Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

I imagine the Genocide claim will be aided by the targeting of hospitals which are highly restricted targets in wartime which even if their protected status is removed requires a lot of very specific measures to be taken to not be a warcrime. Since the permit system allowing use of Israeli hospitals to Palistinian patients has not relaxed and has for the most part closed up shop it is a bad look.

Not to mention the Israeli government had made outright statements that they intend to starve the civilians of food, water and fuel (fuel being fairly key to sanitation ). In fact they have actively attempted to block international relief efforts in the region so wouldn't that mean they are :

"Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"

After all if you starve people in unsanitary conditions and take any medical care options effectively off the table I would imagine a fairly large part of the group would die as a consequence. I imagine the actual brief will have many counts as to why this is specifically a Genocide but all they need to do is fail one.

What isn't mentioned is that there's a kind of tit for tat norm in politics. If you damage the soft negotiation power that comes from co-operation retaliation is normal. Forcing a group to do something completely against their interests because you took advantage of the size of your resources (hard power) isn't actually difficult... It's just that you destroy goodwill and open the door to future "screw you" style retaliation.

"Stomping our head of State" isn't exactly difficult when there as many Canadians in the world as there are Californians. He basically tanked steel trade because it would cause outsized harm to a smaller country the costs of which which ended up being borne by the US industries to force milk onto a market where it generally isn't wanted. American milk contains artificial growth hormone which domestic milk doesn't and threatening to tank our domestic food security because Canadian milk isn't Government subsidized like American milk is means that we can't compete on price is a dick move.

Since then that coercive deal has been taken apart by the courts and that Milk deal has all but been rescinded as of November last year. The Biden admin did their best to make it stick but Trumps abysmal understanding of the law extends to international trade law and the flaws were there from the beginning.

Trump damaged a lot of America's good diplomatic standing for temporary victories and there was a lot of America's long standing dirty laundry that other nations were already overlooking due to soft goodwill policy. The only advantage Trump had was that people were banking on him being a temporary nuisance. If he returns to power he does invite a lot of opportunities for international retaliation. Canada is a notorious soft diplomacy country. A future Trump lead US might not like what closed door handshakes may be in it's future.

"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.

For folk in the States it's a mix of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution with mostly individual state laws determining the validity of what constitutes an officer of the law and how a citizen arrest works as part of that individual State's Criminal code.

If you're Canadian it's federal law 494 of the Criminal Code.

To be honest it's really bloody difficult trying to accurately cite US law in discussion because States have a frankly ridiculous amount of binding power on their citizens which means there are 50+ laws about how exactly citizen versus peace officer arrest is handled... But most of them outline fairly specific limitations like it whether a citizen's arrest can be applicable for misdemeanors, restrictions on what constitutes a reasonable use of force, rights of an arrested person, what constitutes a humane restriction of person and the requirement of validating the arrest with a judge within a certain time period... You know Haebeous Corpus and all that.

Biden's Presidential powers probably give him a lot of extra leeway against laws that would persecute him for doing an improper citizen's arrest but that wouldn't make an improper arrest stick any more than if you did it. A President is still legally a citizen and not a law enforcement officer.

Tis true. We have Anti-Sogi protesters marching today on the stronghold of LGBTQIA acceptance on the West Coast and you can bet their rhetoric will be filled with Alex Jones-isms and all the Fox news talking points. American media is a fucking menace and until their house is in order they are a lead weight destined to drag the rest of us down.

Sadly for more than a two party race you really need a hardier representative voting system like ranked choice voting so that as parties are knocked out of the running people's actual choices are not entirely relegated to the garbage pile.

We're still trying to get that off the ground here in Canada where we have established parties outside of two but everyone keeps voting back and forth between liberal and conservative because of the spoiler effect.

Trudeau originally ran on a promise to bring in ranked choice voting but that was an outright lie I have been salty about for years. Not that I particularly believed him because really why would he? His party benefits from a lack of representive representation by historic bias. Still its very frustrating to actually have good parties that have been well established for decades and know that if I vote for them I might increase the risk of LGBTQIAphobia and Neoliberal economic policy running the gorram country.

