More than 26K rape-related pregnancies estimated after Texas outlawed abortions, new study says
Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world Posts 1Comments 773Joined 2 yr. ago
Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world
Posts
1
Comments
773
Joined
2 yr. ago
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.
I could see at least trying a tabacco cold smoke salmon but it would have to be completely unprocessed tabacco. The stuff you find in cigarettes and pipe smoke is treated with acceleants so that it burns without a constant flow of air. Old cigarettes back in the early 1900's used to go out if you didn't keep puffing on them and those acceleants cause a lot of that acrid smell we associate with cigarettes and probably ruin the taste.
Yup, it's fascism. You must conform to the architypal gender presentation of the 1950's because everything else is some kind of degeneracy of "family values" and "public decency".
You're supposed to kind of forget that the 1950's were pre- shit ton of civil rights wins from sex/race/disability/nationality equality organizating and was open season on jailing queer people, sundown towns, lynchings and so on. It's why Conservatives like it so much, it's back when their hierarchy didn't have to be hidden from disapproving eyes.
Nope, all actors need to know is "Don't take a gun from anyone but a props person and make sure they open the chamber, remove and check each round in the chamber while you watch."
It's like one or two more steps complicated than telling a young child "don't take medicine from anyone but a parent".
It's true it's ultimately a matter for the courts to figure out. But I will tell you that I know what sets like these are like. I worked a lot of them back when I was new and I know rhe type. The assumption of remorse is bullshit. There are plenty of big shots who coerce people into getting debilitatingly hurt in my industry and after they feign a period of remorse it is right back to business as usual.
Baldwin deserves his lumps. He had to have been a greenhorn on his first day on set and a fucking king of idiots besides to not know better. If public opinion won't hold him to account because they buy his bullshit victim card act I hope he sees consequences in court.
That's not how liability works. It's not a hot potato that stops with the first person in a chain of people who did wrong. Everyone who contributes to a catastrophe of broken rules essentially gets a slice of the consequence pie the only thing that changes is how big a slice of the overall pie you get.
Here's what the situation says to me. You have a 1st AD and a Principle and senior Actor/ Producer who were breaking the most basic of rules. For context on a film set say a camera person sets a case of lenses on something I as a set dresser need to move. It is largely unacceptable for me to even touch that box until I have tried everything viable to hail the correct department to move it. If somebody tries to hand me something I am not supposed to be handed I go talk to their supervisor. Some things even if I have explicit permission to handle from a props person, like a gun, I am liable if I handle it anyway because there is no circumstances where me putting my hand on that item is acceptable. First rule on a set you learn day one "Don't touch ANYTHING that belongs to someone outside your department".
If this incredibly basic rule was SO flagrantly violated on so many levels by THE CHEIF SAFETY OFFICER ON SET that tells me that the safety problems and the culture of improper protocol were endemic on the set. This very obviously wasn't one bad day of lax protocols. This was an unsafe set and an everyday unsafe crew culture. Lots of times you don't get burned when something isn't safe so people try their luck which is all fine and dandy until tragedy hits.
This AD had a previous incident where a gun he handled fired a live round went off on a set and just didn't hit anybody. At that point people should have fucking hung drawn and quarted him and busted him back down to Trainee. He was a demonstratilably consistent danger to the crews he was on but Rust STILL HIRED him as their primary safety officer anyway.
When something goes this desperately wrong that pie gets so big there's a slice for everyone. The other Producers on this show had a duty to hire people who do the job properly. The 1st AD is a major hire. Ist ADs arguably do more to protect production liability than a Director does and production has their eye on the pick. If something a director wants is unsafe it is a 1st AD who has veto power. They set the culture of the set to make provisions for safety. If you rent a peice of equipment that has a record of dangerously failure and one of your workers gets hurt by it you as an employer get burned. The same goes for personnel. The producers absolutely should find some liability pie on their plates too. Are they gunna get prison time? Probably not but they are still negligent and there are consequences that scale to fit.
Thank you for having your mind changed!
A lot of people fall into error regarding common sense safety on set...like I have heard people go on about how "brave" Lady Gaga was to throw her weight around to film her video in an actual thunderstorm because the outcome was "worth it" not realizing how many injuries, including potentially fatal injuries could have resulted on the crew. People tend to sympathize and uncritically digest what people they "know" and respect tell them versus the rest of us who are relatively faceless.
