Good grief, their community list is absolutelybloated, probably an attempt at powermoderating or domain squatting if I had to guess. It is unfortunate that they're modding LGBTQ+ though, they seem to suffer from a case of "enlightened centrism" and that is pretty harmful given today's climate for trans rights. (For context, the post in question is a single panel comic of a trans person dragging a child into an gender affirming care clinic, basically perpetuating the groomer libel of LGBTQ+ people)
They do seem to be actively posting in a lot of the communities, so maybe it's just someone trying to seed new Lemmies. There's a lot of people that want new communities but also don't want to moderate, so someone like this could be filling an actual gap if they have good intentions.
This is correct. I have already passed off ownership of c/conservative, I’m simply just another moderator now. I have also added mods to any of the communities that actually have content (most of them do not without me seeding it). I have not rejected a single request from anyone that reached out to moderate any of the communities (the biggest ones are c/nba, c/nfl, c/baseball, c/pics, and c/news). I was discussing adding someone as a mod on c/news last night before I logged off and one will be up today. I haven’t received any requests on c/pics but the volume of posting isn’t really unmanageable.
Edit - And anyone wondering WHY I didn’t remove posts from the one guy that was posting there, the answer is because I believe the voting system should be allowed to do its thing. All of his posts were heavily downvoted, it shows exactly where the community there or those passing by stood on the posts. I don’t believe in overmoderation which Reddit fell victim to and curated those echo chambers by removing content and posts they disagreed with.
Yeah people are making so many assumptions about how there is a conflict of interest with moderation in /c/lgbtq while there is literally zero activity in /c/lgbtq. There are so many baseless assumptions being thrown around. People should start posting in /c/lgbtq and if @Hurts proves to be an issue moderating there, he clearly is more than willing to step down as head mod there just like he did at /c/Conservative.
@Goathound@Hurts@Izzent Maybe he was over here a long time ago. Went to reddit. Saw all the popular communities and Created all of them. I would signup for another instance, create the community you want. then link everyone. enough people then they will get bigger then the one on lemmy.world instance. Worth a shot
I think they are more concerned about the damage someone running a community in bad faith could do to folks who may be vulnerable and looking for some relief and mental health tips within a safe group, opposed to a conservative liking gay people...
I go to a lot of recovery groups online and having a mod from a pro usage/drug group would be very concerning.
Centrists spits are conservatives who just don't feel comfortable calling themselves that, and in a country where fascism is already on the rise, they're effectively collaborators.
I’ve defended myself in comment replies but I guess I’ll address the post directly as well.
Kind of shitty to wake up and see this and a whole thread shitting on me, when I’ve done nothing but try to seed and build communities here. Any communities that have gained traction I’ve gladly accepted new moderators for (see c/nba, c/nfl, c/news, c/baseball), as well as stepped down as the head moderator at c/conservative.
The literal only action I’ve taken as a moderator at c/conservative before this morning was reapproving comments that were removed for no reason besides disagreeing, and messaging that moderator and telling them that isn’t how we will be doing things, which is because I don’t intend to ever cultivate an echo chamber. See here to view the message
To automatically assume that I have no LGBTQ+ affiliation or some insidious agenda is nothing short of slanderous and disingenuous. I have already personally stated that I am gay multiple days ago when one of the commentators on c/news attempted to call me out for this. See here for the comment chain.
I have not rejected a single person that has requested to moderate any community that I started/seeded, and have already passed off ownership of one community out of the 5-6 that actually gained a bit of traction. The only thing I’m doing here is attempting to fill this site with content and keep any personal moderator bias’ aside whether that is from myself or the people I appoint as moderators within the community. Here is a screenshot of messages I exchanged with a user from c/news yesterday, where I again explicitly state I prefer the posts to come from sources that aren’t incredibly biased in either direction.
I have stated in another comment that I am very centrist. I am not passionate towards either of the main US political parties more than the other, and I think that quite frankly makes me more fit than most of the people here to moderate these communities as I won’t curate echo chambers.
