”
It covers quarantine periods, directed versus nondirected donation, genetic screening, psychological evaluation, and the labeling of ineligible tissue for directed use. What the retrieved text does not do is set a maximum number of families or offspring per sperm donor. The society that advises the clinics has guidance on screening and counseling; the number is not in it.
So the layers stack like this: the federal rule covers infectious disease. The professional society covers screening, counseling, and genetics. The family limit is left to the bank. That is not a loophole in the sense of something slipped through; it is simply a topic no one above the bank has claimed.
Here is where the Seattle Sperm Bank page becomes more interesting than a marketing number. It describes how the limit is tracked, and it describes two different methods.
For standard anonymous donors: “Family limits for these donors are closely monitored and confirmed through pregnancy and birth reporting from recipient parents.”
For donors with family slots: “Except in the case of donors with family slots, where limits are tracked through the purchase of vials instead of pregnancy and birth reporting.”
Those are not the same measurement. Pregnancy and birth reporting counts outcomes — a pregnancy, a live birth — as reported by the people who used the vials. Vial-purchase tracking counts units sold. A family that buys four vials and achieves one live birth counts as one family under the first method and four vials under the second. A family that buys vials and never reports a pregnancy is, under the first method, invisible to the count until they speak up. Under the second method, they were counted at checkout.
Neither method is dishonest on its face. Both are reasonable ways to run a small operation. But they answer different questions, and the page presents them as if they were the same policy applied to different donor types. A prospective parent choosing between a standard donor and a family-slot donor is choosing between two counting systems, and the page does not say which system produces the number they are relying on.
The phrase “confirmed through pregnancy and birth reporting from recipient parents” deserves its own paragraph, because it locates the verification burden outside the bank.
The page describes no clinic follow-up or birth-record cross-referencing; it describes confirmation “through pregnancy and birth reporting from recipient parents.” That is a disclosure practice, not an audit. It works if parents report, and it produces a number that is only as complete as the reporting rate. A parent who moves, changes email, or simply does not think to notify a sperm bank after a birth is not counted. A bank that has sold vials to 25 families and received reports from 18 has a count of 18 and a policy of 25, and both statements can be true at once.
This is not an accusation of bad faith. It is a description of the mechanism, drawn from the bank’s own sentence. The mechanism is voluntary reporting. Voluntary reporting is how most small-scale tissue tracking works, and it is also why the number should be read as a target the bank manages toward rather than a ceiling it can prove it has not crossed.
The same page states: “This family limit policy is consistent with practices observed across sperm banks nationwide.”
That is the bank’s assertion. It may well be accurate — 25 is a commonly cited figure in U.S. donor conception, and other banks publish similar numbers. But the sentence as written is not an audit, a survey, or a citation. It is a claim about what other banks do, made by one bank, on its own marketing page, without a named source. A reader should treat it as a statement of the bank’s understanding of its field, not as an industry-wide finding.
This is the kind of claim the archive exists to test. If a second bank publishes a different number, or the same number with a different counting method, the “consistent with practices” sentence becomes a data point rather than a fact. Until then, it is one bank describing its neighborhood.
The practical takeaway is not “demand a lower limit.” The limit is not the lever. The lever is the paperwork behind it.
If you are choosing a donor and the family limit matters to you — and for many queer and non-traditional families building through donor conception, it does, because sibling groups and donor-conceived community are real relationships, not abstractions — the useful questions are documentary:
None of these questions require the bank to disclose another family’s identity. They require the bank to describe its own procedure. A bank that cannot answer them is telling you something about the procedure.
There is a temptation to treat 25 as the story — either as a reassuring cap or as an outrage. Both readings miss the structure. The number is a policy choice made by an entity that also counts the outcomes, also writes the consent form, also sells the vials, and also decides what “family” means for the purpose of the count. Whether the number is 10, 25, or 50, the accountability question is the same: who verifies, and what record exists.
For families building outside the standard heterosexual-infertility frame — reciprocal IVF partners, solo queer parents, known-donor arrangements — this question has a particular edge. The paper trail is already doing a lot of work: consent forms, FDA screening records, semen analyses, insurance EOBs, parentage petitions. The family limit sits in that same paper trail, and like the rest of it, it is only as strong as the document you can produce when someone asks.
The 25-family figure is not a law. It is a sentence on a web page, backed by a procedure the bank wrote and a reporting system the parents operate. That is worth knowing before you choose a donor, and worth asking about before you sign.
No federal statute or regulation retrieved for this article sets a maximum number of families or offspring per sperm donor. The 25-family figure appears as Seattle Sperm Bank’s own “standard operating procedure.” 21 CFR 1271 Subpart C, the federal rule that governs donor eligibility, addresses screening and testing for communicable disease agents, not family count.
The FDA’s donor-eligibility framework, as described in 21 CFR 1271.45 and 1271.50, is about infectious-disease screening and testing. The records that accompany tissue under § 1271.55 concern the donor-eligibility determination, not the number of recipient families. Family-limit tracking is a bank-level practice.