The particularly upsetting thing is I know people who have literally ruined people's lives and not only are they still working but overall they don't change. The presumption that someone actually feels bad and applies that later isn't my experience. At some level they find ways to self justify that what they did was reasonable and then they just blindly trust that lightning won't strike twice.
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.
Apologies if this comes off as too explain-y and mentions some of what you already know. I am a queer history nerd and I don't get many opportunities to trot this out.
A lot of the reasoning of the shift to transgender came with the transition away from focusing on the strict sexual characteristics of the people involved. Trans sexual was seen as either implying heavily the medical involvement of alteration of sexual characteristics was always the intended goal or defining factor that disqualified people from being properly trans or referenced the highly discredited and now generally considered transphobic connotation of someone being sexually attracted to the characteristics of the opposite sex so much that they they treat transition as a fetish which had "moral" considerations. Basically the whole auto ando/gynophillia stuff. They varied their approach based on whether they thought you were in it for kink and were generally more lenient if you were trying to model what they considered heterosexual norms.
Gender was selected as the more blanket friendly term which applies to how someone self conceptualizes themselves. This does include in it's definition gender euphoria and dysphoria so by it's definition it featureshow one feels about their personal physical sexual characteristics... It just places zero emphasis on how one chooses to respond to those forces leaving the door more open to a wider range of different transition presentations including purely social ones.
It's less a euphemism and more a widening and restructuring to shake up the old harmful preconceptions that existed in old DSMs...it also had a particular historic use for trans people.
Functionally some of the lesser known history is it had a temporary practical purpose of providing red flags for patients of medical and psychiatric professionals who remained out of date to the rather durastic changes to the DSM that retired notions of sexuallity and attraction as a set of Freudianeque assumptions to the underpinning of behaviour that happened between 1990 and 2013. Basically if the doc was still using the term trans sexual you knew they were probably making a lot of their recommendations and limiting your choices based on whom you were sexually attracted to. If you knew your doc was not keeping upto date it gave you some level of personal advocating power in a system regularly stacked against trans patients.
Regardless of how one personally feels about the term it is not a euphemism.
Yes you can.
Those groups are not fully in religious in nature but represent in part a political movement with a history of violence. As long as the ire is not placed on the entirety of the faith, a particular sect that is enacting it's ideology based on violence is not a criticism based from the religion but by the actions of the group as a political and military force. Still not cool to infer they are genetically inferior or sub human or even that they are all pedophiles or something but the fact that they have been actually commiting specific crimes as an organized group means that they are free game to be critiqued for their crimes.
You can also actively critique the writings and dogma of a religion itself but the hate speech portion doesn't kick in until imply that the people who follow it are mentally ill, inferior, predisposed to crime or all going to enact all the practices listed in their holy texts that represent a modern illegal practice etc. etc. etc.
There is a distinction between nationality and government/ politics as well. You can absolutely exercise free critique of someone as long as it is not based on the criteria of their national origin. As long as you stick to talking about the facts of what specific individuals or political groups have actually been accredited as doing you are in the clear.
I find the "where do you stop" argument to be riddled with holes. Laws are essentially written to explicitly outline boundries and moderation policies are basically just internal laws. Like Canadian law has very specific laws regarding what constitutes hate speech, here is what that looks like.
First you outline protected grounds. In Canada this is race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted. (note: pardons are only available via democratic votes or through appeals in Canada)
There's a stage where you determine what context stuff is in. Like whether it is being performed publicly or privately but marketing a video game is definitely publicly so in tgis context we can skip to it's last part where you explicitly define hate speech. Hate speech is rhetoric that :
- Describes group members as animals, subhuman or genetically inferior
- Suggests group members are behind a conspiracy to gain control by plotting to destroy western civilization
- Denying, minimizing or celebrating past persecution or tragedies that happened to group members
- Labelling group members as child abusers, pedophiles or criminals who prey on children Blaming group members for problems like crime and disease
- Calling group members liars, cheats, criminals or any other term meant to provoke a strong reaction including usage of known slurs in the context of intended harm to group members.
