About trans rights:
-
About trans rights:
They're a wedge issue. If you think it's okay to deprive trans people of the right to exist in the public sphere then you're saying human rights are conditional and/or can be withdrawn. Which puts you on a slippery slope to no human rights for anyone.
When you trace the roots of the modern anti-trans movement they boil down to some combination of bigotry and billionaire bullshit— the oligarchs think rights are for the rich.
So: trans-rights are human rights. No exceptions.
Human rights must be unconditional, inalienable, universal.
Otherwise they simply become privileges: reserved for the select few, revokable things to be earned …
… which describes Western supremacist culture quite well actually.
-
@smattymatty Agreed, but also it's a manufactured wedge issue designed to ease the trans-ignorant into taking a series of that will lead them into a reprehensible position that they would mostly direct if they were confronted with it cold.
"Hi! We are your leaders and we want the right to dehumanize you and strip you of your rights at will!"—who'd say yes to THAT? Much easier to start by targeting a small minority nobody knows. Could have been left-handers or germophobes: but they picked trans.
@cstross @smattymatty This is the tactic exactly. Pick a tiny group that's no threat to your fascistic movement but that a lot of people fear and hate so that you're entirely safe *and* you can terrify your bigot followers. This is why Nazis targeted Jews.
-
About trans rights:
They're a wedge issue. If you think it's okay to deprive trans people of the right to exist in the public sphere then you're saying human rights are conditional and/or can be withdrawn. Which puts you on a slippery slope to no human rights for anyone.
When you trace the roots of the modern anti-trans movement they boil down to some combination of bigotry and billionaire bullshit— the oligarchs think rights are for the rich.
So: trans-rights are human rights. No exceptions.
@cstross thank you Uncle Charlie
-
About trans rights:
They're a wedge issue. If you think it's okay to deprive trans people of the right to exist in the public sphere then you're saying human rights are conditional and/or can be withdrawn. Which puts you on a slippery slope to no human rights for anyone.
When you trace the roots of the modern anti-trans movement they boil down to some combination of bigotry and billionaire bullshit— the oligarchs think rights are for the rich.
So: trans-rights are human rights. No exceptions.
@cstross what rights do they lack of?
-
About trans rights:
They're a wedge issue. If you think it's okay to deprive trans people of the right to exist in the public sphere then you're saying human rights are conditional and/or can be withdrawn. Which puts you on a slippery slope to no human rights for anyone.
When you trace the roots of the modern anti-trans movement they boil down to some combination of bigotry and billionaire bullshit— the oligarchs think rights are for the rich.
So: trans-rights are human rights. No exceptions.
Yeah, it doesn't matter under what argument "rights" gets redefined into "privileges". Compared to that change, adjusting who gets to have privileges is a simplicity itself.
It's a common tactic to invent a strawman, or identify a fringe-issue that necessitates rewriting the whole contract.
-
The problem with the "E-card" is that in actuality relatively few people are actually shocked or disgusted by his activites. What they're actually disgusted by is getting categorised into the people to be avoided.
Note how companies went back on their DEI-promises as soon as the POTUS changed. It wasn't about morals, but about optics.
Thus "your viewpoint was probably paid by Epstein money" will probably get a takeback like "who's funding your views, then?".
-
About trans rights:
They're a wedge issue. If you think it's okay to deprive trans people of the right to exist in the public sphere then you're saying human rights are conditional and/or can be withdrawn. Which puts you on a slippery slope to no human rights for anyone.
When you trace the roots of the modern anti-trans movement they boil down to some combination of bigotry and billionaire bullshit— the oligarchs think rights are for the rich.
So: trans-rights are human rights. No exceptions.
@cstross
Rights being conditional is always the ballgame. -
About trans rights:
They're a wedge issue. If you think it's okay to deprive trans people of the right to exist in the public sphere then you're saying human rights are conditional and/or can be withdrawn. Which puts you on a slippery slope to no human rights for anyone.
When you trace the roots of the modern anti-trans movement they boil down to some combination of bigotry and billionaire bullshit— the oligarchs think rights are for the rich.
So: trans-rights are human rights. No exceptions.
@cstross
Transphobes should stop using semiconductors, especially ARM chips:
https://mstdn.social/@JohnMashey/109882464505602795 -
About trans rights:
They're a wedge issue. If you think it's okay to deprive trans people of the right to exist in the public sphere then you're saying human rights are conditional and/or can be withdrawn. Which puts you on a slippery slope to no human rights for anyone.
When you trace the roots of the modern anti-trans movement they boil down to some combination of bigotry and billionaire bullshit— the oligarchs think rights are for the rich.
So: trans-rights are human rights. No exceptions.
@cstross I would generalise it’s not just oligarchs who think rights are for the rich.
There’s a lot of middle-class and working-class authoritarians our there, who think rights are for the in-group only.
I would go even further, and think of the authoritarian personality, whose unit of action is submission & obedience.
It’s not just coming from above, it’s coming from below, too. People seeing the world order through dominance, also exist in the lower classes.
Fear drives it.
-
@Legit_Spaghetti @cstross
Why are there women's sports?@Photo55 @Legit_Spaghetti @cstross my unironic hot take on this is all sports should have no restrictions, just objectives. All this arbitrary “for the sportsmanship” nonsense is ridiculous knitting circle committee pablum. If it ain’t against no actual laws and the event insurance covers it then it goes.