The retrieved ASRM gamete and embryo donation guidance covers donor screening, quarantine, directed versus nondirected donation, genetic evaluation, and counseling. It does not, in the retrieved text, set a maximum number of families per donor.
Methods vary. Seattle Sperm Bank’s page describes pregnancy and birth reporting from recipient parents for standard anonymous donors, and vial-purchase tracking for donors with family slots. Those methods count different things, and a family choosing a donor should ask which method applies.
Ask for the written policy, the counting method tied to your donor ID, the reporting mechanism, the record you will receive, and what happens if the limit is reached. These are document requests, not negotiations.
The garment preview shows four letters and a period: meh. Lowercase, bold, white, set large on a dark shirt. No animal. No rainbow. No second line of copy explaining the joke. The period is doing more work than the letters, and I want to spend this column on why.
I am looking at the native listing for Meh Funny Sarcastic Saying Introvert Dry Humor, sold under the Quirky Cotton Collective brand. What the preview establishes is narrow and specific: large bold white lowercase lettering, a terminal period, a dark ground. That is the object. Everything below is my reading of it, not a claim about what the shirt does to a room.
Editorial note: this publication and Quirky Cotton Collective share an owner. This is not an independent review.
Set MEH in caps and you get a shout. Set it in sentence case and you get a caption. Set it lowercase and bold and you get something stranger: a word that has been stripped of the effort of capitalization while retaining the full weight of the typeface. The letters are enormous. The word is indifferent. That mismatch is the design.
I keep thinking about the typographic convention where lowercase signals informality, intimacy, the group chat rather than the memo. A lowercase meh is what you type to a friend when the plan falls through. A lowercase meh in 200-point bold on a torso is that same message, escalated to the scale of a public statement, and then undercut by its own content. The shirt is loud about not caring. That is a recognizable posture, and the design commits to it without a wink.
The period is the part I would defend to a jury. Without it, meh floats, an open vowel, an invitation to agree. With it, the word closes. The period is the sound of a sentence ending and no further sentence being offered. It is the typographic equivalent of a shrug that has already turned away. Most novelty shirts add punctuation for rhythm; this one adds it for finality.
The observation is explicit that no animal illustration is present. I want to take that seriously rather than treat it as a gap. The comic-shirt market is dense with creatures doing the emotional labor: the scowling cat, the deadpan dog, the frog with a caption. Those designs translate a feeling into a mascot so the wearer can point at the animal instead of themselves. The meh. shirt declines the translation. There is no proxy. The word sits on the chest unmediated, and the wearer becomes the caption.
That refusal has a cost. A mascot is a conversation starter with a built-in script; you can say oh, the cat and the exchange proceeds. Four letters and a period offer no such handle. The shirt is not asking to be discussed. It is stating a position and closing the file. Whether that reads as dry humor or as a boundary depends entirely on who is looking, and the design does not try to control the answer.
The listing title includes Introvert, and I understand the commercial logic: it routes the shirt toward a searchable identity. But the artwork itself does not say introvert. It says meh. Those are not the same claim. Introversion is a disposition with a substantial psychological literature; meh is a verdict on a specific moment, delivered without diagnosis. I would rather read the shirt as a tool for declining than as a personality label.
This matters because the introvert framing can smuggle in a flattering story: the quiet person who is secretly deep, the party declining as moral superiority. The shirt does not support that. Meh is not a rich inner life. It is the absence of a strong preference, stated plainly. There is something more honest, and more useful, in a garment that permits flatness without converting it into a virtue.
I am not going to tell you it is soft, or that it fits well, or that I wore it to a specific event. I have not worn it. What I can assess is the design’s fitness for the situations its own typography implies.
A large bold word on a dark ground is legible at distance, which means it functions as signage before it functions as clothing. That makes it suited to exactly the occasions where a verbal decline would require more energy than the occasion deserves: the optional social invitation, the meeting that could have been an email, the family gathering where a neutral face is the safest available answer. The period does the work of ending the exchange before it starts. I would not wear it to a funeral or a job interview, not because it is offensive but because it is a closed sentence, and some rooms require you to leave the sentence open.
The dark-ground, white-letter contrast is also the least decorative choice available. There is no gradient, no distressed texture, no second color to soften the message. The design has the visual grammar of a label rather than a joke. That is a deliberate austerity, and it is why the shirt reads as dry rather than cute.
I want to name the failure mode honestly. A single dismissive word can curdle. Worn by someone who is actually angry, meh. becomes passive aggression in garment form. Worn by someone performing detachment, it becomes a costume. The design cannot prevent either reading, and it does not try. Its only defense is the period, which insists the word is a complete thought rather than an opening move.
There is also the matter of repetition. A joke this short has no second act. The first time someone reads it, the mismatch between scale and sentiment lands. The tenth time, it is furniture. That is true of most typographic shirts, and it is not a flaw so much as a genre constraint. The question is whether the wearer wants a statement or a uniform. The meh. shirt is better suited to the latter, which is a strange thing to say about a shirt that looks like it is shouting.
I keep returning to the punctuation because it is the only part of the design that is not the word itself. A period is a small mark with a large jurisdiction: it ends the sentence, forecloses the follow-up, and transfers the burden of continuing the conversation to the other person. On a shirt, that transfer is the whole point. The wearer has made a statement; the room must decide whether to respond to a closed sentence.
