Kyriarchical oppression.

Kyriarchy refers to the overlap of various inequalities caused by gender, race, sexuallity and disability describing overlaps of cross sectionality. It also refers to the practice of problems created by assumed superiority.

Depends on the approach. In a lot of queer friendly spaces men's issues are generally accepted as incredibly valid as gay and trans men tend to get pretty hardcore beat down by failing to pass the bar of the expectations of cultural masculinity and on average they require more outside help from services or others because they are less likely to be able to return to their families to escape abusive relationships and face addictional precarity.

But the difference tends to be a general understanding that while women definitely get it and can absolutely sympathize they also aren't in a particularly great position to change things in a general sense because women also have to regularly fight against social power of systems that depower their autonomy that are fronted by men and they generally have to see to their own needs before being able to do the administrative work on men's behalf.

It's emergency airplane crash logic. Put your own supply of air on before you help the person next to you. If your job, legislature, judicial system and potential funding structure is only made up of a minority of women you are asking a lot of people who don't have institutional power to flex even on their own behalf and a lot of women have deep seated anger regarding that disparity so when someone tries to pile more on their plates the gut reaction is to throw it back. Women might be willing to assist, but they aren't going to accept doing the lions share of the required admin for another group when they have other priorities. The same goes for queer groups, racial minority groups, religious minorities, disability affected groups and so on. They might have room on their plate to show up to your protest... But usually that requires you to you show a willingness to reciprocate and show up to theirs.

I would argue that the connection is a lot older than Nazis. The era around 1250 responded to a nasty wave of the Black death by Christian leaders collaborating to simultaneously fight the population decline by criminalizing abortion friendly midwifery and ostracize and subjugate gender and sexual minorities because they feared the collapse of society due to a population bust. As such what was taught by the church up to that point began to get new connotations. Jewish populations were persecuted and killed as scapegoats for the cause of the plague. Folk medicine women and non-conforming men were killed and condemned for witchcraft. While women stepped up to fill the roles of men during the plague once the population was rebounding their power of place in society was to be broken as the Church leaned on it's misogynistic practices and preached of the dangers to society and the family...

Nazisim is just a more modern echo of well established means to break the power of non compliant of groups who can be scapegoated or subjugated into subservience to Christians who feel threatened, a group that centers nominally celebate and wealthy men whose only contact with women is in a subordinate role.

I am glad someone is calling the Florida school system on their bullshit. Being non-binary hard and being treated like the coping mechanisms you use for avoiding hating the experience of dealing with people and existing in your body are somehow a delusion, some sort of sexual kink or deliberately confusing is like trying to go about your day with weights strapped to you. It makes dealing with every social interaction so tiring. It really feels like everybody else in the room is obsessed with your sex organs and characteristics like complete perverts that they don't see the question is about how happy you are and how you feel about all the people in your life and whether you feel anxious and isolated being around them or just comfortable and able to express your full range of personhood.

This teacher is standing up because they know there's others much worse off who aren't secure enough to do it. Pretty admirable I think.

Umm. No. Sorry gunna pull my union card on this one since this is my Industry and while I am not an armorer or a props person I am emeshed in their understanding of property on a set as an On set dresser.

There is a legal duty of care held by everyone who handles a prop weapon. Furthermore there is a duty of care held by Producers on a show. Baldwin was not just an actor, he was a producer on Rust which means he had hiring and firing power.

Regularly this is how prop weapon safety works.

Prop weapons are only handled by an armorer who must maintain a full supervision of the weapon. It can never be used with live ammunition.

Loading can only ever take place by the props person (non union exception) or a designated armorer who must have an up to date licence.

Any mishandling of the weapon up to this stage leaves the armourer open to criminal liability. If someone steps in to this process at this stage they might take the lions share of liability. If an actor or someone who is not the props person charged with care of the weapon grabs it for instance without a hand off.

During the hand off of the weapon to an actor the props person does a last physical check of all the rounds in the weapon in sight of the actor. IF an actor accepts a weapon without doing this check then they are considered criminally negligent for any harm done with the weapon that would have been reasonably negated by this step. If the actor uses the weapon in a way that is unsafe after this check all liability is shoulded by the actor.

