"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
On any of the donation threads where it came up and he replied to it, the most he ever did was some half hearted corporate PR "apology" (ironic)
My rights are not a controversy. You're just a bigot.
they are not bigot, they just dont live in an echo chamber.
whether you like it or not, there's lots people not thinking like you. I'm not one of them, just to clarify before I suddenly become a bigot, but people like that do exist, in masses
A lot of people thought that blacks shouldn't be allowed to go to school.
yes, and what does it matter here? that's another example of a controversial thing
If you "have an opinion about transgender people" that involves taking away their rights, or putting them in harms way and that prioritises the needs of everyone else first, and the needs of trans people last, if at all, then you have a bigoted opinion.
I know its a huge job but will Blahaj ever consider migrating to PieFed over this (presumably when the tooling ia ready)?
Yep, it's absolutely something we'd consider once database migration becomes possible
and where exactly was that my opinion? it is not an opinion, that such people exist. that is a sad and hard fact.
but sure, kill the messenger, call me a bigot for pointing out reality.
I wasn't talking about you, I was talking in general, and the specific context was the person earlier in this discussion, who you explicitly stated is not a bigot.
So where exactly did the earlier guy state that was his opinion? He got called a bigot simply immediately after calling the issue controversial, not because he said he believed the things that you claimed.
Again, if you "have an opinion about transgender people" that involves taking away their rights, or putting them in harms way and that prioritises the needs of everyone else first, and the needs of trans people last, if at all, then you have a bigoted opinion. It's a universal statement.
The person you were replying to described Nutomics position as "It's hard for me to imagine a more agreeable and reasonable statement." And as a reminder, Nutomics post was a statement complaining about pride flags on public buildings, calling transgender women "men" and stating that trans folk are a conspiracy/distraction pushed by the bourgeoisie, despite rich conservatives being largely responsible for the wave of trans hatred we're currently experiencing.
That is pure transphobia.
True, he did say that on another comment, but the argument given here for why he is a bigot is not that comment, its the fact that he said this is a controversial topic.
If the guy who accused him of being a bigot wasn't simply referring to his argument about the controversial nature but based on his actually bigoted views, then he should make it clearer.
We should have better standards of communication when accusing people of being a bigot, because badly delivered sane messages can actually sound pretty insane to people who weren't in the loop from the start.
Technically, they are controversial. There are people who support your right to live and there are people who dont support it
If half of humans thought water was dangerous, drinking water would be a controversial topic
Its not black and white like that. There are people who support trans people but are concerned about the medicine and psychology, considering how young and mistake prone those fields are. Keep in mind there was a time where labotomies were defended in a similar way.
I don't think taking HRT and getting a literal lobotomy are equal...
Probably not 1:1 but the point is that its risky when medicine moves too quickly, and human ego has proven to be an extremely potent force. I use extreme examples to make a point.
Mainly what concerns me right now is that people who have concerns or questions about the medicine or science are routinely harassed and/or banned from trans communities. That, and the amount of faith the general public has in our understanding of psychology.
because the science is there and they keep dringing up the one study that has been wildly discredited.
What science? Which field? I'm not talking about disagreeing over whether gender dysphoria exists, I know it does. The discussion to be had is ehat can we do to fix and/or prevent it from happening. Its very hard to have these conversations in trans spaces though.
What rights do non trans have that the trans don't?
The right to live as the gender you want
That is a right u got in most first world countries.
List some examples. Very few countries have equal right for trans people enshrined in law. Certainly not in the US or the UK.
In Australia, UK, nz, and I'm sure a bunch of places in Europe. Its illegal to discriminate based upon gender identity.
The rest of the rights are given to all people regardless of how they identify.
Even in Canada and America it's illegal to discriminate based on identity. It's mostly 2nd and 3rd world countries that don't have much for protections. Excluding the UK of course, they're being weird about it.
I just read up on the UK ruling. Its only change is that single sex spaces are based upon biological sex not gender identity. Trans still have all protections under the anti decriminalisation and equality laws.
that's... discrimination based on gender...
how did you not connect the dots that discriminating based on biological sex is DIRECTLY discriminating transgender people??
Well it seems the court has ruled that sex (xx, xy) and gender (male, female) are separate things. One is what ur born as one is what u identify with (u can still get a special government card proving u identity however u wish).
Spaces for a specific sex can be defined same a spaces for a specific gender can be defined. This ruling doesn't seem to restrict you from opening a female only gym if u wanna.
Any space for any specific group is going to be on some level decriminatory. Eg male only golf clubs, that club of little old women baking cakes for charity (I can't remember what they call themselves), women only gyms, etc etc etc.
Plus the anti decriminalisation laws of the UK and au for that matter are actually quite narrowly defined mainly for the purposes of government run services, employment equality, etc.
Well its not discrimination since the same rights are granted to both sexes equally (yes I'm ignoring intersex its a statistically irrelevant argument).
Didn't hear about the recent Supreme Court ruling on trans women in the UK, huh? The others countries you mentioned might be fine for all I know, but I guarantee you that the vast majority of the world does not live in countries with trans rights enshrined in law.
Please go into detail about the Supreme Court ruling
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/carr-ryan-commentary/understanding-implications-uk-supreme-courts-ruling
Do you have an unbiased or neutral source? I'd like to hear from some of the lawyers, activists and judges who pushed the ruling through the court.
Look it up yourself if you actually care and aren't just acting in bad faith.
You don't get to call me bad faith after linking a biased source, dude, come on.
But from my understanding:
The ruling focused on whether a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate is protected from discrimination as a woman under Britain's Equality Act. Activists for Women's Rights said that including a trans woman as a biological woman under the law could impact single-sex services for women, such as refuges, hospital wards and sports. It's important to note that some victims of rape or sexual assault have an extreme aversion to male chararistics, such as genitalia or any other male sexual chararistics. And that despite the rapid advancements of surgery and HRT, there still remains male characteristics that may be unfair in sports or other scenarios, our medical technology isn't there yet -- But like all things, it all depends on the individual.
What kickstarted the activism was a law by the Scottish government to place more women in public sector roles. It also said that trans women are the same as biological women, which is unrelated to include in a small bill that no other bill has ever mentioned before. Why is this particular bill vaguely defining what a woman is, but no other bill has yet done so? Activists tried the government in court and failed before going to the Supreme Court.
The court discussed the differences between sex and gender and what that actually means. How do you define sex? Is your sex your identity? When do we look at someone's sex or gender? They concluded that a biological woman is determined by their biological sex, meaning sexual chararistics.
It also doesn't exclude trans men or women from the Equality Act, as they still fall under its protection, no one has lost any rights. The change is that there is now a separation and definition of gender and sex and clearer wording for what constitutes as a single-sex space.
Legally, it offers long-term clarity for businesses and organisations that have been left to interpret ambiguous and sometimes contradictory legislation on their own until this point. A case example is that a trans woman, who is pre-op and pre-HRT, can be legally classified as a biological woman despite having no surgery or therapy. That is no longer possible under this new ruling. Another example is maternity leave, where women get more leave than men due to pregnancy. But what of the case when there is a trans woman? There is no pregnancy, no breastfeeding, so do they get extended maternity leave? It's unclear.
But now it is.