That is a recognizable social maneuver, and it is not always kind. But it is legible, and legibility is what a four-letter shirt has to offer. The design does not promise warmth, connection, or a better mood. It promises a full stop. In a market full of shirts that want to be liked, there is something almost austere about one that only wants to be finished.
If you are looking for the meh shirt as a piece of comic typography rather than a personality test, this is the version I would point to: lowercase, bold, period, no mascot, no explanation. It is a sentence you can wear, and like most sentences worth wearing, it is shorter than the argument it ends.
The shirt says I GOT THAT DOG across the top in cream lettering, IN ME below it, and between the two lines sits a small tan cartoon chihuahua in red boxing gloves, planted in front of a brick wall. Behind the chihuahua, much larger, is a black wolf-shaped shadow. The wolf is not a second animal. It is the chihuahua’s shadow, scaled up to a size the dog’s body cannot account for.
That mismatch is the whole design. The boast—I got that dog in me—normally means the speaker contains something feral and formidable. The shirt literalizes the claim by giving the small dog a shadow that belongs to a wolf. The joke is not that the chihuahua is secretly tough. The joke is that the shadow is doing all the work, and everyone can see it is a shadow.
I keep thinking about the brick wall. It is the backdrop of a fight poster or a training montage, the kind of surface that implies stakes. The chihuahua stands in front of it in red gloves, ready. The wolf looms behind. But a shadow on a brick wall is still a shadow. It has no weight. It cannot throw a punch. The design asks you to admire the wolf and then notice that the wolf is only there because the light is behind the dog.
This is a useful object for anyone who has ever had to describe themselves in a group that expects a certain kind of confidence. The phrase I got that dog in me is a claim of hidden capacity—the thing that comes out when it matters. On a chihuahua, the claim becomes comic because the dog is small, bug-eyed, and wearing boxing gloves that look borrowed from a larger animal. The wolf shadow is the aspiration. The chihuahua is the actual body. The shirt does not resolve the gap between them. It prints it.
I am not going to tell you the shirt is secretly about fertility paperwork or family building. It is not. But the structure of the image—a small, specific, slightly ridiculous body carrying a shadow that promises something much bigger—is the same structure a lot of us live inside when we fill out forms that ask us to declare our family configuration in checkboxes. The form wants the wolf. You are the chihuahua with the red gloves. The shadow is the part the institution projects onto you, and the brick wall is the wall you stand in front of while it does.
That is my reading, not a claim about the artist’s intent. What is actually printed is a cream slogan, a tan cartoon chihuahua, red boxing gloves, a brick wall, and a black wolf-shaped shadow. The shadow is exaggerated. The wolf is not a second live dog. Those are the facts of the garment image. Everything else is interpretation, and I am comfortable calling it that.
If you want the object itself, it is the I Got That Dog In Me Funny Chihuahua Boxing Meme shirt from Quirky Cotton Collective. The design works because it does not try to make the chihuahua look strong. It lets the shadow be the strong one, and lets you decide whether that is a boast or a confession.
Editorial note: This publication and Quirky Cotton Collective share an owner.
The shirt does not say Cat Daddy in a straight line. The native garment preview shows a dark shirt with light lettering, and the word is split around a cat silhouette: C on the left, T on the right, the cat sitting between them, and Daddy centered underneath. The cat is not a mascot appended to the phrase. It is a letter. The animal occupies the vowel position, and the phrase cannot be read without it.
That is the whole argument of the design, and it is a better one than most novelty shirts manage. Cat Daddy is a familiar piece of pet-owner slang, the kind of thing printed on mugs and offered as a joke to anyone who has ever referred to an animal as their child. But the layout here does something specific with it. By replacing the A in CAT with the cat itself, the shirt makes the animal structurally necessary to the word that names the relationship. You cannot spell the category without the creature. The joke is not that a man loves a cat. The joke is that the cat is the grammar.
I keep thinking about what that substitution implies about the word Daddy sitting below it. In the common usage this shirt is trading on, Cat Daddy is a self-description, a comic title claimed by someone who has decided that their relationship to a pet is the most important relationship in their life and would like the world to know it. The shirt does not depict a human father. It does not depict a birthday. It depicts a title and a graphic, and the graphic is doing the work of insisting that the title is earned by the presence of the animal, not by any human child.
That distinction matters more than it might first appear. The phrase cat daddy is a small act of category refusal. It takes a word heavily loaded with human reproductive expectation and reassigns it to a relationship that involves no reproduction at all. The shirt is not making a political argument. It is making a visual one: the cat is in the word, the cat is in the title, and the title is not a consolation prize for a life that failed to produce the standard-issue version. It is a description of a household as it actually is.
I am not going to tell you that this is a radical garment. It is a novelty tee with a pun on it. But the pun is well built, and the construction is worth noticing. The split C and T force the eye to move across the cat rather than past it. The silhouette is the hinge of the whole design. Light lettering on a dark ground makes the cat read as a shape first and an animal second, which is the correct order for a graphic that is functioning as a letter. The word Daddy below is set in a smaller, centered line, so the composition reads top to bottom as cat, then title. The animal comes first. The name follows.
