Trans people
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
49238 readers
524 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
But... bathrooms!!! With the children!!! /s
A lot of that is just unavoidable lookism sadly, maybe I'm too doomer
At the individuated level, it likely plays a part, but it's got nothing to do with the systemic institutional hatred
Pit-bulls. Most of their bad reputation comes from organizations that campaign against their very existence and people will quote pit-bull bite statistics with the same lack of irony as a white nationalist quoting FBI crime statistics about people of color.
I worked as an insurance agent. In the states I had my P&C licenses in, we were legally required to base rates on data. i.e statistically how much the company paid out in claims given certain factors. One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk. Just like teenagers by and large, aren't as safe drivers. It isn't "fair" in that the dog didn't choose to be the breed it is and some of them really are good dogs but statistically, averaged over the whole, they are more of a risk than other dog breeds are.
One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk.
This is a classic example of someone observing a statistical correlation between specific factors and using that to assert a direct causal relationship between them. It implies that an insurance agency is able to 1) accurately identify every single breed of dog in every single insurance related incident (which is definitely not the case, because I doubt every insurance company is doing genetic testing on every single dog it comes across) and 2) tie a causal relationship between dog breed and incident. If I were going by typical insurance metrics, and to borrow from your analogy of "teenagers as unsafe drivers," you would also assume that red Camarros, something more expensive to insure than your more conservative sedan, were statistically more dangerous than, say, a white Civic, as if they were what caused their drivers to get into car accidents, as opposed to young, reckless people interested in a fast sports car to simply go out and buy one. These are people who would be reckless behind the wheel of any car, but who are statistically correlated with a particular type of one. But you still mark the red Camaro as more expensive to insure regardless of who buys it because it's statistically correlated with a higher degree of accidents.
These are multibillion dollar companies (actually they insure trillions in assets) whose whole job is to be very very good at assessing risk. You thinking you know better is peak Dunning-Krueger.
"If a big corporation says something is one way, it must be so. They have a lot of money, after all." Your argument is peak "Argument to Authority." I guess it's a good thing those insurance companies like AIG were able to effectively assess their degree of risk exposure in the housing markets in 2008 and avoid collapsing when the housing market imploded. Oh, wait...
OMFG there is no evil conspiracy by USAA and every other insurance company against pitbulls JFC. Pitbulls are just statistically much more dangerous than other animals.
They're statistically correlated with incidents of mauling. Nobody is denying the statistical correlation. But there is a difference between observing a statistical correlation between breed and maulings and asserting a causal relationship. My argument is that the assertion that "pit-bulls are innately, biologically predisposed towards violence against people and other animals" is not supported by meaningful evidence. If you are arguing that they are, then you're gonna have to convince me with more than "insurance companies say they are."
Nickelback
trans people
Male abuse/SA victims. It's already not taken seriously enough when it happens to women, but when it happens to a guy they get put down even more and told to "man up". Sometimes even by people who'd support them if the sexes were swapped.
Even more so, it's turned into a hot button topic where people will be actively pissed of at you if you try to bring it up in discussion, calling it a "dog whistle" for nazi / anti-women ideology.
Comic sans.
It is literally a font. Sometimes when some corporate partner is annoying me I will pdf lock a document, with a signature, to them in comic sans.
It's also supposed to be an accessible/helpful font for dyslexics.
Ugly-ass Nancy and Sluggo looking shit, what are you, five? Take that comic sans tf out of here.
His point demonstrated.
Cyclists, some people just see red when they came across cyclist at the road.
Cycle infrastructure, even.
Women.
Misogyny is extremely widespread and socially acceptable.
Add men to the list.
Misandry is also extremely widespread and socially acceptable.
IMHO both groups have bad apples. In conservative societies, women are often mistreated. In modern/contemporary societies men are often misstreated.
Trans people, seriously, they just want to live their lives in peace. They're not here to radicalise anything or to "trick" anyone. They just want to get on with their lives and be left alone.
the other replies to this comment reaaaally prove your point.
Are people really stupid enough to think that every single trans person is a loud screeching SJW?
Not to mention trans people are constantly under attack in most places and NEED to speak up.
It's similar to veganism, they yell really loud to make it known they want peace while at the sime time disturbing everyone else and expecting friendliness.
It's like that annoying neighbour that blasts music at full volume just because he likes it and then he goes on to say he just wants to be left alone.
You can't take the stage at a Rammstein concert and expect to just chill out there without getting thrown out.
Have you ever actually met any trans people? Because they don't do that thing you said
Iβm trans, I hate talking about gender stuff
So yeah, they never did
-
This does not happen.
-
Even if it was, are you really shitting on trans people for complaining about constantly being hate-crimed for sport?
fuck off transphobe
People keep saying this, but what is expected when a minute fraction of the population has such a high rate of being murdered? What is expected when without making any fuss, legislators are constantly trying to legislate trans people out of existence, refusing healthcare, increasing the already disproportionate suicide rate, forcing them to do things that puts them in situations where the chance of being murdered is much higher.