Starting an entire thread to brigade and witch-hunt someone that is trying to prop this site up and provide content and communities from Reddit to ease the transition is a great way to quickly ruin this site. The fact that an admin at 2am EST intervened on a community because it upset some users for having different views and handpicked a moderator doesn’t bode well in my thinking that this site would be any different than Reddit.
@Hurts But not European Conservatism. A lot of conservative parties have official lgbtq groups in them and even lgbtq ministers. I know it is hard to understand their existence, even for me. I mean even the far right AfD has a lesbian leader despite their extrem anti-lgbtq views.
Ignoring the whole.... thing.... is this something kbin has the ability to prevent? Is first-come-first-serve moderation baked into the platform, or do we have a way to democratize/decentralize moderating, recall moderators, etc.
Or do we just have to accept the inevitability of mediocre power mods?
The only way for owner of a magazine to step down, currently, is to elect someone else as co-mod and then leave. Users on any platform could always sub and post to other instances and leave the powermod holding his dick, but this kind of thing may need to be addressed in the future.
Not sure whether voting people in/out of mod powers is the way to go, as it leaves good mods hyper susceptible to takeover brigading. At the very least, some hard limits need to be the norm. Maybe restrict it to 10-12?? No one should need to mod 30 different things on any instance.
I'm not sure. They may be a power mod, trying to grab as many communities as possible, they may be trying to infiltrate one of the communities, or they may be some form of a centrist or conservative queer person. One of the good things here is that the mod logs of these sites are open to the public, so we can keep an eye out for unjustified bannings or iffy behavior from this user and move away from their community if needed.
I really hope it's in good faith, cause if it is, that may be a slimmer of hope that conservatives can co-exist amongst LGBTQ+. I'm more of a centrist (no, that does not mean I play the both sides are equally bad or I play both sides, get that out of your heads) and I have a few conservative opinions. This does not mean I agree with the extremism of the U.S. conservatives pushing laws and misinformation to opress LGBTQ+ and other minorities. It's sickening.
I'd argue that the aging gay NIMBY community in San Francisco is an example of being both LGBT and conservative, though they vote almost 100% democrat. I don't think Republicans and queer folks can coexist, given the whole "want to erase anyone not straight from existence" thing. But conservative and queer is definitely a thing.
I didn't say there are no LGBTQ+ people who aren't conservative, I said there is no definition of conservatism that is safe for lgbtq+ people, and also adequately describes conservatism.
There were jews who supported the nazi party. That doesn't mean they didn't get sent to concentration camps.
Conservativism just means not wanting things to change. If you grew up in a society where LGBT rights are already inviolate (such as San Francisco), it's perfectly possible to just want to keep the status quo.
You're mixing up conservativism and the Republican party. The fringe Republicans aren't even conservative - they're reactionary. They want to go backwards.
That is indeed what conservatives declare, but it's a nonsensical position and doesn't describe any conservative stance ever. Conservatives always have plenty of things they're fine with changing, and the line between what's okay to change and what they are not is where the actual definition comes in. It's also always regressive, because it always includes opposition to changes that they perceive as being "new" when in fact they are not (such as, topically, drag shows).
Drag shows are a new concept to most conservatives. They don't want it in their reality.
From our point of view, drag shows are a thing that's been around forever. Seeking to remove seems reactionary. For conservatives, it's a new thing that they want to keep out. It's conservative.
True reactionaries look at the world around them, as they see it, and want to drag that world back into a perceived past state (usually a wildly inaccurate one).
it's a nonsensical position and doesn't describe any conservative stance ever
You can't really believe this. Loads of people want to keep the status quo. Probably the majority of people. Globally. For all of history.
Because of all the closeted Republicans. Why do you think they constantly talk about Gay and Transpeople all the time ? Its what they are thinking about 24-7
Yeah, really. While there are cases of closeted gay conservatives who overcompensate by being homophobes, "no u gay" is really not a cool thing to reply to conservative homophobia.