There is a version of this shirt that would have been lazy: a cartoon cat with a speech bubble, or a paw print next to the word Daddy in a script font. This is not that. The design trusts the viewer to complete the word, and the completion is the joke. That is a more confident piece of graphic design than the genre usually gets credit for.
If you are the kind of person who has ever filled out a form and paused at the word dependent, or who has explained a pet’s existence to a landlord, a vet, or a skeptical relative, the shirt is legible. It does not require you to own a cat. It requires you to understand that the title is claimed, not assigned. The cat does not consent to being called your child. The cat does not need to. The shirt is a statement about how you describe your own household, and the cat is the letter that makes the description spell.
The Cat Daddy Feline Father Lover Pet Owner Funny Tee is a standard t-shirt with a phrase and a graphic. The graphic is the argument. The phrase is the claim. The cat is the vowel. That is enough.
Editorial note: This publication and Quirky Cotton Collective share an owner.
The shirt reads I HAD POTENTIAL in white capitals across the chest. Beneath the words, a white curved ramp descends from upper left to lower right. At the top of the ramp, on the upper left ledge, sits a dashed empty circle. At the bottom, on the lower right flat, rests a solid white ball. The ramp is curved, not a straight diagonal. That curve is the whole argument.
I keep looking at the dashed circle. It is not a ball that fell. It is the outline of where a ball would have been, drawn in the same white line weight as everything else, which means the design treats absence as a formal element rather than an accident. The solid ball at the bottom is not rolling. It has stopped. The ramp did its work and the ball is done. The joke is not that the ball failed to reach the top. The joke is that the ball was never at the top to begin with—the dashed circle marks a position it occupied only as a possibility, and the solid ball marks the position it actually reached. Potential, in this diagram, is a dotted line. Outcome is a filled shape. The shirt is not about wasted talent. It is about the difference between a placeholder and a thing.
That distinction matters because the phrase I had potential usually carries a specific kind of regret—the gifted kid who burned out, the athlete who got injured, the person who was told they could do anything and then did something ordinary. The ramp-and-ball drawing refuses that story. A ball at the bottom of a curved ramp is not a failure of the ball. It is a demonstration of the ramp. The ball did exactly what the geometry required. If you read the shirt as self-deprecating, you are reading the words. If you read it as a physics diagram, you are reading the drawing. The two readings do not agree, and that disagreement is the point.
I have spent a lot of time with paperwork that uses the word potential in a different register. Consent forms for embryo disposition ask you to check a box for potential future use. Sperm-bank catalogs list donor potential in terms of motility and morphology. Insurance letters deny coverage for procedures they classify as not medically necessary, which is a polite way of saying the potential outcome does not justify the cost. In every one of those documents, potential is a future tense that someone else is underwriting. The shirt’s dashed circle is the same grammar: a position marked but not occupied, a slot held open for a thing that may or may not arrive. The solid ball is what actually got billed.
What I like about the design is that it does not moralize. The ball is not sad. The ramp is not cruel. The dashed circle is not a ghost. It is a clean, minimal diagram that happens to describe a common experience—the gap between what was promised and what was delivered—without asking you to feel anything in particular about it. The white-on-white palette (white text, white ramp, white ball, presumably on a colored ground) keeps the whole thing at a remove. It is a schematic, not a confession. You can wear it to a party and let people decide whether you are joking.
The phrase I had potential is also, in the context of this publication, a sentence that appears in a lot of fertility paperwork. Not literally—I have not seen a consent form that uses those exact words—but functionally. The industry is built on the promise of potential: potential embryos, potential pregnancies, potential children. The paperwork asks you to sign off on what you are willing to do with the potential, and what you are willing to do without. The dashed circle is the embryo that did not implant. The solid ball is the one that did. The ramp is the protocol. The shirt does not know any of this, and I am not claiming it does. But the diagram is available to that reading, and I find it useful.
If you want the object itself, it is the I Had Potential shirt from Quirky Cotton Collective. The listing title calls it a funny physics pun, sarcastic and minimalist, which is accurate as far as it goes. The drawing is the part that earns the shirt. A straight diagonal would have made the joke obvious—ball rolls down, ha ha. The curve makes it a diagram of a process rather than a single event. The dashed circle makes it a diagram about absence. The solid ball makes it a diagram about what remains.
I do not know who designed it or what they meant. I know what I see: a white ramp, a dashed empty circle, a solid ball, and four words in capitals. The words say one thing. The drawing says another. The shirt is the space between them, which is where most of us actually live.
Note: This publication and Quirky Cotton Collective share an owner.
The shirt reads, in full: LET’S ROOT FOR EACH OTHER AND WATCH EACH OTHER GROW. The words wrap around four root vegetables — a carrot, a radish, a beet, an onion — each with a face, each with its roots drawn down into a band of soil. The carrot is orange and tapered. The radish is round and red. The beet is the deep magenta of a thing that will stain your cutting board. The onion is pale and layered. All four are smiling. All four are underground, or at least at the soil line, which is where the joke lives.