Following the weapon that killed on Rust it was used with live ammunition to shoot cans and abandoned on a cart. This makes the props person negligent by film safety practice. It was picked up by the 1st Assistant Director whom was not entitled to handle the weapon AT ALL which transfers some criminal negligence to him. The 1st AD handed the weapon to Baldwin and claimed it was a safe weapon WITHOUT performing the check. Anyone who saw this trade off on the set should have set off general alarm. But they didn't. This could have had to do with power imbalances on set. You generally do not tell a Producer that they are doing something wrong unless you are either willing to trust the producer to be reasonable or baring that, are willing to lose your job. Wrongful termination suits are nigh nonexistent in film because chasing one might blacklist you from other productions.

The 1st AD is the main safety officer on set and Baldwin as an experienced actor would have been briefed on weapon safety protocols many times before. Having the 1st AD just hand you a weapon on set EVEN one that is an inert rubber replica would be an instant firing offence for the AD. Accepting the weapon without insisting on a check leaves the liability on the actor. They might have a lesser share depending on how experienced they might be. If they were ignorant of the protocol at the time then the production team would take that share liability for not properly enforcing safety on the set.

Baldwin as a producer in the days leading up to the accident had shown signs of being negligent in other areas of production safety and the people hired into positions that were to enforce safety on set. People left the production citing the unsafe conditions in protest. He may not shoulder the full liability of criminal negligence but he ABSOLUTELY owns a chunk of it. Directors and Producers REGULARLY push the boundaries of crew safety when they think they can get away with it and the bigger the name the more likely these accidents are. Remembering WHY we have these safety protocols and the people injured or killed in the past is something that is well known in the industry. We remember those killed or permanently maimed by production negligence because there but for the grace of God go us. Everyone who has been in this industry more than a decade personally knows someone whose life was permanently impacted by a bigshot throwing their weight around because of the natural power imbalances on set. One of my Co-workers sustained a permanently debilitating brain injury last year for just this reason. You dice with some one else's death you gotta pay up when you lose.

This is more than a little misogynistic. There are female armorers in their 20's out there who are kicking ass after a couple of gigs and old dogs who refuse to change with the times who are timebombs waiting to go off. Gender, how pretty you are, even experience have nothing to do with aptitude. On a set it's more mindset, willingness to learn, commitment to doing the craft well and wits than experience.

You want to blame something, blame industry nepotism. That's why she was there. She's the kid of another armorer who pulled strings for her to get her jobs. Not a gendered thing either. The majority of people I see fucking shit up in my industry aren't there because someone has aspirations to sleep with them, it's because they are somebody's kid, relative or best friend and they can't be fired.

Film has enough gendered bullshit issues without people pulling this shit about one of the few departments that actually has gender parity.

I realize it's a joke but actually one of issues with aggressive minimalism is that it's actually very nessisary to be decently wealthy to pull off. If you can not afford to treat tools and materials as effectively single use items that are frequently expunged from your spaces then it can actually be fairly wasteful and expensive. Extensive lending resources like tool libraries in cities being available makes it more tenable but otherwise yeah... Minimalism is kind of for the rich.

Honestly they have sown the myths of trans healthcare so hard that people legit believe 5 year olds are receiving puberty blockers. The barest of sense is easier to hijack than people can believe. It's why we can't depend on a majority vote for stuff like this. The airbrains are being given butterflies to chase and then telling us we're crazy. They probably have some fictional bogeyman-esque case someone wrote an article about or a interviewee they managed to play out of context nonsense from to cite you.

Don't need a professional expert to acertain whether the market is sour. Where I am the cost of renting a one bedroom apartment is around $1800 a month plus utilities on the low end. Mind you I am in a city but is you drive an hour and a half away to the farthest "commutable" burbs you are still looking at rents that are $1400 for essentially a one bedroom basement suite.

There are a lot of people my age I know who are working proper professional jobs double income no kids situations who are never able to save up enough for the initial down payment for a house. Why would they when they face so much precarity? Whatever money they are able to sock aside for a rainy day might only cover a car repair or some time off work if they have a life altering event like a parent dying and paying down chunks of student loan.

They wouldn't be able to handle paying for repairs and maintenance for an actual property while still paying high mortgage. Practically every early millenial I know who didn't start making their nest egg through a job in trades right out of high school and instead spent time in the post secondary system getting a degree got bit.

I dunno if anyone is interested but of you got some spare coins laying around the Canadian based charity Rainbow Refugee has been helping get out threatened LGBTQIA+ folks from multiple countries including Russia for quite a while now by arranging sponsorships and legal support and advice for LGBTQIA asylum seekers. If you know anyone looking to get out or would like to donate here's a link :

https://www.rainbowrefugee.com/

Maltheism or Dystheism might be your bag. Dystheism is the idea that God(s) are not all good and may be evil and Maltheism is a more recent addition that posits a strong belief that there exists only a categorically evil divinity.