These sentiments come from such a place of privilege, "I don't have this problem, why are you getting on stage to shout about this, you should expect to be discriminated against and murdered" if you don't see anything wrong with that, you should reevaluate your morals.
Non-monogamists. Not referring to simply polyamorists or even relationship anarchists, but non-monogamists in general. When I saw LGBT equality unfold in the first world, I thought "yay we're finally throwing off those norms" but here we are a decade or so later and polyamory still gets everyone saying "meh". The only time I've ever seen polyamorists in late night media was in an episode of The Resident, and it was used to illustrate the man as a cult leader, which tied into the show like pineapple ties into pizza (I do not miss that show). But you have an LGBT couple in every five episodes.
I think this one is tough. I know a few people that consensual non-monogamy has worked out well for (long term), but most of the people that I know who tried it out it hasn't gone well. So I'm not against it in theory, but it comes with a lot of caveats. I don't personally know anyone who began a monogamous relationship, transitioned to poly, and had it end well. I tend to think of this scenario as a sign of relationship trouble, or a cause of it. Maybe it's not polyamory's fault that so many people in relationship trouble are drawn to it.
I know a lot of people for whom monogamy hasn't turned out well, too. Lots of divorces and broken hearts. If you think of all the relationships that don't work out, the ones that do are miracles.
That's fair for sure. I do think I've lived long enough to know a few predictors of failed relationships though, and if someone tells me they're opening up the relationship, then I expect them to be done within a year.
That's probably a selection bias though. Most people might try opening up their relationship when there are already problems.
Socialism/Communism/Anarchism. Barely anyone who actually understands them and the theory supporting them hates them, but tons of people have been fed Red Scare propaganda on the matter.
Historians studying them don't hate, true, but we also don't hate plague or dog shit on the road.
That's a bit of a non-answer, isn't it? I'm clearly referring to implementing leftist structures today, not historically.
Never tried for real, I see.
Why would one hate right ideas then, of the libertarian kind.
Read my other comment, it absolutely has been tried. If your point is that the relatively few historical examples are a sufficient sampling of data to determine that people sharing tools can never work, then I'm afraid you don't understand numbers, nor historical analysis.
You can learn from what has and has not worked, and analyze structures. It's possible! You just have to do it.
If your point is ...
You know, of course, that the answer to that "if" is usually "no", and this is called a strawman argument.
... then Iβm afraid ...
No reason to be afraid! Sing and dance and hug your family, friends and house animals.
... relatively few historical examples ... people sharing tools ...
People have been sharing tools since eating less fortunate breeds of people, the optimal architecture of that is the point of contention.
More dodging, great! What's your point?
I've literally finished my comment with it.
You pretended you had a point, but left it open.
Leaving it open is a valid political position of making efficiency more important than ideology.
I don't know which architectures may be invented in the future to work, I'm not against them coming from leftist premises, but I've met fewer leftists interested in even imagining them than libertarians or even conservatives.
When most leftists are too busy with hating on groups of people and thinking about what others own, it's really hard to talk to them about anything real.
Efficiency is more important than ideology, correct. That's why I'm a leftist.
Don't worry, leftists aren't hating on groups of people (except fascists), just inefficient and failing systems. It's the right that hates on groups of people.
Leftist ideologies include dogmatic statements. Just like all other ideologies. Otherwise we wouldn't use the word "ideology" at all.
If this were true, you'd say that left ideas are the closest to your expectation of what's best and that'd be fine, and not call yourself leftist. Now it's as if you are putting ideology above practice.
Which would be the same as me always feeling as if I were lying while, say, saying that I'm a libertarian or a distributist, because I have no permanent attachment to any ideology, just these seem sane now. So I rarely say that and feel bad when I do.
Which efficient and not failing systems does your kind of leftists propose?
That's entirely stupid. Ideologies aren't about dogmatism, but about coherent groups of conclusions based on underlying analysis.
It's pretty telling that you out yourself as a Libertarian though, lmao.
I propose worker ownership of the Means of Production.
Ideologies arenβt about dogmatism, but about coherent groups of conclusions based on underlying analysis.
This sentence translates to choosing a model and then trying to hammer the reality to fit under it. Which is obviously dogmatism.
The funniest part is that leftist pseudointellectualism, where there is no actual discussion happening, but a leftist thinks there is because of the tone they use. Also hints at them acting this way in other situations, that is, being used to dogmatism.
Without dogmatism people change models like tools, each one for its own job. They don't call themselves any kind of -ist.
Itβs pretty telling that you out yourself as a Libertarian though, lmao.
Literally the opposite of what I've said, lmao. Reading comprehension skills on par with your self-identification.