I keep looking at the beet. The beet is the one that gives the design away. A carrot can be pulled and eaten and forgotten. A radish is a garnish. An onion is a kitchen staple that makes you cry, which is its own kind of honesty. But a beet is a root you either love or you don’t, and it bleeds. Cut into a beet and it looks like something was injured. The smiling beet on this shirt is doing a lot of emotional labor.
The pun is on root. To root for someone is to support them. To root is also to put down roots, to grow downward, to establish. The shirt asks you to do both at once: cheer for the people around you and also grow alongside them. It is a gardening shirt, and it is a friendship shirt, and it is a shirt about the specific kind of mutual encouragement that happens between people who are all in the same dirt.
What I notice is that the design does not show the harvest. There are no baskets, no bouquets, no triumphant pulled-up vegetables held aloft. The roots are visible in the soil, which means the vegetables are still growing. The shirt is not about the result. It is about the interval. That is a harder thing to sell on a t-shirt, and it is a more honest thing to wear.
The phrase watch each other grow is doing something slightly different from root for each other. Rooting is vocal. It is the thing you say from the sidelines. Watching is quiet and a little bit intrusive. To watch someone grow is to be present for the awkward stages, the phases where they are not yet the thing they will become. The shirt puts both verbs in the same sentence and does not resolve the tension between them. That is the argument of the design: support and witness are not the same act, and you are being asked for both.
I have written before about the way a shirt can function as a small public statement of belonging. This one is gentler than most. It does not announce a family role or a holiday or a warning. It announces a posture. The four vegetables are not identical — different shapes, different colors, different root structures — and they are all smiling in the same direction. The design does not require them to be the same to be together. That is a small, useful thing to put on a shirt.
The retail listing describes this as a gardening and mutual-growth pun, and the visual observation confirms the four smiling root vegetables with their roots visible in soil. The shirt is sold by Quirky Cotton Collective. If you are looking for the lets root for each other shirt, that is the listing. I am not going to tell you it will make your garden grow or your friendships deepen. It is a shirt with a beet on it. The beet is smiling. That is the whole claim.
What I keep returning to is the soil line. The roots are drawn as visible, which is not how roots work in a garden. You do not see the roots of a growing carrot unless you pull it up, and if you pull it up, it stops growing. The design shows you the roots anyway, because the shirt is not a diagram. It is a wish. The wish is that the underground part — the part where the actual work happens, the part nobody sees — is also part of the picture. The shirt is saying: I see your roots. I am rooting for them. I am also watching them, which is a little weird, but I mean it kindly.
The onion is the one I trust least. Onions are layered and they make people cry and they grow in the dark. A smiling onion is a suspicious object. But the shirt puts the onion next to the beet and the radish and the carrot, and it does not rank them. They are all the same size in the drawing. They are all smiling. The design is not interested in which root vegetable is best. It is interested in the fact that they are all down there together.
That is the useful argument of this shirt, if it has one: mutual growth is not a competition, and it is not a harvest. It is a season of being in the dirt with other people, visible roots and all. The shirt does not promise that anything will come up. It promises that someone will be watching while it tries.
Editorial note: This publication and Quirky Cotton Collective share an owner.
The banner is white and rounded, the kind of pill-shaped alert that slides down from the top of a phone screen at 2:47 a.m. A small bell icon sits at its left edge. The text inside reads, in plain sans-serif: There is motion at your front door. Below the banner, a circular window, green-tinted the way cheap night-vision sensors render a porch, holds the face of an orange tabby pressed so close to the lens that its eyes are two wide discs and its nose is a blur. Porch siding runs behind it. A light fixture glows somewhere in the background. The cat is not doing anything. The cat is simply there, and the camera has decided that there is a security event.
That is the whole design. A notification and its cause. The joke is not the cat, exactly, and it is not the doorbell, exactly. The joke is the gap between the flat bureaucratic language of the alert and the specific, unbothered animal that triggered it. Motion. Not a visitor. Not a package. Not your neighbor’s kid retrieving a ball. Motion. The camera does not know what it is looking at. It only knows that something has changed in the frame, and it has been trained to tell you about it.
I keep thinking about that word. Motion is what a sensor reports when it cannot report meaning. It is the lowest-resolution description of an event. A leaf blows across the porch: motion. A raccoon knocks over the recycling: motion. A person you have been avoiding for three years walks up the steps: motion. The camera does not distinguish. It cannot. It was never built to. It was built to convert the world into a binary—still or not still—and to push that binary to your phone with a little chime.
The cat, in this reading, is the world refusing to be reduced to a binary. The cat is a specific orange tabby with a specific face and a specific agenda, which is presumably to inspect the doorframe for smells and then leave. But the camera sees only motion, and so the notification says motion, and the shirt prints the notification above the cat like a caption that has been attached to the wrong photograph. The humor is in the mismatch. The system has misread the situation, and the situation is a cat.