It would appear so but anything to do with digital spaces are murky.

As we kind of treat digital space the way we do physical space aince the digital space is owned the people who own it get to set the rules and policies which govern the space... But just like a shopping mall can't eject you for the sole reasoning of you being a specific race certain justifications within moderation policies are theoretically grounds for constitutional protections.

However it is a fucking mess to try and use a court to actually enforce the laws like we do in physical spaces. Like here in Canada uttering threats and performing hate speech to a crowd and scribbing swastikas on things for instance are illegal. But do that over a video game chat or some form of anonymizing social media and suddenly you're dealing with citizens of other countries with different laws, a layer of difficulty in determining the source that would require a warrant to obtain and even if both people are Canadian you would need a court date, documentation that the law was appropriately followed in obtaining all your evidence, proving guilt, deciding where the defendant must physically show up to defend themselves and even if they do prove assault by uttering threats or hate speech violations... They would probably just get a fine or community service.

Nobody has time for that.

So if you want to enforce the protections of these laws either you hold the platform responsible for internal policing of the law and determine whether it is discharging it's duty properly by giving citizens a means to check for and report violations of it's own internal policies for later reveiw and give them means to pursue civil cases... Or you go hands off and create means to give a platform's users means to check and make informed choices based on their own personal standards and ethical principles. Every moderation policy leaves a burden on someone but the question is who.

So it might be a transparency law but it also opens the door for applying Constitutional protections to users by holding the business accountable if there are glaring oversights in their digital fifedoms...but such laws are basically inert until someone tries to challenge them.

My thoughts and prayers have started ringing to the tune of "please gods may Trump have a heart attack / stroke at the worst possible time for the Republicans and spare the rest of the world another term of American foreign policy behaving as though it was conceived by racist, classist and eight kinds of phobic Elmer Fudd "

This represents a common issue in the discourse. Conservatives tend to use a group of people to try and score points against leftists, liberals people NOT a part of the minority while using the minority as nothing more than a weapon. It doesn't matter how much we get banged up. In this case it's cis people using the existence and expressed needs of trans people to try and discredit other cis people while misrepresenting the needs and causes of trans people. We are not bullets to be fired at our own defenders.

You think no trans people are made to feel alienated by this? That in the shockwave following another bombing run we don't get to hear variations of this rhetoric in our workplaces and get to feel like we need to chose between our mental health and the precarity of keeping food on the table? That people won't feel empowered to come at us with new fodder to make us to routinely have to defend ourselves against whatever transphobic nonsense is getting panned as a "dig against the libs"? We fight for rights to actually live in our bodies with a mental load out that is hard for cis people to comprehend at a basic level and that gets represented as high humor by someone who very obviously hasn't got a clue during a time when we are under political fire and human rights campaigns have labelled the USA actively hostile to trans people. It's beyond poor taste, it's preaching to the ignorance and intolerance of people directly.

Would like to suggest that you are in fact not okay with LGBTQ+ people. You enjoy the inflated concept of your own tolerance of them - but only when they mince delicately around your sensibilities.

Might as well say " I am tolerant of briefly being in the same space as with queer people but only when they are isolated and never in a situation where their culture, needs or comfort is centered." It's a low bar dude. You don't have to like it It's not for you and nobody is waiting on your blessing.

Conspiracies that require absolute lock tight secrecy to function at a basic level aren't generally tenable to be sustained for longer than a handful of years at a time at most. Somebody always fucks up or basically was just lucky nobody checked for awhile. The nessesity of any large scale collaboration creates inefficiencies and potential error points in the system. Even the best of the best spy agencies fuck up and get caught rather routinely, particularly when operating on their home soil. A lot of investigative journalists accidentally trip over stuff all the time but have good faith arrangements (or in some places laws) to not disclose the active manoeuvres of the state to the public.

It's just really hard for humans in general to accept that events that effected them or things they care about very deeply personally weren't somehow also grand in design. Grocking sometimes it really is just random chance or stupid mishandling is not something we're well wired to handle. Stories of all powerful conspiracies masterminding the world scratch that itch... But logistically speaking the conspiracy aspect is completely unnecessary. If someone is trying to blame a nebulous bogeymen who exists as nameless, numberless ultimately wealthy but also totally off the books super spies.... chances are they are just trying to capitalize on making you feel flattered, smart and empowered by something "only you are smart enough to believe" - while feeding you bullshit they can personally profit from in some way with you none the wiser.

