People hate exercise, too. Not doing it will shorten their lives, but they hate it.
Sapient liberation now.
People hate exercise, too. Not doing it will shorten their lives, but they hate it.
Explain it as “People love each other. Sometimes it’s a boyand a girl. Sometimes it’s two boys or two girls. (Not getting into enbys since this is 101.). And sometimes people, whoever they love, want to build a life together.”
Yeah. Not being legally required to abandon principles in favor of short-term profits for shareholders is tight.
In the US, non-authoritarian leftists use it pretty often to mock the weird obsession of our right wing with the specter of communism. Most of the country thinks there’s no such thing as non-authoritarian leftism, so frankly, outside Eastern European neighborhoods, it makes no difference at all.
Also, there’s not a large, well-funded far-left movement in the US fighting to radicalize people.
It’s harder to get people to return to the 1950s if they’re haunted by the realities of the 1850s. Best teach them everything was hunky-dory.
Funny how guys like this “believe life begins at conception” but never go after IVF, despite the number of fertilized eggs destroyed by fertility clinics each year, but they’ll happily force gestating parents to carry dead babies to term. It’s like it’s all about enslaving women (with other gestating parents as collateral damage because conservatives believe they’re women), or something…
They can open a pdf, or their Legislative Assistants can. That stuff is performative, making sure we don’t expect them to regulate huge corporations because they’re so incompetent. This is the stuff they’re interested in regulating, so they do.
The discussion is on underrepresentation. Why would bringing up the percentage of population that’s queer be off-topic? The numbers (and sense that we’re overrepresented) may be wrong, but bringing it up absolutely makes sense. How does one seriously talk about being underrepresented or not without bringing what percentage of the population we might make up? How would one even gauge representation levels without such a framework?
Yep. The difference is emotional, not material. Zuck, like most billionaires, seems happy to sleep on his pile of Scrooge McDuck money and fuck people over. Muskrat does all that, but he asks something more of us than our money and our lives. He wants, maybe even needs, us to love and respect him while he does it. And that sets rage-fires in the brain-parts.
“Look, I made a pigeon-rat.”
I feel like some not feeling “bi enough,” in my experience, comes from internalized queerphobia. It’s “Well, I’m close enough to ‘normal,’ in my external behavior, why can’t I just go all the way?It would make things easier for everyone,” etc. If you experience homosexual and heterosexual attraction, you can count as bi as much as anyone else who does. Even if you’re 95/5 and they’re 50/50. Even if, like me, you were straight (not in the closet, sexuality can be fluid over the life course) until your early 30s, if you have experienced homosexual and heterosexual attraction, Welcome to Bi Club. We’re all comrades here.
Gender identity isn’t something you stop respecting because of a bad take, no matter how bad. She should go to a women’s prison for a long time. But, unless there are people willing to defend a refusal to accept someone’s gender and rape as a de facto punishment for a crime, this is indefensible. It’s extra (and barbaric) punishment because she’s trans. That’s wrong. Period.
As a trans-inclusive radical feminist sick of radical feminism being tainted by their bullshit, I strongly disagree. Let them pick a new name showing how far they’ve strayed from the feminist ideal that biology shouldn’t determine destiny.
The Senate not being population-based is part of the problem too. As are gerrymandering and not having universal adult suffrage or federal holidays for voting days. But a Constitutional Convention would be state-based, too, so we’d end up with something even worse than we have now.
Both 9/11s were pretty freaking real, but you’re right on the US orchestrating the 1973 one.
It may be Francophone, but it’s as fucked up to call this “French Africa” as it would be to call India/Pakistan/Bangladesh “British India.”
The only fully accurate term is pro-gestational-slavery.
I support you doing this, but I have physical impairments and no car, so I’m choosing between dystopias already.
They lost the campaign. (And that’s not nothing, ending chattel slavery in the US was a boon to humanity.) The state of the war is still in question, however.
