EU court says public employees may be barred from wearing head scarf
Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world Posts 1Comments 773Joined 2 yr. ago
Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world
Posts
1
Comments
773
Joined
2 yr. ago
Yeah, you don't get it. Even when people try it's hard because they aren't the full problem. We react to our own bodies and we have an inner sense of gender. That's hard to communicate to a lot of cis people because they don't have an inner compass that registers gender. A lot of them figure their sex means basically nothing to them and it's like trying to explain color to the blind when you have an inner sense. There are cis people who do experience gender euphoria and deep connection to their gender but they are kind of rare and a lot of people don't really explore something when it works.
Moreover... The medical field actively resists people who want to medically transition. We have to prove beyond shadow of a doubt that it is what we want before anyone even starts considering it. YOU focus on the wrong part of the issue. You are not our therapists and endocrinologists. You aren't a researcher or a parent or partner of a trans person. Our medical transitions aren't your business. You have been lead to believe you know better than we do because when you only listen when other cis people talk about us in ways that register your confirmation bias from being cis that feels true to you because you are primed not to see us as reasonable. You have probably been informed we are delusional or crazy and thus unable to make our own informed choices. You want to try and save us from ourselves... But you do not know us you have just been lead to believe your opinion is reasonable because no joke being trans is really hard to empathize with properly.
When you say " I just want to see that core, inner coldness be replaced with happiness without people having to change themselves" you basically are just saying "I just wish you weren't trans. " If someone gave me the option of changing my gender to match my birth sex just so that I was happy in this body, I would not do it. Because gender lies so close to the core of who you are to just change it would be so fundamentally violating to my sense of self I would essentially stop being me anymore. For as long as I remember my gender has consciously or subconsciously colored every relationship and social interaction I have had in my life. It is in the bones of how I think about myself and my life. For all the frustration of not having the body I want this IS me. Changing my body is nothing by comparison.
You kind of have it backwards. When you're trans there's a lot of work that you have to do to try and align with your physicality. The mental aspect is often very isolating because you don't see yourself as having very much in common with people of your phenotypic sex. Like you can be friends with them and feel close emotional connections but your brain doesn't register as them being like you the same way it does with cis people of your gender. Your brain also rewards you with a huge dopamine hit when someone actually recognizes who you are inside. It's a feeling like being invisible and nobody even knows you're there and then someone actually notices you.
Seriously a cashier just automatically coding me as my gender makes my whole gorram week. It's like someone shot sunlight directly into my brain and I get to carry that around for a few days.
The jealously of physicality is also not super subtle. I am riddiculously jealous of people with fairly unremarkable features. We're not talking movie star levels of beauty just- has a sex characteristic I want. I did not medically transition and chose to keep my birth sex characteristics because my partner really isn't attracted to the opposite set of characteristics. I value that romantic attachment enough that I would easily take a bullet for them. If I could make that sacrifice I figure essentially living in a body I wish every day I didn't have to live in tolerable. But so much has to be going right in my life for this to be okay.
But even then sometimes it's a lot. Like I know I will never not be hideous to myself. I might very well die having never really liked the way I look. I have a massive issue going to weddings and formal events because when I try to look good to myself it brings to light how even when I try it's so very far off from what I wish I could look like on a good day. People are actively mislead from how I would prefer to be treated, referred to and recognized because of my body and putting up with that takes additional energy and frustration daily. If I don't want people reminding me of the body I am in I have to tell everyone I meet to please use different pronouns for me and think of me differently so I can try my best to not be reminded of my body.
A lot of people when they come out as trans do so because they are already tired of trying so hard. A lot go through a stage where they try to be the best version of their birth sex they can be to try and make it work and find it has done nothing to make them happy. Part of why so many of us are complete hot messes when we socially transition is because by the time we give up trying to pretend to be cis we realize that we are dying from being so invisible and isolated from the people who we see as being the closest to us. That nobody actually knows us.
Even with my close friends who know my deal I sometimes see the wall that keeping this physicality maintains. Your brain does a lot to code everyone you meet as male or female and that translates unconsciously into how people reacts to you. Your brain prioritizes that information and we trans folk intimately know this. We can tell who is humouring us as best they can because they want to do the right thing by us and who actually has the switch flipped to their brain properly recognizing us as who we are... There is a cognitive load on the people who deal with us and we recognize that and a lot of that is based on our physicality. We see that cognitive work cis people go through lessen as we change. We see it in ourselves when we deal with other trans people who transition around us. (There is actually a kind of really funny thing with trans people who pass perfectly as a cis person where the transphobes have to fight the cognitive dissonance in the opposite direction. You see it in the micro hesitations they when they use a pronoun associated with somebody's birth sex and they get around it more by saying "they and them" more often, something we refer to as "the coward's they" because they are actively fighting their own brain's mechanisms that register the proper gender to maintain their meaness)
We recognize that gulf in you but we can't change you. The only thing we have the power to change is ourselves.