It's easier to veiw these gun statistics less by a side by side comparison of total population and more by gun related deaths per every 10, 000 people. That allows an adjustment for population.

The US in 2023 had 10.89 gun deaths per every 10k people. Denmark had 1.08 per 10k. So roughly Denmark would have had to have roughly 10x the number of gun deaths to draw parallel with the US.

This metric does cover all homicides and suicides. For a better picture homicides only made up 7% of all gun related fatalities in Denmark in the US 43% of gun deaths were homicides. One interesting difference is that Denmark accidental gun deaths is a much bigger slice of their piechart than the US.

Strong social welfare programs and measures to check extreme wealth aggregation are also things the US would have money to manage. Technically speaking the ratio of Government wealth per adult in the US is greater than Denmark's meaning Denmark is doing more with less.

Also poverty crime is still pretty high in Denmark. The social safety net means you don't starve so much and have a place to come home to but it's a very lean existance. A lot of people there are barely making ends meet. Technically speaking the poverty rates between the two countries are actually very comparable.

Dude, you want to know what's it's like to be a woman or a gender non-conforming person in trades lemme tell you. It doesn't matter how good you are at your job 3/4 of the crews out there won't hire you because they are afraid the other guys on site are gunna cause a sexual harassment claim so instead of them dealing with the potential of you pursuing mediation for harassment or heaven forbid acting like a boss and telling people to fix their shit attitudes they just don't hire you. It doesn't matter if you've never even filed a claim.

Yup "mens" jobs are more dangerous and "men" are expendable... Because when you don't fucking fix your shit they stay "mens" jobs. You wanna whine about something whine about how so many bosses take the path of least resistance and don't make things better long term.

From what I understand for some it's just the tools they have at their disposal to get affection or sex in a very low effort or ego flattering way. To a teen, having a car, a place where there's no parents calling the shots and any kind of income is a huge and enviable power gap. The person's experience with other relationships means that they don't tend to go all in on the younger partner either the way a person experiencing love for the first time does. So you have someone who remembers that all consuming need to hold onto that first sacred relationship enough to mechanically exploit it so they can either shift all the work onto their younger partner and keep them on the back foot by threatening to end things or push their younger partner to do exactly what they want because to them the relationship is just one of a potential many. That disposition towards relationship fungibility means you have solid leverage.

Youngsters also don't have any real experience with autonomy. A kid is used to being told what to do and accepting inequity in power balances as normal. Rebelling in the face of adult authority structures also means there's a lack of seeing adults as peers to whom they can seek advice and benefit and trust their experience and more as just unfair weilders of social power that need be avoided so to transgress means you ditch the social structures that are the most able to spot the red flags.

I know a fair chunk of my friends who have given up on the dream of kids. When both parents have to work full time at jobs their post secondary education qualified them for and court mental health issues because nothing they do for work feels meaningful just to scrape by with the bare minimum and accrue damn near nothing in savings... They don't really want to have kids.

A lot of mammals when they don't feel safe or secure in resources abandon or kill their young. Humans given control over their reproduction just seem to settle on raising dogs because they are cheaper.

The issue is that listed sex on a birth certificate has actual effects that limit the options available to trans people. Like if you otherwise pass as your gender but say your passport lists your birth sex you are immediately recognizable as trans to immigrations officials in airports or border officials will treat your documents as suspicious which means chances are way better of you being detained, harassed and abused by security personnel.

If it's on a driver's licence then that immediately opens you up to bigoted behaviour by anyone you need to hand that document over to. Cops can decide that maybe they want to find something worth arresting you for since they already have you pulled over, that apartment you were applying for to rent? Well you're noticeably trans on your documentation so maybe they just put you to the bottom of the stack.

A lot of trans folk look at being able to pass as their window of hope to walk the world more safely. If you have a full on beard, deep voice, male sounding name but an F in the sex category on your passport travelling becomes an absolute misery.

Gunna take this as Liberal/Conservative as party brand names rather than strict social ideology and you're talking about "the left" more generally.

I think the short answer is empathy. When you dig down to the bottom a lot of the discussion on the left talks about different forms of human needs. A need to feel accepted and loved, desires to exist publicly without fear... It is a radical form of empathy that asks you to put yourself in multiple pairs of shoes and see the world through perspectives you aren't naturally born into. The ultimate aim is to achieve a picture of humanity which is inclusive of the widest possible range of understanding.