-
@cstross what rights do they lack of?
@Dan_EP
At the risk of answering a rhetorical question, one unfortunately common example are the so-called "bathroom bills" - various laws, regulations or court decisions in various places, regulating who can use which bathroom, written and implemented in such a way that many transgender people effectively can't use either - men's or women'sThis is a problem for trans people's public participation generally, for jobs - especially ones with changing rooms where people need to change into and our of uniforms, protective gear or contaminated clothing - for jury duty, for pretty much anything at any distance from the home or which takes more than a couple of hours
Meanwhile, the laws aren't solving any actual problem that was happening
That's just one example, unfortunately; if you want more, have a read through something like https://www.erininthemorning.com/
-
@cstross I would generalise it’s not just oligarchs who think rights are for the rich.
There’s a lot of middle-class and working-class authoritarians our there, who think rights are for the in-group only.
I would go even further, and think of the authoritarian personality, whose unit of action is submission & obedience.
It’s not just coming from above, it’s coming from below, too. People seeing the world order through dominance, also exist in the lower classes.
Fear drives it.
@gimulnautti
Here's a good overview -
>I've not met a single person who was not disgusted.
For the abovementioned reasons. But there's a reason why "it's not pedofilia, but ephebophilia!" is such a meme.
I'm not going to go into this further: even writing this much feels disgusting.
>Companies are irrelevant here, they're not people.
Well, they're hierarchial communities. That's what the "company" originally means. Again, not going into this further.
You may disregard me, if you wish.
-
@normjess Yep! I was also speaking in the now. There are stories that come out of states with bathroom bans, of cis women having cops barging in and throwing them out. Mostly queer women who reject gender norms, but it can happen to any woman who doesn't fit an arbitrary appearance standard.
And not all that long ago, we had Imane Khelif.
@solitha right now we have at least two states with lists of the transgender people which will at minimum be used to make them all second class citizens and at work be used to round them all up
one where drag is an arrest-able offense and will be used to arrest trans people
I live in the UK, but in many ways more transphobic and in no need of such harmful ideas
Rowling hates Khelif because she's a black woman who doesn't fit beauty standards. its not about her fucking genes
even if she has unusual genes, if you get advantage from it, that's the kind of amazing thing that should be on display at the Olympics
but she has a vagina, grew up socialized as a woman, so these people have insane standards for womanhood that 90% of women won't pass
-
About trans rights:
They're a wedge issue. If you think it's okay to deprive trans people of the right to exist in the public sphere then you're saying human rights are conditional and/or can be withdrawn. Which puts you on a slippery slope to no human rights for anyone.
When you trace the roots of the modern anti-trans movement they boil down to some combination of bigotry and billionaire bullshit— the oligarchs think rights are for the rich.
So: trans-rights are human rights. No exceptions.
@cstross Well, personally, I don't think "rights" exist as anything other than a narrative tool that attempts to legitimize the use of state power and in that sense are pure ideology that re-routes liberatory efforts back into a captive mindset. I can certainly understand why one would pursue such protections if they were a truly existing protection for people but at this point I can only see "rights" - trans or otherwise -as a red herring.
-
@staringatclouds @Photo55 @cstross No joke, that's exactly why. For example, the only reason there's a separate women's league in chess is because male grandmasters didn't like how they kept getting defeated by women.
@Legit_Spaghetti @staringatclouds @Photo55 @cstross Is that the historical reason? Do you have a source for that? Is there currently a top league that is closed to women?
Right now all top tournaments and the German leagues are open to women. I don't know about others.
-
@cstross I will admit, I find some of this stuff to be unsettling, but I also think that I have no right to control such things nor does anyone else.
If people want to be trans for example, that isn't my right to control.
No one should get in the way of this.
Not only does it serve nothing worthwhile but humans should be able to decide what they want to be.
And for those conservative nutcases, they should be aware that some people will stick to their beliefs no matter what.
They should know about this given their delusional beliefs of supporting a tyrant and denying reality so much.
Trying to stop people from being who they want to be permanently especially is like trying to make water not wet.
it just aint going to happen.
Btw, I fully expect some people from different beliefs to find my various beliefs strange.
i also heard it said that 20% of people will always be at odds with you.
So there's that.@skedarwarrior @cstross your beliefs aren't strange. There are heaps of ignorant libertarians around.
-
@cstross Would it be okay to link to this from BlueSky?
It's an important issue but certainly not my place to post the link elsewhere.@FourQ Yes, it's okay to do that. (I'm on bsky too: @cstross.bsky.social. Posted this here because it's too long for a single bsky message.)
-
@cstross I would generalise it’s not just oligarchs who think rights are for the rich.
There’s a lot of middle-class and working-class authoritarians our there, who think rights are for the in-group only.
I would go even further, and think of the authoritarian personality, whose unit of action is submission & obedience.
It’s not just coming from above, it’s coming from below, too. People seeing the world order through dominance, also exist in the lower classes.
Fear drives it.
@gimulnautti See also the writings of the late Bob Altermayer.
-
@FourQ Yes, it's okay to do that. (I'm on bsky too: @cstross.bsky.social. Posted this here because it's too long for a single bsky message.)
@cstross Thanks Charlie. The character limit can be frustrating sometimes. Other times a downright bloody nuisance.
