SaltSong @ SaltSong @startrek.website

Posts

3

Comments

696

Joined

5 mo. ago

Oh, you're gonna have a good time.

It's not flawless, (what is, after all) but it's quite good.

He's a wonderful example of someone who desperately needs to be fixed.

Your average autistic person is rather inoffensive. No need to fix anything, unless they want to be.

More or less. No bonus points for me, I guess.

You need some kind of cue to keep in step. If you can see the other guys feet, that helps, but often tinted you can't. The sound of yourself matching helps, but without some occasional cadence, or other governing factor, the speed of the match tends to change in a collective sort of way. My BMT platoon would get faster as we marched, unless the DI shouted at us occasionally.

Realistically, by way of being the political equivalent of a fleet-in-being.

Mostly, though, by way of ducking up anyone who looks like challenging our putative superiority.

Some of this makes a bit of sense, but it still leans heavily on perception by others, rather than respecting what people know about themselves. This does not seem to be what many transgender persons want.

I'll think about it.

using ciswomen and transwomen makes you sound like a TERF.

What would be a correct way to distinguish between the two?

• "Woman" seems like it works refer to both, to be used in the majority of cases when the distinction is irrelevant.
• I don't want to say "natural" women, or "real" women, as even someone as thick as me can see that's insulting.
• It seems that using the prefix for both makes them equal.

What do you think world be more appropriate?

it’s impossible for Black people to not pass as Black because it’s been proven they experience racism based on an immutable characteristic.

But they would suggest that as soon as we discover a way to change that characteristic, transrace world be valid.

Further, while gender identity may not be based on appearance, the way one is treated is very much based on appearance. If I look male, I get treated as male. If I look female, I get treated as female. If I look like one, but insist I am the other, people tend to have disagreements between their deliberate and automatic behaviors. (Well, the same people do, anyway.)

I can't think of a good way to prove it, but I am legitimately curious about this topic. I'm never happy with the answer "because this one is right, and that one is wrong." There needs to be reasons why.

maybe stop comparing race and gender then.

Isn't the entire premise of the post that someone is seeing parallels here, and would like to understand why the similarities are not meaningful? As I said, I agree that transracial people are being silly, but I haven't seen an argument here that can't be used against transgender people.

trans women only pass because we’re women.

But there are plenty of transwomen who don't "pass" despite being women. But they should still be treated as women. Hell, there have been at least a few reports of ciswomen who couldn't pass as women, at least to sufficiently assholish observers. On that basis, I don't think we can use "passing" as a factor to determine people's identity.

I'm advised that there is no scientific or genetic basis for race. I'm a little unclear on how "ethnicity" is different from "race."

All of them seem to be social constructs.

So, as a white person, I cannot pass as black, so I can never expect people to treat me like I'm black?

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea is silly, but all the arguments I've seen in this thread are a word-swap away from being a bad argument against transgender people.

What's the essential difference?

Problem is that “race” isn’t just cultural. How you will be treated definitely depends on how other people perceive your “race” and subsequently it will shape your life reality

But surely how you will be treated definitely depends on how other people perceive your “gender” and subsequently it will shape your life reality?

Everything you described up there sounds exactly like "cultural."

Information flow can never go backwards. There's plenty of examples of reporters or even social media compromising military operations. In at least a few cases, it has lead to the destruction of military assets. Once broadcast, the damage is done.

Trying to force reporters to think hard about what they are broadcasting is a good thing, from the point of view of national defence.

Is it normal to allow people to send military information to your enemy?

I'm not a huge fan of either of the two belligerent, but this is not exactly an unreasonable position to take. And they are at least putting reporters on notice.

Wood.

I picked it up from an episode of Deep Space Nine. Good times.

The US is obligated by law,

Yea, that's a law we passed, right? One which we could repeal, too?

I thought I was wrong, once. But I was mistaken.

And we provide Israel weapons to bomb Gaza.

That doesn't always work.

We used to have an agreement, didn't we? What happened to it?

Oh. Right.