I'd like to think that it's just an lgbt person who's also conservative (I'm transsexual and on the conservative side myself) but given it's "lgbtq" I kinda have a feeling it's probably a more progressive person who claimed the conservative sub to control it, rather than genuine interest...
The "q" in lgbtq often refers to the q slur, and it's a newer acronym largely used by progressives. conservative lgbt people either stick with the classic lgbt, or in recent years have started using lgb as a way of distancing themselves from the transgender movement.
Not saying it's impossible for conservatives to use lgbtq, but it's rare IMO (speaking as someone on the conservative side in the lgbt community).
As I said, the q often refers to the slur, which many more conservative minded lgbt people are opposed to. in practice, the use of the acronym just ends up kinda being correlated with particular mindsets/views.
It's not a hard rule or anything just a general tendency I see.
I've got mine so fuck you mentality... I'm a straight male but I support the shit out of everyone as long as they aren't shitting on people and distancing yourself from our Trans brothers and sister is awful and you know it... we are all people in the end and we need love and support...
You say "you support the shit out of everyone" except that's logically and literally impossible. There are groups with conflicting and contradictory worldviews, and to support one is to reject the other.
I'm not distancing myself from trans people. I am trans. I'm distancing myself from the transgender movement, which is mostly not made up of transsexuals.
I do not and cannot support the transgender movement because their foundational worldview is that transsexuals like myself do not exist. And until they yield on that topic, I cannot support them without denying my own existence.
I try to love and support everyone, but that means disagreeing with harmful pseudoscientific ideologies like the transgender movement. It means distancing myself from lgbtq progressives. Because those ideologies and worldviews are harmful to trans people.
I have no idea what you think "transgender" and "transsexual" mean, but I can almost guarantee it's not what other people mean when they say those things.
When I say transsexual I refer to people with the medical condition transsexualism that's been known and studied for over 100 years now.
When I say "transgender" I refer to those people who "identify as transgender". It appears to be a political movement, and not one I agree with.
There's a great effort by the transgender community and transvestites as a whole to appropriate transsexualism and deny transsexuals exist, as I mentioned in my previous post. Naturally my usage of the word transsexual will differ from theirs, because they are literally trying to deny transsexuals exist.
This is a good example of why people who identify as conservative shouldn't be trying to moderate LGBTQ+ spaces, even if they identify somewhere in that spectrum themselves. Conservatism at its heart is fundamentally focused on determining how other people do not belong to your "in" group and do not deserve the same privileges and rights as you do. Put more famously, "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
You're not quite doing it here with your really badly couched transmedicalist take and your skirting around actually saying what you mean, but we all know what you mean so I'm not sure why you're being so coy about it.
Conservatism at its heart is fundamentally focused on determining how other people do not belong to your "in" group and do not deserve the same privileges and rights as you do.
Definitely not unique to conservativism. I think that's just a facet of humanity. Modern day progressivism is infamous for shooting itself in the foot with purity tests.
You misunderstand. People do have a strong tendency to do that, yes. Conservativism is about that, it enshrines that. You can have leftism without infighting. You can have LGBTQ+ without radical exclusion. You cannot have conservativism without exclusion of outgroups.
That's an excellent point, you're totally right. I just did a "both sides". There's a massive difference between the two, and I shouldn't have equated them.
I support protection for all kinds of people, both transsexual and transvestite. What I care about on this topic though is clarity and recognition of individuals, and being able to clearly talk about different demographics. That's simply impossible to do if you try to use the same word to refer to entirely different kinds of people and different situations.
How can you speak about homosexuality, if you call straight people "gay" and "homosexual"? it's impossible!
You accuse me of transmedicalism, but I'd argue against this accusation. "transmedicalism" is a word that's used to describe people with a different view, relating to gender identity and gender dysphoria with gender identity disorder, and is unrelated to transsexuals and our issues/needs. many transmedicalists also deny transsexuals exist.
