Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

Honestly depends on your state and institution and overall is incredibly vibes based. Like depending on the state the system might be on the hook to allow a bottom surgery... But whether or not you "fit the requirements" won't be determined until after the fact. If the people running the system are anti-trans you will be lucky as a post op trans person to be allowed horomones at all. There's documented situations of trans women basically entering a sort of menopausal state and having their horomones witheld indefinitely by wardens basically because there isn't a lot of oversight or consequences for doing so.

It's also taken as kind of a given that sexual assault of trans people is just a thing that is accepted as a cost of doing business. This is something actually that Trans men stuck in women's prisons also report as a common experience. The system as it is designed raises the risk for a lot of trans women in prisons seeking transition because if you get bottom surgery and you are denied transfer your sexual assault chances skyrocket to "expectedly matter of course" .

So while the 15 people who have made it all are fully medically transitioned, fully sterilized and been on hrt for longer than the required time for athletes the answer regarding requirements is generally "at the pleasure of the administrations in question which is most often not at all"

Oh but there is an implied value - superiority. When you give a group of people a descriptive property with no inverse you are basically creating a construct of "assumed default". This comes with other issues of those falling outside the default having no way to effectively talk about people of the assumed default group without using words that have value judgements baked in. Like if I am calling you "a normal person" the implicit value judgement is that I am an abnormal person. I am "othered".

This sort of denial of language assumes that a group that you are given tools to talk about never and should never talk about your group back utilizing those same tools.

Honestly a lot of it is just that trans people entered the popular consciousness and as the conversation started becoming mainstream a bunch of the already shit folks decided to capitalize on the deficit of people's understanding on the topic to smear and discredit progressive spaces as a whole.

It's all very vibes based on their side. They took a topic that has a lot of nuance and flattened it to take advantage of a view of the world that invents problems that feel true.

Like "There are trans rapists in women's prisons"... Out of the current 5000 trans people incarcerated in the US only 15 of them are currently in prisons that match their gender identity. The transition requirements are so high that there is no guarantee that being on estrogen for 10 years, full sterilization and bottom surgery is enough for a trans woman to meet the requirements.

Or

"Our lost lesbian sisters are getting sterilized in mass transitions to become trans men"... When hysterectomy isn't even a common gender affirming choice. Testosterone tends to halt menses so a lot of the time trans guys who want biological kids particularly can and do keep the bits and detransition (which just means a change in transition status not a full conversion to cisness) temporarily to meet that life goal if they see fit. Basically having fertility is a matter of going of testosterone for a couple of months.

But who is going to actually check this stuff. They know people won't.

It's Union film. It gets weird when you involve teamsters as technically if we don't work well together folks from my union are way less protected than they are. They may work for my boss but my boss has no firing power.

I am not even kidding when I tell you he is leagues better than the last teamster I worked with who thought it was perfectly chill to play all the hardcore right wing pundits... Particularly Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson who uses the T-slur pretty liberally while I was riding the cab of the truck and couldn't remove myself (I am trans).

There's a lot of really fucked up stuff in the film industry that nobody really talks about.

Good gods... This is a complete tangent but I have a coworker who went on a a full rant about how DEI is terrible and they lowered standards to get in poor black people... So straight up bulshit tech bro racism.

But then he starts talking about how he heard from a doctor in South Africa was talking (complaining) to him about how when they started hiring black doctors because of DEI the standards tanked and people were worse off.

And I was like "So a WHITE doctor from post apartide South Africa was complaining about how hiring black people ruined everything and that seemed like a legitimate source to cite huh?"

Which of course sent him on a whole thing about how the doctor being white had nothing to do with anything and how that was a super racist thing for me to imply... But I think the reframing was a bit of a shock to him.

Hey there, kid who was diagnosed back in 1993 here...

Depending on when you were in school might not have helped at least being diagnosed. Accommodations were basically non-existent for all of my schooling career and meds, while situationally useful, were diminishing returns. The system just wasn't designed for us in mind and from what I have seen from my friends kids current accommodation is at times lackluster and spottily applied.

Schooling is kind of designed for adults to teach rather than kids to effectively learn since even neurotypical kids have cycling attention spans that aren't all synced up. So while it sucks we didn't get good help you also may not have missed out as much as you would think.

Arguably for a lot of stuff that folk encounter that some count as "subliminal" just means they don't understand the language and employ of framing devices, juxtaposition, abstraction or rhetoric. We need to start teaching that shit as basic literacy in schools because once you understand them it's not "subliminal" anymore as it becomes readable text.