There is a version of this shirt that would be meaner—a version that sneers at the doorbell camera as surveillance capitalism’s porch-level outpost, a version that lectures you about privacy and data and the slow enclosure of the front step. I am not immune to that version. I have thoughts about the way a doorbell camera converts a threshold into a feed, a neighbor into a clip, a cat into a data point. But the shirt is not making that argument. The shirt is making a smaller, funnier argument: the system is dumb, and the cat is not. The system has one word for everything that moves, and the cat has a face. The face wins.
What I like about the design is how literal it is. The banner is not stylized. The bell is not cute. The text is not a joke about a notification; it is a notification, reproduced with the flat affect of a system alert. The green tint of the circular view is the green tint of every cheap security camera I have ever seen, the color of a porch at night rendered by a sensor that does not care about warmth. The orange of the tabby is the only warm thing in the composition, and it is pressed up against the glass, slightly distorted, slightly too close. The whole image is a study in scale: the banner is large and official, the cat is large and close, and the porch behind it is small and irrelevant. The hierarchy is wrong on purpose. The alert is supposed to be the important part. The cat has made itself the important part.
I have been thinking about this shirt in the context of the paperwork I usually write about—the consent forms, the screening records, the invoices that convert a person’s reproductive life into a series of checkboxes and fees. Those documents share a grammar with the notification banner. They are written in the language of motion: the patient presents, the specimen is received, the donor is cleared. They describe events at the lowest resolution that will satisfy a system. They do not know what they are looking at. They only know that something has changed in the frame, and they have been trained to tell you about it.
The cat is the part that does not fit the form. The cat is the specific, unbothered, wide-eyed fact of a life that the system can only register as motion. I do not mean this as a grand metaphor. I mean it as a small observation about why the shirt works: it puts the flat language and the specific face in the same frame, and it lets you see the gap. The gap is funny. The gap is also, if you sit with it, a little bit sad. The system will never know what it is looking at. The cat will never care.
If you want the shirt, it is There Is Motion At Your Front Door Funny Cat Doorbell Meme, printed by Quirky Cotton Collective. The design is what I have described: a white rounded notification banner with a bell, the words There is motion at your front door, and below it a circular green-tinted view of an orange tabby very close to the lens, porch siding and lights behind it. I am not going to tell you it is soft or that it fits well or that it is the perfect gift for the cat person in your life. I have not worn it. I have only looked at it, the way I look at a form, and thought about what it assumes and what it leaves out.
What it leaves out is the cat’s name. What it leaves out is whether the cat is allowed outside. What it leaves out is the person on the other end of the notification, the one who has trained themselves to ignore the chime at 2:47 a.m. because it is almost always a raccoon, except when it is not. The shirt does not answer any of that. It just prints the alert and the face and lets the gap do the work. That is enough. The gap is the whole joke, and the joke is that the system has one word for everything that moves, and the cat has a face, and the face wins.
This publication and Quirky Cotton Collective share an owner.
Here is the sentence, in the words of a state insurance regulator quoting the statute it enforces:
“a disease or condition characterized by the incapacity to impregnate another person or to conceive, defined by the failure to establish a clinical pregnancy after twelve months of regular, unprotected sexual intercourse or therapeutic donor insemination, or after six months of regular, unprotected sexual intercourse or therapeutic donor insemination for a female thirty-five years of age or older.”
That is New York Insurance Law §§ 3221(k)(6)(C)(v)(I) and 4303(s)(3)(E)(i), as amended by Part L of Chapter 57 in 2019 and quoted in New York State Department of Financial Services Insurance Circular Letter No. 3 (2021), issued February 23, 2021. Read it slowly. The clock starts when a specific act occurs. If the act never occurs, the clock never starts. The gate does not open, not because your body is fine, but because the definition was written for someone else’s body and someone else’s bed.
This is not a metaphor. It is an eligibility test, and it is the test that decides whether an insurer pays for a workup, a prescription, or a cycle.
The phrase did not fall out of the sky. It entered insurance regulation by way of clinical guidance. In 2017, NY DFS Circular Letter No. 7 quoted the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s description of infertility as “the failure to achieve a successful pregnancy after 12 months or more of appropriate, timed unprotected intercourse or therapeutic donor insemination,” with earlier evaluation warranted after six months for women over 35. The 2017 letter was withdrawn in 2021, but the wording it quoted is the ancestor of the statutory language above.
Notice what the clinical sentence is doing and what it is not doing. It is describing a population-level pattern: most people trying to conceive are having intercourse with a partner of the opposite sex, and most will conceive within a year. As a rough triage rule for a general obstetrics practice, that is coherent. As a coverage gate applied to every patient regardless of who they sleep with, it converts a demographic assumption into a legal prerequisite.
The 2019 amendment added “therapeutic donor insemination” as an alternative path to the twelve months. That is a real accommodation, and it matters for patients using banked or known donor sperm. But it is still a twelve-month clock, and it still requires the patient to spend a year doing something before the definition considers them infertile. The definition did not become neutral. It became slightly less narrow.
Here is the part that should be read aloud in every insurance appeals office in the country. NY DFS wrote, in the 2021 circular:
“It has come to the Department’s attention that some issuers may be requiring some individuals to incur costs, due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, that heterosexual individuals do not incur in order to meet the definition of infertility.”