No one woud thank you for it. There's plenty that could be done to lower the bar for people to embrace being a parent but it's instinctual to not bring offspring into the world when you are facing precarity. A lot of mammals will outright murder their offspring if they don't like their chances. Not enough resources and way too much stress and perceived danger is a recipe for instinctual abandonment. Once a society sees something like that too often it gets callous. A future where you force people into greater precarity isn't the answer and adoption isn't much of a solution. The mental trauma from adoption has known long term effects that tend to make mothers of unwanted children who opt for that genuinely less resilient in other spheres. Flooding the system with children there are no resources to bring up well also exacerbates issues of community wide antisocial problems, mental and physical illnesses. It is far better to allow individuals and families to make their own judgements about what they are capable of doing.

You want a culture shift, eliminate precarity. Social safety nets, good community resources, affordable housing, family sustaining wages that allow enough time and energy to be alloted to childcare. We are in a situation where the future is pretty much looking like doom and drudgery with little relief in sight. Nobody has retirement savings anymore, climate change is visible, lots of people are only a bad month away from being homeless and jobs are getting less rewarding as we go on and rates of burnout are skyrocketing. Now is not the time to add more babies into that mix, people will go literally fucking insane and historically speaking desperation and actual not-a-fetus infantcide are real good friends

Ah yes the "less promiscuity" angle. Ever enjoy a relationship even a marriage with a partner of the opposite sex? What happens to most hetero relationships when you stop having sex? Women even in commited monogamous partnerships generally already have to weigh the risks but now you have gynecologists fleeing red states or choosing not to go into the specialty , emergency rooms refusing to help you if you're pregnant, the possibility of becoming a living coffin for months knowing what comes out will never be a living child and the automatic choice that if a delivery goes wrong you will always be discarded like trash in favor of the baby no matter what the chances are.

Meanwhile if you have any debilitating conditions that mean chronic pain or any life threatening conditions that arise from a reproductive system gone wrong you're just SOL because who wants to go into a specialty where you have to stand back and watch your paitents die in excruciating pain because you court a prison sentence if you try and save them.

You are basically advocating for dead and dying marriages or dead and dying women. All for what? Children that will be resented their entire lives as burdens unwillingly foisted on their parents by the state? No. It's time to go back to your bible and realize your purity doctrine is all sourced from the one sex repulsed asexual guy in love with telling people what to do who fell off a horse and hit his head on a rock and hallucinated Jesus because he never actually met him in real life and just get over the fact that humans have sex.

Gee, think maybe it was the immediate jumping to call me uneducated and claiming that I only care because I am somehow performing for attention that got my back up?

I have family members currently working on the GIS investigatory teams and I know how emotionally difficult the work has been for them given what they find. Your "It wasn't actually that bad " rhetoric isn't welcome.

It isn't about the last, it's about the whole cultural impact since the beginning. The last gasp is just the final shameful icing on the cake. The effect of the schools is still very real and present in our modern day society and the rolling damages did not end with the closures.

But then I don't expect callous intolerance signallers who read history only to find ways to excuse themselves from personal responsibility in making anything better to care. You are too busy drowning in doxastic anxiety and attempting to self-soothe by lying to yourself that nobody is actually deeply perturbed by this, they just are pretending to care for appearance sake.

If your modern congregation starts in about how residential schools were a not so bad actually when another bunch of childrens graves is discovered there is admittedly a temptation to burn everything to the ground because God isn't getting around to it fast enough.

Yeeeeaaaahhh no. The reason the churches are burning is because Canada is in the midst of coming to terms with a massive genocide that didn't end until the 1990's that was spearheaded by a joint effort of the Catholic Church and the Canadian government to rip Indigenous children from their families, remove them from their cultures and languages, forcefully indoctrinate them with the idea they were dirty barbaric and sinful while abusing them and then covering up the deaths of thousands of children many of whom were buried in unmarked graves and downplaying the intergenerational trauma caused to individuals and families.

For more than a few years there have been a lot of memorials with very small shoes and a lot of people who are depressed when another grave site near a church run residential school is discovered with another couple hundred little bodies. It's kind of a reap what you sow situation for Canadian churches at present. Some are completely unapologetic for the role they played and when there's this much resentment and anger about how we were all made complict via our ignorance some are likely to feel that matches are more effective than arguements.

It is understandable. A lot of people want to show their support but may not have the best understanding of exactly what trans folk are up against. Similarly a lot of the anti-trans rhetoric tends to paint things very broadly and tends to make the conversation entirely about physical attributes and not about the actual role sports play more widely in the web of personal human connection.