These rules likely wouldn't touch some hateful rhetoric that sneaks through under the wire disguised in very abstracted metaphor but it creates a pretty distinct pass fail bar that would catch explicit hate speech on their platform.
We get it, you're Transphobic. Yay for you.
Your right wing "virtue signaling" when discussing anything under the sun that dares to include trans and intersex people even a little bit is pretty gauche dude.
Technically concentration camps are not limited to the Nazi regime and are do not nessisarily require actively killing the people inside to fit the definition. The internment of Japanese civilians by the US and Canadian governments in WWII fit the definition of a concentration camp. The North Koreans have political prison camps which also fit the description. The notes of periods stopping in the face of extreme stress an malnutrition have been noted at all of these camps by the doctors who have kept records.
You also made quite the logic leap from someone mentioning menstruation in Concentration camps to assuming they meant a literal camp in Gaza. Gaza isn't a concentration camp... Though the Israeli government has actively throttled supplies to the citizens of the region (including international relief) who cannot immigrate because the neighbouring countries fear Israeli retaliation so you do have a bunch of people who cannot freely move in increasingly unsanitary conditions without access to medical supplies, clean water or fuel to produce clean water and increasing food insecurity in the region has meant that the conditions are primed for a large number of civilians to die... So there are fairly decent parallels in regards to living conditions but the disqualifying difference being largely based around formalized imprisonment.
Not a concentration camp by strict definition and not an "industrial" killing zone like Auschwitz but Auschwitz was very much not the norm for a concentration camp even the ones under Nazi rule so using that as your rubric of "what is a concentration camp" is inherently flawed. Concentration camps are unethical even when they don't exist to slowly and steadily liquidate their populations.
The commonality stated here is the function of the body due to disease and malnutrition. Demanding proof of one very specific presentation of genocide out of a wide range of possible presentations of active genocide seems to be very mich missing the point.
Yeah no worries on the 30's thing. I am pushing 40 and have actually had the "Ummm yaaa Aren't you a little old to be a non-binary?" levied at me... Like it's a fad for edgy teens and not something that I had to shelve for 20 years because I figured people would think me a loon for outwardly expressing because nobody talked about it.
I am lucky to be in a place were I have been able to meet older trans folk because the community where I am has been a stronghold of queer identities since before it was more widely accepted as cool. There is a bit of reverence inside the community to be had for anybody who survived the AIDS epidemic and the rough persecution of those times, particularly trans activists over 60 who have been out aince rocks were soft there maintains a "I eat roofing nails instead of cereal for breakfast and honey badger don't give a shit" vibe about them. From that very select demographic "trans sexual" almost seems to have like a "badge of honor" status where heaven help the little shit who tries to call them "transgender" because they will turn you inside out with a stare and incinerate what's left with words.
Like I have gotten some real bad enbyphobia off of one of them and have had secondhand warnings regarding others but the general concensus amoungst others in the Pride volunteer realm is kind of like they get a free pass.
Please forgive my error, I think you are the first I've personally met under 50 that has embraced the label. I must admit that there is a bit of me that twinges with the carrying on of it but also recognize that's partially a me problem. Trans medicalism and the distinction of having to possess a fully changed physicality to be accepted by both outside and inside the trans community has traditionally been the hammer weilded by binary trans folk against the non-binary trans community as a "you're not a REAL trans person" style accusation so it generally makes me personally a bit skittish hearing "trans sexual" from anyone my age or younger.
But it's largely the fault of pressures that effect us all. When someone is under pressure to glean any amount of respectability to survive cracks form in solidarity and some will take the opportunity to point to the next person down the line that's even harder to understand and go "Oh, I'm nothing look at them. Aren't I just reasonable by comparison? " I think nowadays I see more growing solidarity inside the community than a decade ago but the memory of those divisions and the language used still makes me twitch.
But inside the non-binary trans community we have a similar bit of friction with people who use it/its pronouns... Like for a lot of us that is very VERY unwelcome because it has dehumanizing connotations but for some that is legit what they feel best supported by in their experience. I know some inside the group have the gut instinct to feel kind of undercut by that minority inside our minority for creating a "bad" example to the straights but the world is full of nuance and it can probably afford some extra.