As long as there's clarity in speech, and a recognition of my medical condition (transsexualism) without conflation or appropriation, then I'm happy. I don't mind supporting others with different situations. but I won't yield and forfeit my ability to speak about myself and my medical situation.
Fella, you described transgenderism as "pseudoscience" and a "harmful ideology". You don't get to go back and try to claim you're actually totally fine with it and just want everyone to be clear what they mean... Especially not when you still haven't actually said what you mean. You were very open about your in- and out-groups there.
This is what I find so baffling. You wear it on your sleeve, but the moment people actually address your big claimed grievance you back away and won't own it. At least if you're going to side with the bigots that want you dead, don't be such a fucking coward about it.
The ideology and worldview that the political movement endorses, yes. The people that hold such beliefs have real serious issues which have medically been known as transvestism.
Of course I will oppose an ideology that declares I don't exist!
Yeah I think I miss read your comment as saying you wanted it lgb... my bad I assumed something and didn't fully read what ya said...my comment is deleted somehow wish it was still up anyhoo I'm super confused on the nuance on this because ive never heard any transgender or transsexual person in my life not support the other or say they dont exist but Ive only had a handful in my life at different times so you probably know more about the community... just be supportive and accepting and your alright in my book... and honestly Ive never once heard what you are saying come out of any transgender or transsexual friends mouths your the first Ive heard of it... very confused on why someone would say you don't exist cause you do
Well I'm pretty careful when I use the acronym. Personally I consider myself, and support "LGBT". There's an "LGB" movement that I find myself aligned with, albeit disagreeing with. Then there are the people who use "LGBTQ" or "LGBTQIA" and other such things, and I find myself opposed to them.
ive never heard any transgender or transsexual person in my life not support the other or say they dont exist but Ive only had a handful in my life at different times so you probably know more about the community... just be supportive and accepting and your alright in my book.
Yes, it's unfortunately the case that on this topic there's a few different worldviews/beliefs and they contradict each other, which leads to a lot of hostility and upset feelings in both directions. I agree that we should try to be kind, understanding, and supportive. But to do that means I need to disagree with some worldviews that may end up hurting some people's feelings.
nd honestly Ive never once heard what you are saying come out of any transgender or transsexual friends mouths your the first Ive heard of it... very confused on why someone would say you don't exist cause you do
The issue is because many people with transvestism conditions identify themselves as "transgender" and hold the belief that they have a "gender identity" that differs from their natal sex. In many cases they argue that this is due to having an oppositely sexed brain. The problem is that that view is simply untrue. There are sexed brains, and there are people with oppositely sexed brains, but that condition is transsexualism, not transvestism. And so these transgender/transvestite people try to argue it applies to them, and then deny that people outside of their situation (namely transsexuals) exist.
One of their big ideas involves "gender dysphoria". They believe that gender dysphoria arises due to the sex of the brain differing from the sex of the body, and thus dysphoria results. However, transsexuals like myself prove this to be untrue; as we do not experience "gender dysphoria" (or any other transvestism symptom) at any point.
Due to this, these people often start saying I'm "not actually trans" or that I'm "being a bigot" or that I "actually do have such symptoms and am lying/mistaken" and so on. a very hostile response.
I'd really like there to be some mutual understanding and arrival of views, but I don't think it's likely the way things are going...
One of their big ideas involves "gender dysphoria". They believe that gender dysphoria arises due to the sex of the brain differing from the sex of the body, and thus dysphoria results. However, transsexuals like myself prove this to be untrue; as we do not experience "gender dysphoria" (or any other transvestism symptom) at any point.
As a cis dude I don't really have a dog in this fight, but that's not great reasoning. Gender dysphoria could very well be a thing that many people experience, just not you or other (many? most?) transvestites.
I'm not going around saying "I'm not gay therefore gay people must not exist", it's absurd. I'm not gay, most people are not gay, but homosexuality is absolutely a thing that exists.