Within the trans community sports are one of those things that people can get kind of wistful about because you are either someone who doesn't give a damn about sports but the topic is frequently used as a "gotcha" to frame you personally as a societal problem of classification that will never be solved... Or sports is something that once brought you joy and you labor in vain to overcome the barriers. It becomes one more thing you had to give up participation in, often even in amateur spaces where it's done just for fun and exercise. When other barriers to being openly trans include issues with retaining connection with family/friends and freedom of travel issues of being severed from previously valuable social connections become compounded.

Children are often encouraged to pursue and enjoy some sort of physical activity from a young age, often before there's any reason to segregate the sexes. A lot of parents are keen to go over the top in their support because they know there is a fair amount of potential leg up from disadvantaged classes to be had in the realm of sport scholarship to post secondary. Even a lot of purely acedemic University portfolios are benefited by participating in some sort of extracurricular sport so it cannot be said that giving it all up doesn't present some actual hardship to young trans people more generally.

Trans voices are very often lost in these discussions which sucks because it's nessisary to know more than just the basics to give proper context. In our absence there's a lot of stuff that is designed to seem perfectly reasonable but is actually designed to be purposefully exclusionary because we as a group are not well understood by the general public. Often even our nearest and dearest struggle to empathize. It's easier to just list all the problems we present rather than actually talk about potential solutions.

The issue at present is trans women are barred, regardless of whether they have gone through male puberty or not from sports that statistically favor female phenotype over male or are so culturally different as to be a unique sport. Even social category gender delineation leagues designed to cater to removing misogyny from sport such as fishing or chess. The issue deepens with many categories requiring cis women to be tested for and artificially reduce the naturally occurring testosterone in their system through medications and endure invasive scrutiny medically to ensure they have no intersex characteristics.

A lot of the issue becomes that when we talk about trans women in sport there is zero tolerance atmosphere that bleeds over any kind of boundary. There is so very rarely a discussion that actually weighs the harms done to cis women and intersex people by the level of hostility sport has towards specifically trans women. In many instances it becomes the socially acceptable kernel of transphobia that people use to not-so-covertly express their veiw of trans women being a threat to womens spaces.

When you turn to the aspects of how restrictions that are proposed in sport that does favor male phenotypic physique you find an interesting double bind. Sport that forces athletes under 18 to compete in the category of their birth sex means that if you have a trans girl who is on blockers and then transitioning at 16 you basically remove them from being competitive in the early days of their sport and thus they can be sifted out of sport entirely by not meeting a lot of the criteria of recruiters or trainers for being good candidates for training and attention. You essentially create an issue where a person who goes through female puberty is placed in a situation where their only means of competing is against an entire roster of those who have gone through male puberty.

Or if speaking on trans men in this exact situation you get an opposite problem. If you are seen as having an unfair advantage and none of your accomplishments are likely to be taken seriously.

Being segregated by birth sex also creates a hostile situation for trans people's mental health generally as one is placed in a situation that constantly reinforces that society veiws you as indelibly your birth sex and with transness there exists a level of alienation you feel towards other members of your birth sex that means that you do not form bonds with them as being "alike". Mentally at least it creates a similar situation that feels similar to when you are the only member of your sex in a room filled with the opposite sex. This is commonly a major obstacle to cis women in male dominated hobbies and vice versa. This alienation means within the sport you have to have an incredible fortitude for going it alone even if you do not encounter trans misogyny and bullying.

While a stipulation of 'under 18 sex segregation' sounds fair to cis people to trans people who understand what being trans actually is like it represents essentially a trick that preys on the lack of understanding and effective empathy cis people have about the barriers that exist for trans people. It creates circumstances that create insurmountable mental and physical obstacles designed to create odds where it is likely the sport will never have a trans candidate overcome the barriers to be a state to qualify while still theoretically being "inclusive". Since an "open" category of the sport generally doesn't exist this essentially means that there is an entire aspect of society that no form of reasonable accommodation is made to allow participation. Literally people with physical disabilities have more competition league sports altered to accommodate their needs then there exists any sport options open to trans and intersex athletes which, provided you care, represents a civil rights issue towards fair accommodation to participate in society.

What is your take about sports that traditionally favor women or have very specific differences in form?

An example of the former for instance being long distance swiming which is traditionally female dominated.

The former would be something like Women's gymnastics which is so different from Mens Gymnastics they are essentially entirely different sports where even elite mens gymnasts cannot easily perform the sport because it requires an entirely separate training program.

