WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them] @ WalrusDragonOnABike @lemmy.today

Posts

0

Comments

211

Joined

1 yr. ago

Oh no! By 2300, 148% of the population will be foreign born. And the infants aren't working! /s

Is there gonna be a loser's bracket for this tournament?

That evening I realised that women experience the world much different than men. That there’s an underlying level of potential violence that they evaluate and weigh against potential benefits from encounters and interactions with men in almost all social contexts. And knowing that has recalibrated my behaviour to a certain extent, as I realised women can’t afford to give me the benefit of the doubt, especially in contexts where they feel vulnerable.

Once, I noticed once I was being followed by someone on my college campus once. Sure it made me a bit anxious, but as a reasonably large male-presenting person in a place I felt relatively safe, I didn't really think they were a threat as long as I kept to crowded areas so it was just a mild discomfort. Turns out it was a random teacher (not one of mine) who just decided to try to keep pace with me because I was walking fast. At least he eventually explained himself eventually, but like isn't it obvious that you shouldn't just follow strangers around? Did he just think I wouldn't notice them following me? Are many guys that oblivious to their surroundings that they wouldn't notice? Or unaware of how that would make someone uncomfortable? Not implying you trying to catch up to a friend is comparable: just something your story reminded me of.

Can't tell if you're saying they're weird for having this sort of vehicle or weird for not wanting that kind of vehicle to be delivering at their doorstep?

As far as the phrase " Pregnant People" it does sound weird when you say it aloud. Its too illliteritive. Why not just Pregnant if theres a need to generalize or pregnant individuals?

I dont see how that sounds weird. If you don't like the illiteration, you can replace it with another noun. Pregnant is an adjective afaik, so it needs a noun to be applied to. Of course language can change, but expecting vitamin manufactured to be the ones to change the part of speech of a word seems like getting the order backwards.

I feel that its just as easy to actually ASK the person in front of you what term they prefer you use and then just use that term rather than try and generalize and lump everyone together.

So vitamins aimed at pregnants (guess we are making it a noun now?) will have a person behind the table that asks what noun you want written on the bottle before they hand it to you?

This isn't about individuals: it's a mass produced product. Of course for individuals you can tailor the language to the individual. I don't see why you would normal ask anyways: most of the time you'll just be implying someone doesn't pass, whether they're cis or trans and if they're trans and not comfortable coming out yet, then you may be putting someone is an uncomfortable position of choosing to come out or misgender themselves.

As a cis women i wouldn't care to be referred to as a pregnant person but it would've really bother me enough for me to correct them. If they called me a pregnant man, I wouldn't get all offended and think they hate all cis women, id just laugh and correct them

Seems like reasonable responses. I'd be confused why calling you a "person" would be incorrect, but I'd try to respect it, but I'd eventually conclude you are probably transphobic.

I present as a guy and my body is masculine, so people gender me that way. It's not really a big deal imo - like there's certain specific terms like "man" that are kinda icky, but I'm not gonna care at all if you say "he."

But that's just my own experience. Different people are going to be different. Still, at least most trans people I know don't get mad at people for misgendering them, even if they have their pronouns on their shirt or the people misgendering them have been corrected many times and are just intentionally being disrespectful. Of course some of the times, those interactions may make someone's day much worse even if they don't show it at the time.

Cis people get the advantage of cis-by-default treatment. Of course trans people are going to be less secure in their gender on average given all of the transphobia in society. Even if a cis person is regularly misgendered, they can still easily feel secure in their gender simply because they of the way they were born. That same source of confidence for cis people is an obstacle to be overcome by trans people.

I never said i oposse it.

Fooled me.

Just that it sounds weird.

Seems sus. But honestly its weird what people are about, so I wouldn't really blame you for feeling that way. For example:

"I doubt a label such as 'vitamins for pregnant women' would"

Back when I was an egg (ie: I had no clue I was trans), I remember specifically disliking when my parents got me shampoo with the label "men" on it. I've gone without deodorant because the one I usually got was out of stock and the next closest thing (the only other "vegan" one I knew of) was labeled "men". I've avoided multivitamins marketed for "men". I had no clue why that bothered me... I assumed I was cis-by-default. It still makes no sense why I care about any of that. But I certainly don't doubt there's trans men who care about such labels, even if just a little. Its probably not in the top 100 in the list of priorities, but there's no reason to waste even a sentence defending that kind of wording.

Trans people already deal with enough BS elsewhere. No reason they should tolerate within their own communities. I'm currently banned from such a community I was a regular in and I'll defend them banning me for what they thought I was saying (even though its based on a complete misunderstanding).

Seems like you put way too much effort in opposing such a simple change. Why care at all if its changed to "people"? You sound a lot like people "just asking questions."

"Biological female" is also a big red-flag.

Some FTM may not even come out until they're already pregnant. Some may choose to not take HRT for the purpose of having a biological child. And you don't need to take HRT to be trans, so it also sound a bit too transmedicalist.

On a 27" monitor, it makes a huge deal for things like web-browsing, spreadsheets, etc. For video games, its not something I generally notice the difference in with a notable exception being Terraria. Having smaller UI (but still clear) to give more usable space is the main benefits imo.

If people threated to kill all your family if you didn't kill one of them yourself, killing any of your family members doesn't prove you ACTUALLY care about your family. Not everyone subscribes to outcome-based utilitarianism. If you do, cool for you. But there's plenty of competing ethical frameworks people have and plenty of people don't subscribe to any specific frameworks consistently, but still have rules that they believe shouldn't be viable.

But, again, do you honestly think trump would be better for Palestine?

It could go either way, but probably would be worse in the short-term. Trump is such a baby that he could get mad over some slight offense (or unwillingness to participate in some form of corruption he demands of them) and decide he doesn't want to play with Israel anymore and he's already shown he has no problem withholding approved weapon spending (even if illegal to do so). Not saying its likely, but Biden, is pretty much certain continuation of funding genocide, and possibly an escalation of that involvement when he no longer has to worry about re-election.

Edit: fixed typo: made->mad

at that point, a 2x4 is 2 inches by 4 inches.

From my understanding, as tools have gotten more precise, the raw boards have gotten slightly smaller to reach the same standard size with less waste. So, 2x4 doesn't even refer to modern unprocessed 2x4s, but rather a hypothetical unprocessed 2x4 at some point in the past.

Because you’re comparing a wild animal that can easily kill you with a single swipe, with a random normal person?

Can easily kill is different than likely to. Plus, the same is true of any human, but they're also much more likely to have outcomes far worse than quickly being just being killed. Its a random person in the woods, not just a *normal *person (whatever "normal" is supposed to mean). But honestly, I don't think I'd put it past many "normal" humans (men and women) to commit at least minor SV in the "right" circumstances.

I can, with 10,000,000,000% certainty tell you that way more people have vastly more ordinary, totally safe experiences with random men in their normal lives than with bears.

Sure, but I'm just as certain that women have far more experiences with SV from humans than any violence from bears. Even if they're actual survivors of bear attacks, they're likely the victim of far more SV by men.

Why wouldn't a reasonable person pick the bear? Plenty of people have just ordinary, totally safe experiences with bears in their normal lives. Meanwhile, they have ordinary SV committed against them by men in their normal lives. Why shouldn't they pick the group that hasn't been a constant threat to them? Its not asking you to try to pick a fight with the bear.