Right. Gender Dysphoria is a real, medically recognized, issue that many people suffer from. I don't deny that at all. Rather, the issue comes from the transgender movement's claims about what causes gender dysphoria (how it arises in a person).
Transsexuals do not experience gender dysphoria. We just don't. That isn't saying it doesn't exist. It's not saying it's not a real thing people suffer from. It's not saying that it shouldn't be treated. Only that, for transsexuals, we do not experience that symptom or issue.
So to then declare that gender dysphoria is caused by a brain/sex conflict, is to essentially deny that transsexuals, who have medically transitioned, exist. Because we transitioned and do not experience dysphoria either before or after medical treatment.
It's a bit like someone going around saying "I chose to be gay, therefore being gay is a choice and has no underlying feelings/urges/etc about it". Like maybe your situation yes you chose something, but that is unrelated to what people usually mean when they speak of homosexuality.
Hopefully that makes sense. So in my speech I make sure to clarify that gender dysphoria is a symptom of what is medically known as transvestism conditions (dual role transvestism often called genderfluid, autogynephili, and gender identity disorder). These are real medical conditions and actually have gender dysphoria as a symptom.
Transsexualism is also a medical condition, but this medical condition does not have gender dysphoria as a symptom. So if you have gender dysphoria, you don't have transsexualism, but instead some other condition.
To clarify between these medical conditions isn't hate speech. it's not denying someone exists. It's not saying they shouldn't get the help they need. It's not saying they shouldn't be supported. It's simply saying that their situation is different from the situation that I have (called transsexualism), and that we should clarify that they are different.
I think I understand what you're saying. I'm not very deeply knowledgeable about the topic. But by giving all the attention to gender dysphoria and having transgender people suck all the oxygen out of the room, actions meant to help transgender people can (unintentionally or perhaps intentionally) harm transsexuals? And you're particularly angry at the modern LGBTQ+++ movement for supporting and even embracing the words and actions that harm transsexuals? Am I understanding your viewpoint?
Yeah it's a combination of how they use/define words, and the underlying ideology, that ends up just denying transsexuals exist and kinda excluding us from the actual valid possibilities.
Are you saying that they experience sex dysphoria instead? Because most trans people I've ever known (and I've known a lot) experience both. Especially the ones who get any kind of medical intervention.
Are you saying that they experience sex dysphoria instead?
"sex dysphoria" is not a biological or medical concept. So no, transsexuals don't experience that either. We don't experience any sort of "dysphoria", unless the patient has comorbid clinical depression.
Because most trans people I've ever known (and I've known a lot) experience both.
You're likely thinking about transvestites who identify themselves as "transgender". And indeed gender dysphoria is a symptom of transvestism conditions.
Why are you claiming that dysphoria is associated with crossdressing? Dysphoria is generally found in people with a gender identity different to their assigned sex at birth. The older term for a person who experiences dysphoria and transitions is transsexual, although, as I said, older. Makes you sound either dated, hyperclinical, transmedicalist, or in opposition to trans people.
Can you throw a lot of words at what exactly you mean when you say "transsexual" and "transvestite"? Because I experience gender dysphoria (to a much lesser degree these days), run better on estrogen regardless of what my hormone producing organs thought, changed my name / ID, and have had bottom surgery. As I understand how the rest of the world defines terms, that makes me transsexual, although I find the term generally feels kind of... old white guys in lab coats and rubber gloves? I generally say transgender, or just trans.
The medical condition "transvestism" is not synonymous with crossdressing. "transvestism" is perhaps a misnomer (as it's not just about clothes) but there's not really a better word to label it (the word transgender has a different definition and includes some non-transvestites).
Dysphoria is generally found in people with a gender identity different to their assigned sex at birth.
This is transgender ideology, not science. It's perhaps not the proper place to start a debate on this but I will say: the line of thought that you'd push with this is exactly what I'm talking about. "gender identity" is not a scientific or medical concept, but rather a political one. Gender dysphoria is found in people with transvestism. If that's what you consider to be "have a gender identity different to their assigned sex" then so be it. But I am a transsexual woman, I was assigned male at birth, yet have never experienced "gender dysphoria" because I do not experience symptoms of transvestism.