Again you are taking these arguements as two separate categories. Let's take a theoretical and start figuring out instead what you think is unacceptable where the line is of what is acceptable. Should a professional sport accept anyone unambiguously if they, with full medical assistance, took a regime of puberty blockers until the age of 16 and uninterrupted courses of HRT as soon as they are eligible (this requires the consent of a guardian) and thus never went through a male puberty?

This pre-supposes that the trans person in question has actually gone through a male puberty which is one things trans advocates are trying to make medically optional and anti trans protesters are trying to take off the table. A lot of trans girls don't want to be forced to go through the puberty that will cause them to be looked down on BECAUSE it will be used as a basis for villification and exclusion from multiple facets of society for the rest of their lives...

But the majority at large would rather have these two conversations separately because transphobes don't want to have young trans women going through a female puberty with the consent and blessings of their parents and a panel of specialists. Heaven forbid! No, they want to make sure that they have justification to make trans girls these monstrously powerful beings who are always supposed to be some kind of threat because they should be forced, like men, to be transformed into animalistic beasts with raw unbridled physical prowess and unfettered lusts that we cannot allow into the careful guarded cloisters alongside the delicate tissue paper likes of womankind.

There is never allowed to be a win condition because there's never even a tiny concession on any front in favor of trans people. If trans advocacy got what they wanted in the realm of trans healthcare for young trans people we could be having a very different discussion about both endocrinology and trans women in sport. Instead we must always assume in these examples that there's zero healthcare options that delays puberty and averts the puberty of one's birth sex and THEN face regular preaching about how policing the fairness of essentially silly games is cause to label us all completely unreasonable while painting trans women as cheats and monsters. It is an embittering Catch 22.

Actually we see this happen in Tabletop RP. What might not be mentioned in the articles like this is if you are in a role playing game senario your avatar has it's own sort of history and sunk investment that people can project a fair amount of themselves and a sense of their own personhood and agency on. When someone is raped in an TTRPG senario there is zero visual or haptic element at play... But that continuity of character means that the episode, consequences and status as a victim is now a part of their character's personal history that you as the player need to reckon with in regards to other players. It is treated as an event that actually happened by other people who were participating in that space so unless there is a canonical reset (which oftentimes isn't enough to fully rewind the impact on the player) Even if the players never mention it again in play it's something that canonically happened which means at all points forward it is relevant in play and the not mentioning it isn't "this didn't happen" it's "the characters/players involved are trying to bury this and pretend it didn't happen". A lot of people put in this position have described feeling forced to be subjected to rather sordid intentions that while not directly projected on the real person behind the character are still impacted an abstraction of their personhood and it can shake their faith in the empathy and care other people in the space have towards them.

It creates a unique issue that murdering a character doesn't. Murdering a character is something the brain is primed to see as fiction. One doesn't have to ponder how someone would get on with the business of living afterwards. You are dead. The player might mourn the loss or not depending on how much personal investment but they don't tend to treat it as themselves dying. More like that's something that happened to a friend or something of an investment of time and energy. A good character death leaves a story behind or a lot of rpgs have revolving door afterlives so the stakes are inherently lower.

However there isn't a take backsies situation for sexual assault so it can feel very much like suddenly having to deal with a very present mental simulation of how you the player would deal with that happening to you if it were in real life. You are placed in a position to advocate for your needs against a lot of pushback. People often trivialize what happened which gives the impression that if something like that actually did happen to you a lot less people would have your back then you would hope because even when the stakes are nil people will be perfectly fine trying to protect the person or people who did you dirty.

A lot of folks put in that position find their actual ability to participate in the hobby impacted as they either leave their established social circles for how shit being placed in that situation them feel or they become table shy, being suspicious of game masters and players they can't trust not to pull the same stunt. A gaming group can very easily fall apart if a player character is raped inside the narrative of the game which has created a rise in the use of safety tools to make sure no one at the table gets actually hurt.

Ah yes those poor dumb University hopefuls who don't know how to use google because they are too impoverished to learn how to use a computer and have too much lead poisoning impacted impairments to learn to write a basic essay... To apply for University...

Did they get rid of Legacy admissions by any chance?

A decent amount of safety law was written in the blood or sweat of women. The origins of fire code come from the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire which manufactured garments in New York which was staffed almost entirely by women.

Not to say a lot of safety law wasn't developed because of the deaths of men but a bunch of women dying all at once due to negligence does seem to be a decently galvanizing force for society which makes it easier to get a ball rolling and women, particularly widows and family members of victims , have always been important advocates and organizers in the fight for safety legislation.