In that way "Conservatives" are also people. It is not impossible to empathize with their issues. It takes a lot cognitively to internalize this new data and a lot of the rejection from the right comes not from outright cruelty but a desire for things to be and remain simple and easy. They don't want to stretch themselves and are scared of a world where that is something they are forced to do. The issue is a lot of the people selling the pitchforks on that side are doing it because it benefits them. That desire to understand encompasses the motives of individual Conservatives and splits them apart. A lot of the issues Conservatives have is that the left is "preachy" that we act like we're better than them and that does come from somewhere. Some leftists do just want to be the smartest most correct person in the room but others are just waiting for the Conservatives they know to be more understanding of other people who they learned about so they stop being mean. The person who pitties the school bully is often their target because that empathy seems to the bully like condescension.

May I suggest Abagail Thorn's video "I Emailed my Doctor 133 Times - A Crisis in the British Healthcare System" : https://youtu.be/v1eWIshUzr8?si=MLG5nLhD2GrXS07v

She mentions trans DIY and moreso outlines the systemic issues of oppression which have lead many to take their own healthcare into their own hands due to failures and bottlenecking of trans care.

Not the op but a medieval history nerd all the same.

Monasteries actually were kind of technological powerhouses in their day. Cistercians for instance transmitted technologies, forging techniques, farming and cultivation advances and medical knowledge across Europe because basically you had a sort of "franchise" where every church they made was built and run to a regimented standard. They had the study of latin and a sort of sign language that meant travelling monks could all understand each other and since travel was fairly dangerous and rare it facilitated the transmission of scientific and philosophical thought.

It was fairly common for monasteries to provide state of the art medical care for their time which was actually fairly sophisticated in basic exchange for experimentation, the honing and propagating the research. You see the lingering effect of this in our languages. Clock comes from the word for "bells" because the mechanisms were developed originally to automatically ring the tower bells at the monestaries. Gutenberg likely got his early education in the hopes of pursuing a religious career and yhe printing press was originally to copy bibles. Latin is so entangled with modern science because those systems have their origins in monastic studies that veiwed the study of "natural philosophy" as a sort of religious observance of God's creation.

Similar situations were actually happening in parallel in other places. Religions of various sorts held a very "glue of logistical and technological ties" role in the past. Like the Muslim faith was very key in the developments of maths. Astronomy, medicine, metalworking, farming, the skills required to produce art..you track these developments in the religious temple structures of the Aztecs, Buddhists , Taoists, the Babaloynians, Greek and Romans, Egyptians and so on. Secularism taking over that role is actually all told a very new development in the grand scheme.

Technically nothing. There is no gatekeeping in being non-binary along the lines of presentation. But you claiming this as a passenger does not effect the other passengers who are made to feel safer by the adoption of this option. A fair number of female drivers in the service are also still likely to drive for male clients regularly anyway.

However if all drivers have protections for drivers to shut down abuses by scummy clients who use the opportunity of a temporarily captive audience to be disgusting towards drivers then this overall becomes less of a concern.

Almost all forms of accommodation leave certain paths open for abuse by bad actors. Erring on the side of the person who needs additional help participating in society is usually the more ethical choice because while a bad actor can be a pain there's usually already laws on the books or policies that can be enacted that allow you to deal with one. For the person seeking accommodation the cost of not having access can mean the world becomes a smaller and/or more dangerous place because of reasons that have nothing to do with them. In some ways that can emotionally be looked at as "letting the assholes win".

Umm... I hate to tell you this but this is propagating some pretty harmful misinformation...

The reactions to medications are actually more closely tied to the hormone balance and body fat distribution of a person than their sex. It's a common issue in the trans community where birth certificates are non-updatable that a doctor will prescribe meds for a person's birth sex but because they are fully transitioned through HRT they get the effects more common to their phenotype presentation. This means that treatment is more commonly in line with their gender identity because of their hormonal medication and other procedures like an orchiectomy that make a person more similar to where they transitioned to then where they transitioned from.

With trans paitents by and large the safer way to behave is to go with the "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and talks like a duck... If you are in a pinch and can't ask them for specifics because they can't talk - treat them like a duck." While a lot of doctors aren't super well versed in trans specific healthcare it remains a huge problem inside the community for trans women particularly being dosed like cis men which often means they respond like cis women to a lot of different things which is on average a little more scary because meds often linger longer than is expected in trans women's tissues just like cis women. Sometimes this causes some cascading problems.