The older term for a person who experiences dysphoria and transitions is transsexual, although, as I said, older
This is incorrect. Transsexuals do not experience gender dysphoria. And transsexualism isn't based on whether or not you receive medical treatments. It's a from-birth condition.
Makes you sound either dated, hyperclinical, transmedicalist, or in opposition to trans people.
I disagree with transmedicalists tbh. Hyperclinical, sure. I like to be factual and accurate. Transsexualism is the name for my medical condition, it's the name of my diagnosis, and it's been the name of this condition for over a hundred years. Why should I call it some other label? What label ought I call it? Because that transgender stuff is clearly separate and different.
Can you throw a lot of words at what exactly you mean when you say "transsexual" and "transvestite"?
Sure. Transsexualism is sexual inversion. Which is having oppositely sexed sexuality, sexed behaviors, psychology, along with physical feminization in physiology. It was originally considered a subtype of homosexuality, and scientifically can be seen as a more extreme version of it.
By transvestite I refer to those with transvestism disorders such as dual role transvestism (often called genderfluid), autogynephilia, and gender identity disorder. Transvestites are otherwise normally-sexed (typical heterosexual male, for instance) who have a desire to take on a persona, manner of dress, label, and recognition of the opposite sex. Most visible transvestites today are people like Caitlyn Jenner. Many have self identified as "transgender" and buy into that worldview. They suffer from gender dysphoria, which is a disgust of their sexed traits.
transvestite and transvestism are honestly misnomers, but were coined years before the spectrum was understood, and once it was understood, the transgender movement had already begun pushing to conflate transvestism with transsexualism. so no new terminology has come about. I use the medical term transvestite for them, because I am opposed to the transgender movement/ideology and don't wish to validate their transphobic rhetoric.
Because I experience gender dysphoria (to a much lesser degree these days), run better on estrogen regardless of what my hormone producing organs thought, changed my name / ID, and have had bottom surgery.
Your situation here sounds like you likely have Gender Identity Disorder, which is a form of transvestism. Transsexuals do not experience gender dysphoria at all.
As I understand how the rest of the world defines terms, that makes me transsexual,
I don't see how that makes you transsexual? Transsexualism at it's core is a sexuality and sexual orientation. It's a particular orientation and inclination of sexed behaviors and urges.
But I am a transsexual woman, I was assigned male at birth, yet have never experienced "gender dysphoria" because I do not experience symptoms of transvestism.
You were assigned male, and are of the opinion that you are a woman. "Woman" is your gender identity. Just because we can't currently examine your brain and find the exact neural wiring that does that thing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't scientific. It's softer than, say, physics, but come on, what isn't? There's quite a bit of research in the field, I don't know why you're handwaving it away.
autogynephilia
Whoof. So, you care about truth and accuracy, you should be aware that's bunk. The original research didn't have any controls. When you put cis women through exactly the same questionnaire as trans women, cis women score higher on "autogynephilia". It's in the "old white guy" set of claims, where someone didn't actually listen to people and tried to hammer them into a shape that seemed convenient for an existing worldview.
It seems like you're using Blanchard's type 1 / type 2 transsexual typology, but calling them "transsexual" and "transvestite". Classically, "transvestite" is someone who crossdresses for kicks. It's a term from psychology, so it's technically a medical term, sure, but not in the sense of medicine, MDs, surgery, any of that. "Transsexual", classically, is someone whose identity and sex don't match. Dysphoria isn't a requirement to fall into the set, although if you look at older standards of care, it was damn sure a requirement to get any sort of treatment. Sexuality also fell into that; if you weren't "straight" per your gender identity, lol get rekt for treatment.