The simple presence of an ad in your peripheral vision definitely counts as properly subliminal though and it's still a menace.

If your wages are hourly or salary then they might be raised dependent on either a "performance" bonus which works as an incentive or by a fixed yearly raise but neither is tied to profit. It's technically just engineering the workforce to give more output by dangling a carrot. The size of the carrot distribution is factored into the labor cost - it is distinctly not profit, it is operating budget which deducts from profit because it is counted as an expense.

Here is the thing about profit - it comes from saving money on labor, resource or overhead. Sometimes it's a neutral or good thing when the profit comes from a source like a clever innovation that solves a problem or by fulfilling a highly desireable market demand... But a lot of the time that isn't the case. Those profits can come from collaboration with competitors to pay labor less, finding cheaper materials that shunt the costs onto other people outside the business by means of pollution or utilizing exploitable workforces with less health or legal protections, outsourcing.

Yes people are motivated by money but why do people want money? In the case of your average worker the demands are quite small. Money equals security - a non toxic and comfortable place to sleep, food on the table, assured care for health when sick or old and creature comforts to create fulfilling free time. Profit oftentimes incentivizes removing these things from other people in service to an investor class. Creating protections against this is often the prerogative of government because government depends on the wealth of it's people to perpetuate itself so it's incentive is to protect the majority of people whom hold them accountable on the whole from becoming exploited into poverty, sickness and death because those things can be profitable. One can say "that's just the way it is" only so long as once a large enough group of people see no value or security in living life they generally start banding together to become violent.

Technically workers do not care about profits, they care about wages. The average worker doesn't benefit from profit because they represent a fixed expense. The work they produce is worth more than their salary which is how a company produces profit. As long as a company breaks even and the salary is enough to meet one's needs a worker does just fine. However a worker's job could easily be axed in the name of profit because they are what is being profited off of, not the entitled beneficiary of the business as a whole.

Profit it just the take home winnings of the investors or owners of the business and the few jobs at the top where compensation is based off of profit percentage or lavish bonuses for making the targets.

I think we are going to one day just see a return to the medieval European wedding. Basically used to be you didn't need a priest or an occasion... You just made your vows ideally in front of witnesses who could back you up that it actually happened.

Common advice to young women was not to get married in taverns because a raucous party where everyone got too drunk to remember what exactly was said and done could leave you with essentially a one night stand where everyone could just deny the groom actually made vows. This is the situation that eventually lead to marriages being registered by a church official and eventually making marriages an institution of the church.

Given how things are going with folks basically just telling the tax man when they are married under common law we are not super far off.

Basically yes? Antichrist is pluralized in the Bible in places and thus is not necessarily one individual. The false Prophets are described similarly.

Most of the pop culture picture of the Antichrist as a more singular entity is more like the Thessalonians "the man of sin"... Also known as the Man of Lawlessness, Apostasy, Insurrection, rebellion... One particularly agregious Antichrist that Jesus himself must come down and take out with a breath that exposes his naked wickedness to the worshipping masses who will realize that they are not among the saved. It's sometimes interpreted that this kicks off the second coming but it doesn't actually say that... It just says it happens sometime before the end of days which could mean it's distinctly apart from and not feature of the revelation. Like some kind of Jesus warm up cameo.

Really its kind of tempting to paint Trump and Evengelicals in that role. He wouldn't be the first nasty to wrap himself up in an altar cloth.

I wouldn't say that's the sentiment expressed when people remind others of the limitations of freedom of speech. More like it's a reminder that knowing exactly where those boundaries lie because somethings aren't the government's job to mediate. Sometimes it's our collective job to resist because nobody is coming to fix it for you.

Realistically rights like the freedom of speech and expression are notoriously weak by way of actual protection by a culture. Russia technically has freedom of speech on the books but you can still be hauled off to prison for spreading "LGBTQIA propaganda". What actually protects those rights are the expectations and moreover the outrage of a culture's people against these acts of censorship regardless of who is perpetuating it.

Due to a guy at work spewing right wing radio into my work space for a few weeks before he was stopped I heard a lot of Musk in interviews... It is the most sycophantic non-sense that they pass off as journalism. The framing of the questions are always overflattering ("So we know your new plans for the widget is AWESOME but what can you tell us about....") and no actual critical questions are even posed.