Pharmacology wise the way trans folks react to different medications is still a bit of a frontier science... But dollars to donuts "just treat em like their birth sex and call it a day" is way too simplistic a take. The lived experience and often physical nature of gender do not stay nicely behind a cordon marked "politics". Trans ignorance in healthcare can be very scary for someone whose endocrinologist has informed them what they should be given and treated like and then some hotshot resident could just decide to not listen should the trans person in question be placed in a position where they are in extreme distress and have to self advocate and educate the person caring for them on what may be the worst day of their life.

It debuted when I was living in Japan and when I got back everyone was using it and I had just finished blogging my travels and was like... Nah, doing this for my regular everyday life is way too much to bother with. Facebook continued to became a major thorn in my side for years as every social event under the sun was scheduled through the fucking thing so I missed a bunch of invites because I basically refused to play ball.

It is odd after so long to be the envy of people after a solid decade and a half of being cursed by them for not being on Facebook.

It is an odd adoption but the Punisher skull is a known alt-right symbol particularly amongst the "Three Percenters", Proud boys and a certain age range of Neo Nazis.

The alt right continuously does this thing where they adopt symbols to recognize each other in a pack but the shit they choose is purposefully ridiculous and childish so you sound like an absolute moron trying to explain to an authority that pepe the frog is actually potentially construable as sexual harassment in certain situations because it's essentially a short hand for rape... It's inane but it is very effective.

Completely off topic but I gotta rant it out...

There's also this thing that the Canadian Conservatives are great at which is controlling the media coverage by lies of omission. My hometown had this whole "scandal" where someone's mic was shut off during a town council for "bringing legitimate concerns about trans people." and papers ran it like that... But what actually happened is the mic shutdown happened because the person in question kept using the mic to be vile about trans people on every open mic opportunity. Open mic portion regarding adding speed bumps : " nope I am gunna talk over the allotable time about pronoun policies in schools." Oh you want to talk about changes to funding structures of municipal trash collections? " Nope mic time to use the t-slur and rant more about woke teachers." One could pretend that they just don't understand the basic Roberts rules of order but their aim is always to spin anything they can as oppression.

They are doing the same here. The articles are not providing proper context that the patch is not just a Star of David patch... It's a black and white version of the Israeli flag with the bars thay mark it as thus. It's not depicting a specific religious stance, it's depicting a political regime. But it creates a fine opportunity for religious bigots to banging the drum about headscarves and turbans and how we should strip government officials of their comfort for daring to have visible markers of their religious beliefs as though these are somehow the same.

Like I get it. Not understanding what counts as hate speech or legitimate targets of criticism is probably very confusing and alarming when you feel like people shut you down at seemingly random ... But they could just assuage their anxieties by just LEARNING the rules. Like we have actual laws about what counts here.

I think the most pertinent question these days is why is sex listed on a drivers licence anyway? If it's referring to phenotype why does anyone I give my ID to need to know what genitals are in my smallclothes? If it's referring to chromasomal makeup why the hell is that relevant to the guy at the liquor store?

If it refers to gender then the consideration becomes that you can't always intuit gender from presentation so that's hardly good at creating any benefit for visual identification.

ID is an issue in general for non-binary people. Here in Canada your passport and licence have to match but getting an X gender marker on your passport means your documents have a solid opportunity to subject you to travel discrimination and whether or not that ID will even be accepted abroad becomes a serious and sometimes peicemeal question.

The question of "should we allow changes of sex on identifying documents" is kind of missing the point. We should be talking total abolition of registration of sex on drivers licences.

There are a fair number of Democrats who think abandoning trans issues is the right path to take to make themselves more acceptable to "centrists" reasoning that the democrats will make things better in the long term when they have the safety to do so...

But they have no idea how much damage can be done. How many people in that time will give up hope that things will be better or who will be driven to that point by feeling alone and weird because they don't see themselves reflected anywhere and there's no one out there to tell them that people like themselves exist and that their lives are not always defined by pain, loneliness and want.

When people act like it's something that should just be put off so some bigots feel like maybe they might halfway consider voting democrat (which they usually don't. Even some of my trans accepting friends who agree with all the leftist talking points still self identity as conservative in their heart of hearts in part because they've been brainwashed to equate the word "conservative" with "reasonable" ) they forget that so many of us are down to clinging to the very bricks by our fingernails. It's quite in character for the Democrats to shelve trans issues to try and appease Republicans by trying to wheedle and play nice to encourage them not to be horrible by trying to become some sort of model of respectable comprise instead of finding new ways to defend against and fight the systemic prejudices and correct the disinformation surrounding trans health care... News flash to Democrats. Republicans will never wake up and see you as the model Paladin of democratic dignity and process. They will never be courted to be better if you compromise now so they might owe you one later. They don't ever pay back those favors for the compromises you make. They will just take every concession and compromise and turn around and call you obstructionists. You just will lose more ground until eventually there's none left to hold.