I've known people who claimed to not experience dysphoria and transitioned, and I'm always interested to know: if you didn't experience dysphoria, why did you take on being a third class citizen, along with everything else into the package?
At least one of us has very weird views about gender, sex, and trans*. I don't think it's me, I've read a shitload of the literature, which is how I know about things like autogynephila being bullshit. Not an aggressive challenge but desire to know and understand: Where did you come by your knowledge?
You were assigned male, and are of the opinion that you are a woman. "Woman" is your gender identity.
If "gender identity" is based on "my opinion of myself" then "woman" is not my gender identity. My gender identity then would be "transsexual".
Whoof. So, you care about truth and accuracy, you should be aware that's bunk.
It's not bunk though. And that's remarkably obvious if you spend any time dating men as a transsexual. My ex has autogynephilia and it was pretty textbook in it's presentation. Blanchard is wrong in that it's not the explanation to heterosexual GID, but rather it's a transvestism disorder.
where someone didn't actually listen to people and tried to hammer them into a shape that seemed convenient for an existing worldview.
If you have someone born male, who fetishes transsexuals, who then commissions porno art of himself becoming the transsexual he's dating, what the actual fuck do you call that, if not "autogynephilia"? Because that's quite literally the definition of it. You can say I "didn't listen to people" but if you are denying my actual lived experience with dating such men, it just kinda shows hypocrisy on your part.
It seems like you're using Blanchard's type 1 / type 2 transsexual typology, but calling them "transsexual" and "transvestite".
No. You get that idea because I mentioned autogynephilia (something listed in the DSM). Blanchard's typology is focused on GID transvestites of differing sexual orientations. I disagree with his conclusions and typology, but much of his data and studies are solid. He's a part of the scientists who contribute to the DSM for good reason. Transsexuals are entirely unrelated to Blanchard's stuff.
Classically, "transvestite" is someone who crossdresses for kicks
Yes, so medically this historically was called fetishistic transvestism. But more recent studies have shown it to be a spectrum disorder that includes dual role transvestism, autogynephilia, and gender identity disorder. The casual usage of the word hasn't caught up with the science.
"Transsexual", classically, is someone whose identity and sex don't match.
This is incorrect. many transsexuals identify with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Sexuality also fell into that; if you weren't "straight" per your gender identity, lol get rekt for treatment.
That's because.... transsexualism is a sexuality.
if you didn't experience dysphoria, why did you take on being a third class citizen, along with everything else into the package?
The fact you think it's a choice kinda shows what I'm saying lol. Transvestites choose to adopt their persona and its' a deliberate act. Transsexuals do not choose to be transsexual anymore than gay men choose to be gay.
Not an aggressive challenge but desire to know and understand: Where did you come by your knowledge?
My knowledge comes from reading medical literature and spending time in various lgbt and lgbtqia communities, as well as my experience dating chasers, along with an analysis of my own symptoms and medical situation. Perhaps my words are not modern, but as far as I can tell the conclusions I've arrived at are factually accurate.
You didn't actually cover why you transitioned. What made it necessary?
I'd like some full references on stuff, please. We're coming at this from such disparate positions that I really need to engage with the original material, not the compressed segment of it, backed by a bunch of internalized stuff that I can't see.
You didn't actually cover why you transitioned. What made it necessary?
"Transitioned" is really a word that relates to the transgender movement/ideology and transvestism. Transsexuals are transsexual from birth. It's not a choice or something you opt to do.
Though in practice I think what you're asking about is: why did I go see a doctor and get on hormone therapy, and why do I associate with women and changed my legal sex marker? And the answer is: because it's physically and psychologically healthier for transsexuals to do this, and being considered among women makes things easier in a cultural and linguistic sense. Though you might need to clarify on what you mean by "why you transitioned". I am happy to acknowledge that some of my biology is male, some is female, and it's uniquely transsexual.