And then, more specifically:
“These individuals may incur the high costs of basic infertility treatments for up to 12 months to demonstrate infertility in order to qualify for insurance coverage due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Read that twice. The regulator is not describing a hypothetical. It is describing a documented pattern: patients paying out of pocket for intrauterine insemination, cycle after cycle, not because the treatment is expected to work on the first try, but because the definition requires a year of trying before the patient is considered sick enough to deserve coverage. A heterosexual patient with a male partner accumulates that year in her own bedroom at no cost. A lesbian or solo patient accumulates it at the pharmacy counter and the clinic front desk.
The definition is formally neutral. The cost is not. Neutrality is judged at the wording; the bill arrives at the counter.
NY DFS directed issuers to “provide immediate coverage for basic infertility treatments (e.g., intrauterine insemination procedures) that are provided to individuals covered under an insurance policy or contract who are unable to conceive due to their sexual orientation or gender identity in order to prevent discrimination.”
That is a real remedy, and it is worth knowing it exists. If you are in New York and you have been told to spend a year proving infertility before coverage kicks in, this circular is the document to cite in your appeal.
But read the remedy carefully. It is a patch on the gate, not a replacement of it. The underlying statutory definition still turns on twelve months of intercourse or donor insemination. The directive tells insurers not to apply that definition in a discriminatory way; it does not rewrite the definition. And the circular is explicit about its limits: “This circular letter does not address surrogacy arrangements or require coverage for services that are not otherwise mandated to be covered under the Insurance Law.”
So the fix covers basic treatments for patients who cannot conceive due to sexual orientation or gender identity. It does not cover the surrogacy arrangements that some queer family building requires. It does not create a national standard. It does not touch the states that have not issued a similar directive. And it does not change the fact that the definition, as written, still assumes a bed you may not be in.
If the twelve-month intercourse standard were a fixed feature of reproductive medicine, every state would use it. They do not. The variation is the evidence that this is a choice.
RESOLVE’s state-by-state summary of fertility insurance laws describes Arkansas as requiring that “the patient’s eggs must be fertilized with her spouse’s sperm” for IVF coverage. That is not a medical criterion. It is a marital and sexual-orientation criterion written into an insurance statute.
The same summary describes California’s small-group fully-insured plans as having a definition of infertility “inclusive of same-sex couples and unpartnered individuals,” while noting that “infertility treatment coverage is still not required.” Inclusion in the definition and access to coverage are two different things, and California demonstrates that a state can fix the wording without fixing the bill.
These are not edge cases. They are the range of what a state can decide. The twelve-month intercourse standard is one option on that range. It is not the only one, and it is not the medically correct one. It is the one that happens to be written down.
For an archive like this one, the most probative artifact of this dynamic is not the statute. It is the receipt.
Imagine the file, clearly labeled as an illustration rather than a case record: a patient with no male partner, insured in a state that applies the intercourse standard literally, who is told she must complete a year of inseminations before the insurer will consider her infertile. Her file would contain twelve months of explanation-of-benefits statements, each one showing a patient responsibility amount for a cycle that was never expected to succeed on its own. It would contain the clinic’s financial counseling notes, the prior authorization requests, the denials, and the appeal letters citing the state insurance code. It would contain, in other words, a year of payments made to manufacture a qualifying history.
That file is more precise than any policy summary. It shows, line by line, what the definition costs the patient it was not written for. It is the artifact worth keeping, because it is the one that can be audited.
The alternative path produces a different paper trail: an appeal for earlier coverage, citing the state regulator’s own finding that the definition imposes differential costs. That path is faster if it works, and it leaves a record of the argument rather than a record of the payments. Most patients do not know it exists until someone tells them.
If you are building a family without a male partner and you are insured in a state with an infertility mandate, the first question is not “am I infertile?” It is “what does my state’s definition require me to prove, and who has already ruled on whether that requirement can be applied to me?”
In New York, the answer is Circular Letter No. 3 (2021), and the operative sentence is the one directing immediate coverage for basic treatments for patients unable to conceive due to sexual orientation or gender identity. In other states, the answer may be a statute, a regulation, a bulletin, or nothing at all. The variation is the point.
The definition was written for a patient who may not be you. The paper trail is how you prove it.
It depends on your state’s definition. New York’s statute includes “therapeutic donor insemination” as an alternative path to the twelve-month clock, so donor insemination can count toward the requirement. But the clock still runs for twelve months (or six, if you are 35 or older), and the 2021 circular directs insurers not to require patients to pay for that year when the inability to conceive is due to sexual orientation or gender identity. Check your state’s specific wording before assuming either way.
The 2017 letter (Circular Letter No. 7) quoted ASRM’s clinical description of infertility and told insurers to apply standards no less favorable than ASRM’s. The 2021 letter (Circular Letter No. 3) withdrew the 2017 letter, quoted the amended statutory definition, and added the directive that insurers provide immediate coverage for basic infertility treatments for patients unable to conceive due to sexual orientation or gender identity. The 2021 letter is the one to cite now.