It's a confluence of factors. LGBTQIA+ is sort of a gender/sexuallity/ phenotype physicality solidarity alliance and the actual boundries has grown in scope since the 80's.

Like take for instance asexual people. Asexuallity became a part of the solidarity when people reached out over the internet and and started realizing that there were a lot of people who just don't feel sexual attraction and that there are certain widely accepted forms of social coercion that revolve around pushing people towards sexual attraction. But asexuallity as a part of the LGBTQIA only really became a thing in the early 2000's. Non-binary trans identities are much the same. A lot of people were feeling the way they did about themselves in isolation but they had no frame of reference to think that they were not just the odd person out.

The other half is a society wide re-examination of compulsory heterosexuallity/cis gender hegemony. There are way more people out there who no longer define themselves by who they've chosen to have physical sexual experience with and now a lot more people are more frank about defining themselves by the range of people they are attracted to. Like if the majority of people artificially penalize a bi-person for choosing a same sex relationship a lot of people will just take the easier path and just narrow their choices or keep their liasons with the restricted choice secret and not assume the label.

I before I came out as trans initially figured I didn't count as trans because I both wasn't physically transitioning and my industry is somewhat hostile to trans people so I was very closeted ao I figured the label only really belonged to the people brave enough to live out of the closet... But eventually someone found me and was like "No, it's not aspirational. Even deep in the closet you are still trans."

This combination of destigmatization, solidarity messaging, the inclusion of whole other groups (like intersex people, gender minorities, asexuals) broadening the scope and outreach to the closeted means that more people generally self identify as LGBTQIA or queer.

Animal kingdom wise we're still less observably sexual fluid than other primates. Bisexuality is actually pretty ubiquitous particularly amongst male primates with it actually being the overwhelming norm in some species so chances are we are probably actually haven't seen the curve level off from suppressive stigma.

Oh if Mr Rogers was current he would have been seen as incredibly "woke". This is the man who during the civil rights discourse decided that kids needed to see black people as less scary and capable of authority so they implemented the character of Officer Clemmons. There is a famous clip of him offering Officer Clemmons a chance to cool his feet in the same wading pool he's using because out in the world there was a massive push to keep public pools segregate and conservative nutjobs were throwing caustics into pools that didn't comply and telling their kids that black people were dirty.

They would have been screaming for an end to Rogers " woke SJW tyranny".

Irrelevant.

Do you think that necklace makes you look sexy? Does it give you confidence to wear it out? Great! Confidence is sexy. Having something you do for yourself is sexy. Anyone who falls for you is gunna probably think that necklace is cool either because they are gunna associate it with you and it is gunna make them smile because you obviously like wearing it. Think of the accessory worn by your favorite character - that could be how someone who really likes you reacts to your accessory in the future.

If someone thinks it's not their style or thinks it looks dumb if it's a deal breaker they kinda shallow and you're better off without... and if they value your feelings they are gunna think your attachment to the thing is cute.

Embrace the pendant. Life is too short to deny yourself the things you like.

From the queer perspective the attitude isn't charming. When open season gets declared on us talking about it as a "financial loss" or an unpopular move that is a win in the long run ignores that we are being used as fungible tokens in a game rather than people seeing the human cost. When we have to leave a community because we fear for futures losing all our support structures and having to rebuild it is a cold comfort that some politicians might not get elected this month or this year. The brazen hate towards us is treated as classless rather than actually threatening. It is becoming more brazen and in places it is becoming more commonplace...more normal.

Looking at this strictly from an our team vs their team dynamic over who proves morally superior in the end trivializes a lot of the damage done along the way. How often have we been told that we should just give up hope of things getting better and stop bringing immediately life threatening issues to the table because it isn't politically convenient? We are not pawns we are people.

I have been privy to people's reactions to watching videos, even grainy distorted ones of executions or accidental death. While adults are generally fairly innocculated against depictions of death that are known to be fictional the same is not true of the real thing. There is good reason why even barely legible death caught on film is aired on news broadcasts with warnings and particularly graphic ones are not broadcast at all. While I think I sit somewhere on the less effected side (effected but very good at compartmentalization) a lot of the people I have personally witnessed veiw footage have been generally very perturbed to the point where the mental disquiet lingers for days after the fact.