Not even a little close. Now I just think you're dumb as shit and don't know how to read. Are you a bot? Maybe that explains why you just say the same thing over and over.
Well that's just it. If you are miserable because the system doesn't help you then you go outside the system.
Detransitioners (not ones who temporarily suspend their horomones or goals for medical or life goal reasons like having a kid) are really rare comparatively so even if you know one you're kind of an outlier, finding a second to compare their experiences against is something you probably have to seek out.
One thing that you get really used to as a trans person is people ignoring what you say and twisting whatever was said to match your point. If you detransition because the social cost was too high chances are also good you don't want to put yourself in the crosshairs and risk Conservatives quoting everything you say out of context or just be dismissed as "just one crazy's opinion".
There's also an unfair situation inside the community where since people have had the very existence of detransitioners used to do them personal harm by conservatives a lot of people are primed to see detransitioners as a threat. Not all trans folks are saints and fear doesn't bring out the best in people I'm afraid.
Those who decide to do the whole tv spot book deal thing are those who basically don't care who they hurt for personal gain. That lack of empathy is in itself a narrowing factor. There isn't so much a market on the left to be elevated like that because you have way more trans voices making stuff with a range of opinions. People on the left don't need to be swayed by detransitioners when they already understand trans discrimination and trans joy.
It's easier to be elevated to the top when you are a basically a super rare prop for someone's re-election campaign. A lot of the liberal situation isn't throwing their support unanimously behind trans rights... A lot of them are kind of hoping you forget about trans people because they think that will lose them support so they fronting other issues leaving trans people do their own advocacy.
Umm... You have fallen for some massive misinformation friend. The first stages of a transition are a trial period where one figures out what their individual needs are. Medical providers are actually pretty cagey about regret so if you are a trans youth this involves a therapist and a social worker who talks woith thw kids and their guardians.
As an adult this means basically doing dry runs of everything. Name change, social transition, binding, packing and talking to other trans people to see what worked for them. Inside the community itself there's a lot of people don't medically transition ever. For a solid chunk the social aspects alone give them the tools they need to get by okay...which is why if someone is pointing to someone and screaming about how their pronouns are going to destroy society it's really not great! Adding pressure by removing all the mental tools they need to get through their day in the body they have and telling them they are fake and just wanting attention doesn't achieve the aim of dissuading people from desiring medical transition. Quite the opposite.
Look a little bit further into non-binary identies and you will find a lot of trans people who have embraced halfway transition. Sometimes it's just a single sex characteristic you can't get over, sometimes your sense of identity isn't stable over the long term so a medical transition doesn't work for you. The point being is there's a lot of different trans people out there who have all approached being trans very differently. What works for one doesn't work for all so you share your experiences to find differences and similarity, experiment, really drill down into how you react to everything and I mean EVERYTHING... You lay out your values, fears, life goals, relationships, body image issues, spirituality - all of it and you itemize it. You figure out what you really want out of life, what you stand to lose and what you hope to gain by either staying as you are or pursing something else.
Trying to figure out your gender identity happens as a period of self experimentation over the course of years before you go to a doc about a physical transformation and pushing someone towards a medical transition as the only option is a subsect of "trans medicalism" which inside the community itself is generally policed as an asshole thing to levy at someone.
So when you come out the gate with "The first thing they do is chop off their bits!"... No. That is not how any of this works.
There is actually a fair amount of trans regret that exists where people who transitioned as adults due to a number of factors have to get over the jealousy and regret that comes from comparing their transitions to the ones that other people experienced with transition during puberty. It's a thing for sure amongst trans femmes particularly because not passing comes with so many downsides and dangers.
It's useful to remember that a LOT of care is made to ensure that the choice is made with everybody as informed as they possibly can be which is why puberty blockers are used to buy more time before making a decision what puberty is going to look like. The main team for a trans youth involves a specialist therapist, a social worker, a pediatrician and an endocrinologist but nothing happens if the parent or guardian doesn't sign off. There is a lot to know which is why if you ever meet someone who transitioned early they know their shit.
Those who do come to regret their transition (which is actually a lot lower than almost any surgery due to the care taken beforehand) are also usually not super bitter. Like they acknowledge that their situation sucks do not get me wrong... But most of them know a lot of other trans people because they reach out to find people in their situation. They also see how those people's lives have been radically changed for the better by the going through the process. The reason a lot of them don't speak out is because they would be imperiling something that they know is lifesaving for people they know and they have first hand knowledge about the care that was taken on their behalf.