It's just unfortunate even when there's a lot of us around in a place a lot of cis folk don't know the very basics of what is common good practice versus what is kind of a special case. It drives the instinct to self police more then we should have to.
I mean what has actually been said by this Pope is that gay people should not be denied blessings. Not sure if this article specifically got into the nitty gritty but the things he has ALSO said in his original full brief was :
- Being gay is still a sin
- Gay people however should not be denied access to the church because they are sinners.
- You can bless a gay person or couple BUT strictly outside the context of anything resembling a marriage or civil union ceremony because marriage still only counts for heterosexual couplings
Which... Really isn't anything substantial. There have been people's pets who have been blessed in the way he is describing... So gay people have finally reached parity with the family cat in the eyes of the Catholic Church! Huzzah!
In reality holding the Pope to an actual progressive standard isn't going to be feasible. The cardinals don't want to lay hands on us LGBTQIA lepers so even the notion that we deserve anything but to sit mournfully outside the gates is a completely radical notion. The Vatican city was not built in a day and revisiting the bible and throwing out Pauline doctrine, the cornerstone of (very sus) legitimacy the Catholic Church was built on isn't exactly something they want on the agenda this or any century.
The actual word for that is Skoliosexual...
( weak and offkey GI Joe theme played on a kazoo as I melt back into the internet)
The one exception is older trans folk who use that label because it is the one that resonated with them when they were figuring themselves out. Despite the label's history with transmedicalism some of the elders are not down to have their identities questioned by us younger folk and their experiences are valid.
The reason this is a genocide where Ukraine is more of a warcrimes but not Genocide situation has to do with how international relief for civilians is handled. Routinely blocking international relief efforts to evacuate or treat the wounded, provide food, water and fuel for civilians tends to threaten the bit of genocide ruling that marks "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". Making " reasonable" provision keeps that off of the table. Russia has been cagey about relief efforts but has always fallen short of a full blockade.
But when you look at Israel they have a situation set up where prior to this conflict they had a system in place that put a lot of paperwork in place for Pallistinians to use Israeli hospitals. If you then remove the hospitals that are open for unrestricted Palistinian use and then allow the pre-existing system to become choked with paperwork for a problem you aren't really interested in solving you aren't fulfilling your duty of care. The Israeli government has also outright said it's intention is to block food, water and fuel going to Palistinian civilians. Fuel sounds like a lesser consideration but it is key to keeping sanitation at reasonable levels.
So you have a civilian population starving, likely fighting outbreaks of cholera, dysentary, typhoid intestinal parasites and hepatitis with no viable place to seek treatment and international aid in the form of food, water and medical supplies has been stopped, the intention being made baldly clear by statements made by high ranking officials that this is a deliberate tactic.
Thusfar Egypt and Jordan have blocked refugees from entering the country because of concerns of damage to their Israeli peace treaties which means the dominos are set to cause massive loss of life for Palestinian civilians where help is held out of reach by Israeli interests. Hence, a genocide.
Rape has been a serious criminal offence in a lot of Europe since the middle ages... But as the crime happens in private where there is considerable shame applied to consentual extra merital liaisons there was a sort of "conflict of interest" for women to claim that it was something forced on them and not consentual circumstances. This, and the level of punishment being high required equally high burden of proof so usually unless someone was actually physically beaten to the point where it would be ludicrous to assume it consentual during the attack or there were independent witnessess to the crime you see this long history of rape being on the books as illegal but very little motivation to convict.
A lot of these rapes could be in step with the practice of "stealthing" or reproductive coercion where a condom or other contraceptive is willingly tampered with or removed during sex without the knowledge of the partner. This, while not the violent crime we automatically think of associating with rape is a removal of consent that has severe potential mental and physical reprocussions. Rape also encapsulates aspects where consent was removed partway during an otherwise consentual act but one of the partners refuses to stop. These styles of rape are quite common in the culture of dating which has culturally evolved to include sexual liasons as part of the trial period of determining good long term matches.
With our modern concepts of consent the perceived range of acts which count as reportable rape is larger than ever before due to decent education campaigns but the conviction rate remains low because of the same issues of burden of proof not being supportable to meet the level of persecution.