Get out of here with this anti-trans rhetoric. Just because one person transitioned and regretted it doesn't make any kind of an argument to ban it. Gender confirmation healthcare saves lives. Less than 1% of people who transition end up detransitioning and half of that measly 1% detransition because of some outside pressure with family, society, etc. So 99%+ of people who do it are happier and healthier, and less than 1% of people are unhappy about it. You basically can't get that kind of a glowing recommendation for anything.
There is no argument for banning gender affirming care, period. If you're in favor of banning it, then the only explanation is that you don't understand it, or you want to trans children depressed and/or dead.
“It’s just a record of history, and so I find it mind-boggling that anyone would interpret facts as a political agenda.” Dr. Maigen Sullivan, co-founder of the Invisible Histories Project, held a lecture about LGBTQ+ history in Alabama.
I didn’t feel like watching a video so I looked up an article on the issue. I’ve got mixed feelings about the overall choice to simplify the family emojis, but the alternative of adding thousands of emojis for every skin shade sounds like a technical nightmare.
Here’s the article, written by the founder of Emojipedia, Jeremy Burge (who I know nothing about). It’s written as an opinion piece in support of the change, and also has a decent recounting of Unicode’s decision making. mobiletechjournal.com/the-family-emojis-are-now-e…
It’s especially interesting that Apple decided to further generalize the family emojis compared to Unicode’s specs. I think I would have just gone with the standard. What do others think?
I didn’t watch the video either. Pressing the couple emoji button prompts you to pick a race for each person. Pressing the family button does not. Makes me wonder if they’re still working on it.
This almost certainly would invite a legitimate first amendment case if he'd been fired.
Not that Republicans actually care about free speech, but drag and clothing in general has consistently been ruled as speech under the first amendment.
He just was doing drag, no indication of any particular sexual behavior. Not that that is the district's business, of course. Or that they would care if a wedge issue weren't involved.
This feels like the Briggs Initiative all over again. While I think legislation and official actions like this will join the Briggs Initiative in the hell they came from, it can't come soon enough. Gen Z, we're counting on you to turn the scales!
A place for the LGBTQ+ community
Hot