Medical use of puberty blockers has been approved by the FDA and used since 1993... There were trans participants of the original study who were 13 years old during the trial in 1988 which means the first people to receive this as teens are now 48 years old... Also that trial was based on a lot of information we already had on intersex paitents and people with horomone related endocrine disorders.
There is a lot more long term data than you think. This need for "MORE RESEARCH!" ignores what has already done and is just a tactic to move the goal posts so there never is enough reasonable burden of proof.
Even if you caught a pregnancy at the 15 day mark a lot of the paperwork and diagnosis will mark that as the 4 week mark. The clock sort of officially starts from your last period so for the first two weeks-ish of a pregnancy you aren't ACTUALLY pregnant.
There isn't really a functional 15 day abortion option because the earliest you can catch a pregnancy is at official week four. Conception itself is really hard to track exactly so they just tag the whole thing to the last obvious biological proof a person wasn't pregnant.
Which means this isn't a "get thee to a doctor" move. It's a "they know this fact is essentially no different in function than a full ban but it kinda sounds like it's not if you never did your homework ."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0300943274901137
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/
Sorry about that. Copy pasting anything on my cell is a nightmare on Lemmy. Here's my main sources.
Technically there are different dialects and a lot of unique slang, idioms and specific descriptive words.
In the trans and non-binary community for instance there's a lot of terms regarding how people identify and express themselves that unless you know the actual function of how they work aren't easily indistinguishable from slurs to outsiders. Take "Femboy" and (please forgive me mods) "Shemale". The former is a perfectly socially acceptable description of a guy (cis or otherwise) whose gender expression is very feminine...the latter is a slur that places emphasis on the birth sex characteristics of a trans woman and implies heavily they are guys just pretending to be women and the term originates from the porn industry that fetishizes trans women.
You also have the usage of neo-pronouns. In languages with more gendered components than English sometimes what words are chosen either reflects the gender of the speaker or the person being addressed or objects can be given a gendered connotation. Some languages are actually very gendered and the usage non-binary folk using those languages make whole new conventions. English speakers whine a remarkable amount over they/them singular pronouns are confusing but ain't seen nothing. A lot of places your job title and status has no neutral gendered term or culturally there are sentence structures that differ down entirely binary gender lines. Are you latino or latina? Guess we need a new word... Latinx!
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.
Hard disagree. Advocacy for genocide or groups historically known to enact genocide has zero public merit. They deserve no devil's advocate and literally nothing good comes from treating them as a valid position. At best they have a negative value of contribution to peace, social tolerance and the real everyday mental and physical welfare of people habitually eradicated by genocidal regimes.
The step these groups require to make their desired outcomes happen is to be normalized and to have the sense that they represent a majority. Allowing them to build concensus and harass their targets in public with the express permission of the law allows that foothold. Sometimes we should agree certain actions don't belong in the places we share. That public space should reflect a democratic attitude of mutual respect, safety and tolerance.
Welp if you are not bothering to read my replies and pretending you actually understand the meaning of strawman while basing your entire schitck around the least effective ad hominem attacks I've encountered then there's no real reason to continue.
That you won't answer even two direct questions to nail down a basic ethical baseline to expand from tells me that even you can't defend your own position for shit. Not surprising you don't want to look too closely at your own opinions in the mirror.
Anyway, it's been fun.
Oh if he thinks America is gunna burn because of the gays he shouldn't come to Canada. We legalized gay marriage a decade before the states. By his logic we are long overdue to be a smoking crater.
I mean... There are other models? Being a Nazi publically is illegal in a number of countries. America doesn't have restrictions on hate speech but Canada does. Here's how it works here :
You are totally allowed to express your opinions in private, to other people directly. If you are at my house and call me a slur - still legal. You are a fucking asshole and I am allowed at any time to tell you to leave for any reason and if you refuse to leave my house you are then commiting a completely different arrestable offence.
But if you take your paint and decide to mark a big swastika on the side of your house or wave a sign with "we should kill ____ people" (for any of the protected categories of people race/sex/sexuality/religion/gender/mental illness etc. ) on an overpass or assemble in a big group white pointy hoods with the express purpose of working yourself up to a genocide. That is illegal.
It's the aspect of public expression which makes it illegal.
Americans tend to think that any checks on their freedom of speech is a sudden descent into 1984 but laws like this have quietly existed on our books for the past 30 years.
Very well. Let's logic for fun. In philosophy debate there is a means of breaking down a proof into separate points and evaluate an arguement as a series of statements which build on each other. Anything that does not build off of the points but instead on something that isn't relevant to the arguement is a fallacy . Normally you atomize it and break down each point as a series of statements. In the interest of brevity let's break yours roughly into two main points.
