301–307 of 307 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people care because gender identity is eroding sex based protections. I should think women care a lot that men are now allowed in their spaces based on an internal sense of "gender".
I should think women care a lot that men are now allowed in their spaces based on an internal sense of "gender". No. We don't. Transwomen are welcome in our bathrooms, locker rooms, and spas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be surprised at how dangerous it is to be trans. Wikipedia maintains a list of unlawfully killed trans people at this page[1] I guess there are more trans people than informants so maybe there's some statistical point to be made there, but frankly I'm not sure why you picked this nit to begin with. I think it's important to recognize, rather than downplay the risks faced by marginalized groups in the US and…
I wasn't downplaying anything - and suggesting that I'm "downplaying the risks faced by marginalised groups" kind of poisons the well doesn't it? I was just questioning the idea that there are people out there "gunning for" trans people in a sense that is comparable to the rate that informants and whistleblowers are killed. I also have to point out that quite a small proportion of the linked murders seem to be hate c…
Similarly, if you go on social media to make posts about how being trans is not as dangerous as people seem to be implying, even if it contains a grain of statistical truth, you are making a certain point. Again, I think it's important to "photograph" the oppression faced by marginalized groups than to highlight ways this oppression is supposedly exaggerated.
Your point about my poisoning the well suggests you think I was trying to "call you out" or attack you, but that's not the case. I think we have a reasonable meta-disagreement about whether there is a political knock-on effect of highlighting different statistics or narratives. It's a disagreement two people of good faith can have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He has since amended his requirements. Listen to his interview here: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/19/intercepted-podcast-juli...
Can I get a timecode? That is a long audio file and I apparently can't quess the right keywords to find it in the transcript. Edit: I have now listened to the whole thing and there seems to be no mention of that offer as far as I can tell. So either I missed it, you mistakenly linked the wrong interview, this is anti-Assange Propaganda you hope nobody is going to check too closely, or it is guerilla marketing for the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the "having been a whistleblower in the most powerful government on the planet" part of Chelsea's story is considerably more risky than the "is transgendered" part. There aren't many people running around "gunning for" trans people in the same sense that there are people "gunning for" informants. Primarily in the sense that in the latter case they use actual guns.
But he was not a whistleblower, there was nothing important to leak besides bunch of state's secrets. The leaks held no value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple: A person's gender is a part of their personal identity. Chelsea Manning says that their gender is female, even if their biological sex is male. As a consequence of respect for their personal identity as a member of society (and NOT fixating on their sex organs, which is frankly creepy), most people will refer to a trans* person as the gender they identify as, not the sex they were born with. Or, if uncertain…
When we refer to things, we use words that convey our perception of them. People identify themselves a certain way, and I can identify them a certain way too. The notion of someone's gender has relevance to others. It doesn't make sense to go purely based on their own self perception. For me, I tend to assign gender by sex. I don't want to disrespect myself by saying something I don't believe. On the other hand I don…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "issue" here being which gendered pronouns to use in reference to Chelsea Manning. The "side" that's getting warned is the one that uses her transsexuality to launch petty hostilities at her.
I started this subthread. Would you mind pointing me to where I 'launch petty hostilities' at anyone?
> This person is male. Could we please avoid the biologically nonsensical charade of referring to him as"she"?
What is your definition of male? "Has the XY chromosome pair?" "Was born with testicles?" "Was born male-looking?" All these have complicated causes and effects, and you will get contradictory answers for some individuals.
Are you aware that fetus development is driven by hormones as much as by genes? "This person is male" is a generally useful simplification. Prevalence of people with out-of-ordinary combinations of genetic and hormonal developmental factors strong enough to get into the intersex category is so low that it's normally perfectly sufficient point of view. That does not mean we should dismiss people with these minority genetic/hormonal makeups.
Refusal to respect another person's body/personality mismatch and insistence on calling them something they do not identify with is hostile and petty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When we refer to things, we use words that convey our perception of them. People identify themselves a certain way, and I can identify them a certain way too. The notion of someone's gender has relevance to others. It doesn't make sense to go purely based on their own self perception. For me, I tend to assign gender by sex. I don't want to disrespect myself by saying something I don't believe. On the other hand I don…
We are talking about people here, not things. People have personal preferences and feelings whereas things do not.