Some search engines and social media platforms make at least half-assed efforts to prevent or add warnings to this stuff, because anorexia in particular has a very high mortality rate, and age of onset tends to be young. The people advocating AI models be altered to prevent this say the same about other tech. It’s not techphobia to want to try to reduce the chances of teenagers developing what is often a terminal illness, and AI programmers have the same responsibility on that as everyone else,
The key is defining terms like “false” and “violent.”
They’re rich, but it also makes them stand out, gets them extra headlines.
I’m always and everywhere bisexual. I experience attractions both homosexual (same gender as me) and heterosexual (different gender than me), and I see no reason to change my identity because the kids have different words for it. (Nothing wrong with them using their new words for themselves, but if another Gen Zer tries to negate my identity with “that’s just the same as pan,” I’m glitterbombing everything they own.)
There’s a reason they say libertarians are just conservatives who like smoking weed.
The left doesn’t have the money to prop up a decent counterpropaganda apparatus.
Specifically in this case, they want people they perceive as women (any human with a working uterus) to suffer so they are easier to control. I worry that your phrasing erases the sex-based violence part of this. Fascists are coming for most of us in one way or another, but this particular front is about controlling people they see as women. My husband (a cis dude) didn’t have to get parts of his body removed to have full citizenship rights; I did.
Auth-left calls it decadence, auth-right calls it degeneracy. Authoritarians hate any deviance from their norms.
Not strange at all. New Atheism (the social movement, not non-belief) seems to have served as a gateway drug to misogyny for many people. Why not homophobia?
I’d suggest phrasing the question differently. You don’t want to explain queerness to a 5-year-old. You want to figure out how to salt the earth of the fields of bigotry in her heart so nothing can grow. And I’m so sorry I have no answer for that.
Transness, like fatness and pregnancy, is a body-difference-based status that’s socially vulnerable enough to need protections, but the easiest legal basis for protection is on the same path as pathologization. Not arguing with you, more musing under what circumstances it is worth it to accept the pathologization-for-protection deal.
Tell your friend to read a history book or legal precedent. Or, hell, any nonfiction book. I’m 38, so none of this is that long ago. When I was growing up, gay sexual contact was illegal in my state. In some states, when I was a kid, men could not legally rape their wives. (As in, if nonconsensual sex took place in a marriage, it was not considered rape). And I don’t remember any states ever taking cis kids away from their parents because they considered seeking appropriate medical care to be abuse. Has that guy ever feared for his life because of who he was attracted to? Friends of mine have, because they were queer. Ask him how many countries his future marriage to a woman would be illegal in? In how many countries could he be killed just because someone found out he loved a woman? The reality is, algorithms on the most profitable social media sites have been driving young, cishet, mostly white men to the alt-right, homophobic/transphobic/misogynist/dickhead rabbit hole. Your “friend” may or may not be savable, but if he is, that’s the opposing army you’re dealing with. A 24-hour bullshit cycle of the sociocultural preconditions for fascism.
Who doesn’t?
Who pissed in your cereal? People have different interests.
Maybe? Got any cheese or good books?
Except how often do you hear about radical feminists who aren’t TERFs anywhere in mainstream discourse? For much of the population, TERFs are the only “radical feminists” they hear about. (I reject the idea that a belief that biology is destiny as compatible with feminism in any case.). It’s not so much people in this community I worry about getting the wrong idea, it’s everywhere else.
If I were drunk and angry, that position might earn you being called a “pick me,” ngl, but that’s because you’re a woman. Such an opinion is no reason to question your gender identity, because there is no opinion so bad it changes who you are or justifies harming you in that way. Period. You’re a woman, and no dickhead gets to take that from you just because they’re mad.
That’s only true if you live in a swing state. If your state’s certain to go one way or the other, vote your conscience, even if it’s a write-in.
These people wouldn’t know what actual Marxism was if a copy of Das Kapital hit them in the face.
Yes. The closer labor costs are to zero, the happier the average capitalist is.