- That Religion is a Mental illness.
- Mental illness is a valid disqualification from participating in a government service
So let's take the two halves of your arguement and cut it down to one and deal with the pieces separately. For now we'll entertain this notion that religion was a mental illness for purposes of getting past you sounding like a bloody broken record.
So in the matter of ethics in the field of mental illness and disability it is widely accepted thay Employers are prohibited from discriminating against mental health in the workplace. Under human rights legislation in the US and any number of democratic societies at this point employers have an obligation to accommodate their employees with disabilities, including mental health concerns, to the extent of undue hardship.
Where I am this is covered under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the main constitutional document of my country. In the US this is covered more by a smattering of federal laws - an overlap of the Equality act, The American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act which was fought for in the era of civil rights alongside racial discrimination. Both have a history of activism. The disability front at the time is actually quite heroic. I would look up "Ed Roberts and The Rolling Quads". Think Martin Luther King but paralyzed from the neck down performing sit ins and demonstrations in Government buildings.
Whether something should be illegal (such as mental illness discrimination) usually is built off an ethical arguement. This one, campaigned for so brilliantly by people who had to overcome more than the regular obstacles has a lot of roots in the evolution of thought in Natural/Human Rights. The idea that you as a human simply by virtue of being one have a right to live, not be subject to undue cruelty, and are assured equal participation in your society. At a more fundamental level rests the idea that your natural advantages and disadvantages are randomly determined and a fair society is one that compensates for this randomness by not excluding people by mere lack of effort. There's this concept that social systems ideally should be created from a standpoint of pretending you are a person who doesn't yet know what random attributes you will have once you exist inside the society you build.
So the first question as to whether our veiws are at all reconcilable is :
- Do you believe in the underlying principles of universal human rights?
- If so, should human rights extend to people with mental illness?
If you do not agree with either of these two points we really have nothing in common and I feel justified that your views are by my standards unethical and there's very little we can reconcile... because even if we look at religion as an illness it's my dearly held belief that it should be an unlawful and widely agreed unethical grounds to refuse hiring someone or not reasonably accommodate a mental illness in any job much less one that is a democratic institution that serves "the people". In all cases where governments decide they don't have to follow their own rules I rarely like the result.
Why thank you! I had some acquaintances and friends who fell victim to these power dynamics and I noticed often it seemed to stem from them essentially being used to thinking of adults only really in terms of authority and obstacle... but my folks were awesome and always treated us as "adults in training" where our concerns were valued and our circumstances negotiable. We could argue our points and expect that if they were good, well thought through points that passed all the safety concerns our parents would conceed. It made us view parents, teachers, older friends and relatives and so on as essentially just our more experienced peers...and we were very VERY aware of the advantages we had when navigating sketchy shit.
I did get to see this dynamic play out in real time to disastrous effect with people I knew. I realized my home circumstances were unusual and sometimes my parents ended up basically becoming friends with my friends who I think benefited as well by an adult just treating them as another adult who was non-judgemental about the hazards they encountered. There are people from my highschool days who still show up to my parent's place at Christmas. It's made me regard myself as a bit of a self case study as to what happens when at all ages you are treated as a being who is worthy of and expected to practice mutual respect.
Okay? What problems? I work for a living in a career (non government,I have no patience for paperwork) that allows me to support an entire household, I am in a rewarding relationship of 15 years, have a host of friends whom I honestly enjoy the company of who do cool things, I have never so much as smoked a cigarette and drink rarely, I still have time for personally rewarding creative projects and I grew up in a family that armed me with the knowledge that the person I am is, was and will be cherished. To phrase it in a slightly whimsical way I am wealthy in many ways that have little to do with money in a lot of categories where others have deficits.
Quite frankly, I don't really have need of your particular rubber stamp of approval. I more just wonder why in the world you think I desire it?
I do worry about attitudes like yours because I see how people are routinely hurt by them sometimes systemicly and other times very directly. I have a lot of friends who do struggle with burnout, anxiety, depression, PTSD and autism but that isn't everything they are. It isn't what defines them. You don't chuck out the whole bloody person because of a weakness. Even those who struggle have a valid claim to seeking love, acceptance, participation and expression.
You are entirely unclear what "government" actually means to you as well. Do these things mean one should be excluded from being electable? Hardly a democratic principle... By being employed in a government office as a clerk with no particular autonomy? Not exactly egalitarian and definitely a discriminatory hiring practice ... I agree that religion being a foundation of a law or constitutional principle is unjust but you seem to be on some other level of exclusion.
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.
Can I unsubscribe or something? I am not interested in your religious tirade.