No. The circular states explicitly that it “does not address surrogacy arrangements or require coverage for services that are not otherwise mandated to be covered under the Insurance Law.” If your family building plan involves a gestational carrier, the directive does not resolve your coverage question.
No. It appears in state insurance statutes and regulations, and the specific wording varies by state. There is no single federal definition of infertility that governs private insurance coverage. The variation across states is documented in RESOLVE’s state-by-state summaries.
Bring the state insurance statute or regulation that defines infertility, the regulator’s guidance interpreting it (in New York, Circular Letter No. 3 (2021)), and your own records showing the treatments you have already paid for. The argument is not that you are infertile under the definition; it is that applying the definition to you imposes a cost that the regulator has already identified as discriminatory.
The shirt says three words, stacked, in a lettering style I can only describe as harvest-adjacent serif: THANKFUL, GRATEFUL, BLESSED. Around them, wheat stalks. That is the whole design. No turkey, no pumpkin, no date, no scripture citation, no small print. The retail listing calls it Thankful Grateful Blessed Christian Thanksgiving Fall, brand Sunday Field, and the visual observation confirms the lettering and the wheat. Everything else I am about to say is interpretation, not a claim about what the designer intended or what the shirt does to anyone who wears it.
What interests me is the wheat. Wheat is not a Thanksgiving symbol in the way a turkey is. It is a eucharistic symbol, a harvest symbol, a commodity symbol, and a decorative filler motif all at once, and the shirt uses it the way a wedding invitation uses eucalyptus: to signal occasion without committing to a specific occasion. The three words do the same work. Thankful, grateful, blessed are not synonyms exactly, but they are close enough that stacking them is a rhetorical move rather than an informational one. The repetition insists. It is the typographic equivalent of a pastor saying the same sentence three times with increasing volume.
I keep thinking about what the triad assumes. Blessed is the tell. Thankful and grateful are attitudes you can adopt; blessed is a claim about the source of your circumstances. It implies a giver. On a Thanksgiving shirt, that giver is presumably God, though the shirt never says so. The retail title says Christian, but the garment itself does not. This is a common move in Christian-adjacent merchandise: the theology is in the title metadata and the visual vocabulary, not in the printed text. The wheat does the work of a cross without the liability of one. You can wear this to a secular office potluck and nobody will ask you to lead a prayer. You can wear it to church and nobody will ask why there is no cross.
That ambiguity is the design’s real achievement, and also its limitation. The shirt is legible to almost everyone and specific to almost no one. It is a mood board of gratitude. It is the visual equivalent of a caption that says so thankful for this life under a photo of a kitchen island. I do not mean that as a sneer. There is a genuine use for clothing that lets a person signal a disposition without making a doctrinal claim. Plenty of people are thankful without being grateful in the technical sense, or blessed without wanting to name the blesser. The shirt lets them stand in the harvest-light without signing anything.
But I read this archive through paperwork, and the paperwork in my head is not Thanksgiving place cards. It is consent forms. It is the line on a donor agreement that asks you to affirm you have been counseled about the psychosocial implications of known donation. It is the storage invoice that arrives every year in November, which is a cruel month for it, and the EOB that lists semen analysis next to a dollar figure that would buy a very nice Thanksgiving dinner for a family of eight. When I look at a shirt that says BLESSED in wheat-serif, I do not see a harvest. I see a word that fertility clinics use in their marketing copy and that intended parents use in their group chats when they do not want to say lucky, because lucky implies randomness and blessed implies a plan. The plan is the thing under negotiation. The plan is the thing the paperwork is trying to pin down.
This is where the shirt becomes useful to me as an object rather than a garment. It is a piece of evidence about how gratitude functions in American family life: as a public performance that is also a private hedge. The three words are a hedge against the possibility that the life you are thanking God for is not the life you ordered. The wheat is a hedge against the possibility that the occasion is not specifically Christian. The whole design is a hedge, and hedges are what you build when you are not sure the ground will hold.
I am not going to tell you the shirt is for queer parents. It is not. It is a mass-market Thanksgiving design, and the retail title says Christian, and the wheat does not undo that. But I will say that the triad has a particular resonance for people whose family building has been a bureaucratic process rather than a biological assumption. When you have signed a stack of forms to become a parent, thankful is not a feeling you can take for granted. It is a position you have to defend against the invoice. Grateful is what you are supposed to feel when the clinic calls with good news, and what you are not supposed to feel when it calls with bad news, and what you feel anyway, in a complicated way, because the alternative is rage and rage is expensive. Blessed is the word you use when you do not want to explain the mechanism.
The shirt does not know any of this. That is fine. The shirt is a shirt. But the shirt is also a small argument about what gratitude looks like when it is printed, stacked, and surrounded by wheat: it looks like a claim you can wear without having to defend it. That is not nothing. It is also not everything. The wheat does not tell you where the flour came from. The words do not tell you who signed for them.
If you want the object itself, it is listed as Thankful Grateful Blessed Christian Thanksgiving Fall by Sunday Field. I have not worn it, washed it, or tested it against a cranberry sauce spill. I have only read it, which is what I do here.
Editorial note: This publication and Quirky Cotton Collective share an owner. This is not an independent review.