Young children are generally perturbed by depictions of theatrical or even loosely conceptualized death in print. While some might seem brave in the face of fictional gore it's basically just playing brave and flouting their idea of being tough when what they are being tough against is a safe little fiction. People who like slasher movies aren't immune to being traumatically impacted when exposed to real death on film.

I find it very telling that there is this mental disconnect that children being "exposed" to the depictions of same sex relationships which are often depicted in the same chaste presentation heterosexual relationships are for age appropriate audiences is somehow "disturbing" while something legitimately traumatizing to the average adult is somehow something kids should be exposed to in the most graphic way possible.

I don't think this man should be permitted to be around children much less advocate for what constitutes an initiation into adulthood.

"But it's going to quickly destroy the fabric of the family and the willingness of people to work if we provide assistance to those rightfully placed at the bottom of society!"

-Rich people who opposed the introduction of the Poor Law in Elizabethan England in 1601.

You have fallen for propaganda my friend. The first surgery trans people have access to is breast reduction surgery which requires the sign off of a guardian at age 16.... the same time surgery is available to cis kids. You don't get access to bottom surgery options until you are an adult able to sign off or unless you basically have a consensus of desperate need - essentially those who are a high suicide risk and that is where the social workers, therapist, pediatrician and endocrinologist all need sign off on it and in that case the age limit is still 16.

The problem a lot of people do not realize is how confident the diagnostic and projected outcome needs to be for anything to be done to children. There is solid reason why the system has not faced litigation by a bunch of trans kids who have gone already gone through this system and are now adults.

A lot of people think transness comes from some sort if woo woo belief but in actuality the diagnosis is based out of consistent reactions to stimuli and often a host of quality of life destroying mental health conditions that arise from being forced to not express their identity. The field of psychology has been obsessed with trans people since the beginning of the field and we are approaching the century mark of the first bottom surgeries. It is a fair constant (that baring a few specific mental disorders) that people do not take medicine unless the side effects and risks are lesser than the pain they are experiencing or will experience.

We need cis people to stop reacting emotionally to trans health care with some kind of existential terror that there are mad scientists itching to hurt kids and remember for a second what it is like to seek treatment in a healthcare system and the chain of ethics and liability that exists in the field.

In bisexuality there is the idea of "compulsory heterosexuallity" where a lot of people look at themselves and identify as straight because they have been trained to ignore their attraction to same sex partners because to chose otherwise is punishable. It's theorized that bisexuality might actually be more common than heterosexuallity and lead to the idea that geing gay is "a choice" because for a bi person it kind of is.

But for gay or hetero folk it is like trying to eat a food your palette finds disgusting. Like if you absolutely hate olives and keep forcing yourself to eat them you might get better at ignoring your sense of taste while eating them... But you will never get to the point where you initiate the neurological flip to where you actually enjoy it. While enjoying more bitter foods is just a function of aging up at some point certain things unique to you are hardwired in.

Holy shit dude. You are an actual psychopath aren't you? Fucking Ebenezer Scrooge pre ghostly trio levels of heartless.

Fucking hell...

It's easier to understand homophobia not from the perspective of being afraid of gay people but being afraid of what would happen to society if being gay were not considered a failure state lesser to being hetero and treated as such.

Hence why they keep talking about "cultural Marxism". It's supposed to seem like a threat posed to "Western Civilization" they are VERY afraid of what happens when being gay is considered normal. "Cultural Marxism" actually doesn't have any clear definable meaning aside from a vague implication that any form of socially accepted equality is dangerous to society, and cause for dissolution of the "traditional family" and so on. They absolutely DO frame these subjects in the context of fear. That's why they keep evoking communist wording ( the Nazis used the term "Cultural Bolshevism" for the same purpose) You are already conditioned to be afraid of Communists so you are supposed to draw an emotional parallel. There really is no other purpose for using that term as while Marx himself did have some vague stuff about women's role in society and that they were equally human as men but his works really were more gender blind and focused on how capitalism effects people's lives. Calling him feminist is a bit of a stretch. But the point is to make you scared so you really stop thinking about it in any terms other than "Very bad society destroying thingy".

If they said "Gay people will kill you because they are all great at jujitsu and you should run!" people would think you're a complete moron but "Their existence will erode the nuclear family and cause us to be weak as a society so that our enemies will take us down!" is a more nebulous fear that doesn't stem from any specific completely harmless individual. It makes the existence of them at all as a whole a threat. Or they cam be treated as a threat to one's personal perception of being masculine if ones entire premise of masculinity operates on the nessesity of being perceived as not being desired or desiring men. Hence homophobia - a fear of being perceived as gay.