A lot of it is that his entire company exists on hype. Critical thinking is trained out of his audience by simple lack of exposure. I imagine if an interviewer were to treat him as anything less than the tech messiah he just doesn't give them the opportunity. Provided the novel data problems with AI remain unsolved he may find himself in hot water if his audience ever gets wise.

Wouldn't that be if they were connected at the tail? This is more of a disorganised avian garroting caused by a constant futile bid for meaningful independence.

I think of America more as a swarm of 50 plus angry pigeons tied together at the neck with string.

This feels like it was not an intended reply to my post as it seems to be dealing with entirely different subject matter , are you sure you are replying to the correct person?

If your point is that intentionality of harm is required for law to be enacted then that isn't particularly true either. Things like manslaughter charges exist because intention isn't always nessisary when determining criminal fault for harm. Negligence, lack of adherence to pre existing law or willful ignorance are still criminal factors... And they have their own individual criminal burdens of proof that must be met to stick a conviction in court.

It is simply a nature of law that intent is always considered and proof of it is nessisary to bring forth particular types of charges that are weighted more heavily based on proof of premeditated knowledge or intent. Lack of intent does not always mean no damages are criminaly found to be your fault that must be answered for. Law makes allowances in many cases for the potential of the purest of pure accidents.

However since the UK has hate speech law, libel law and laws against provoking violence or harassment and damages are now measurable the person in the original article can be proven to have violated a law and damages happened as a result meaning that she cannot claim pure accident. Knowingly or not she broke a pre-existing law and people and property was damaged as a result.

Just like a charge of vehicular manslaughter only really sticks if you were speeding or broke a traffic law. If you are truely blameless and followed all law it is ruled " actions leading to accidental death" which is not a punishable crime. Speeding in a school zone is usually a pretty mild punishment if one is caught doing it and no one gets hurt usually it is a pretty mild fine... But if someone dies as a result of your speeding you go to jail. Same premise here just different laws.

Agreed, but you also said :

I'm okay with this phrase except for the word "intent". If we give someone the power to try to assess our intent, it can easily go the way of totalitarian states where they say you have a bad intent any time you criticize the government.

And I am pointing that the power to assess intent is actually a norm in the justice system. Too many people on here are very quick to catastrophize things that are actually very culturally normal and stable in systems of law. Your point is not the same one I was making, hence why I referenced your likely intended point in my post.

We have always lived with exceptions to freedom of speech. Libel, slander and obscenity law as examples. The sanctity of medical records is another.

The UK also technically does not and never has had any freedom of speech enshrined in law and the government has always been able to squash print and media publications that post things deemed a danger to security.

Russia on the other hand holds a constitutional freedom of speech and the press.... But will also send you to prison for publishing "LGBTQIA propaganda"

Americans treat this misplaced concept of freedom of speech as this full access pass as a universal good that is the only thing holding us all back from totalitarian regimes. In reality however speech has both never been totally free even in America as plenty of exceptions have always existed and having those protections is way more optional in other democratic nations then they would believe. It also does not protect from abuse on it's own.

Remember that any and all tenants of free speech aren't nessisarily a universal good. If there are measurable harms being done to people your nation is allowed to carve out an exception. It's on you to critically evaluate the individual exception for potential issues but not specifically on the basis of a dogmatic adherence to an idea of free speech. Totally free speech itself could actually be harmful to a society and in fact has already proven to be hence libel/slander laws.

But all criminal law already has a concept of Mens rea (guilty mind) baked in. The reasonable proving of intentions is nessisary for the severity of the sentencing in almost all cases under review and has been at least as long as anyone here has been alive. It isn't the sole factor of creating a criminal charge because - as you stated you also need to prove harms but saying people are not punished for intent and treating that as only the tool of strictly authoritarian government is factually untrue.

I am in the process of a long term tea vs coffee war with my partner. I love both but tea is easier on me. Both are rabbitholes and because they are cultural standbys a lot of people grew up with one or the other and like it more because of personal familiarity than actually forming a detached opinion.

A lot of friends over the years who "didn't like coffee" simply formed the opinion because people who didn't really know coffee gave them stuff that was kind of shit. Giving them something on the upper end of the spectrum or is just very different from their expectation can change people into full on coffee drinkers. It's more common in coffee because a lot of people actually don't like dark roasts or are sensitive to stale oxidized tastes.

Tea is generally harder to convert people to with as much enthusiasm because individual blends vary so widely that it can be hit or miss for individual tastes. You need to try people on like several blends over multiple days to find out their profile.