We're coming at this from such disparate positions that I really need to engage with the original material, not the compressed segment of it
Unlike the transgender ideology I'm not "pulling from some original material" or "referencing some material". I speak about actual reality using the terminology I think is most clear.
the hormonal affects of testosterone clash hard with female neurology. likewise trying to act against one's natural sexed behaviors leads to depression, anxiety, etc.
What made you different from a cis man?
"cis" is transgender nomenclature and not actually a medical term. I'm different from a typical male because I have female neurology and feminized physiology. Typical men do not have this.
What is your evidence for these beliefs?
My understanding of my own symptoms comes from my own lived experience. Medical literature lines up with my symptoms and issues, and so do others with transsexualism.
For my statements on transvestism: these can be found in the medical literature as well as the diagnostic manuals used by doctors.
likewise trying to act against one's natural sexed behaviors leads to depression, anxiety, etc.
This is what generally all the trans people I know who talk about 'gender dysphoria' mean by it. Why do you think that gender dysphoria is something different from that?
Because it is? Most transvestites who medically transition still follow their natal-sexed behaviors both before and after transitioning. Gender dysphoria does not refer to depression or anxiety. Rather, transvestites with gender dysphoria get a disgust, dislike, or intense issues with their anatomy and body.
the hormonal affects of testosterone clash hard with female neurology
Clash in what way? What was your internal experience of that?
"cis" is transgender nomenclature and not actually a medical term. I'm different from a typical male because I have female neurology and feminized physiology. Typical men do not have this.
The neurology, to my understanding, you came with out of the box. The physiology came later, with estrogen infusion. It's the former that I'm interested in here.
My understanding of my own symptoms comes from my own lived experience. Medical literature lines up with my symptoms and issues, and so do others with transsexualism.
Which literature? Point to books. Name studies. Identify researchers. Do anything to point to something grounded, because you keep claiming authority from it and then backing down when I ask for literally any reference.
which ones have I not clarified?
I'd like exact definitions for your understanding of: Transsexual, transvestite, transgender. There are probably others but this has been kind of a long conversation.
Clash in what way? What was your internal experience of that?
As I mentioned, most obviously it results in mental illnesses like depression and anxiety popping up. but also just internal subjective conflict between hormonal things from testosterone vs my natural psyche. idk how to explain this to you in a way that you would understand. Imagine you drink caffeine and you get that buzz/anxiety/jumpy feeling. now imagine you get that and you don't want that feeling.
The neurology, to my understanding, you came with out of the box. The physiology came later, with estrogen infusion. It's the former that I'm interested in here.
Transsexuals have feminized physiology naturally, not just from hormone therapy.
Which literature? Point to books. Name studies. Identify researchers. Do anything to point to something grounded, because you keep claiming authority from it and then backing down when I ask for literally any reference.
Sure. I'm just having a chat, not a debate. but you seem hell pressed on appeal to authority lol. if you want some reading material go read Harry Benjamin's book as an example. Blanchard did a lot of studies on transvestism. If you search up "classic transsexualism" or "nuclear transsexualism" you can often find such studies. I'm not gonna go and dig through my entire browsing history just to appease your comment, sorry. I don't keep this stuff on hand because I don't care to debate my existence with people.
regardless of whether every single scientist and organization in the world said something else, they are automatically wrong because I know my own body, brain, sexuality, etc.
I'd like exact definitions for your understanding of: Transsexual, transvestite, transgender. There are probably others but this has been kind of a long conversation.
I've probably written this 30 times already. So instead of writing it yet again, I will politely point you to the thread I made here. That should hopefully clarify things. Transsexualism is a sexuality and sexual orientation first and foremost.
Transvestism refers to those who have a desire to take on a new persona and recognition and often have a disgust of their body.
However, transsexuals like myself prove this to be untrue; as we do not experience "gender dysphoria" (or any other transvestism symptom) at any point.
Do you have literally any source for this claim other than your own experience?
I'm not sure what you expect me to cite. It's not like there's a website or something just overtly saying "transsexuals don't experience gender dysphoria" lol.
Gender dysphoria has never been a part of the diagnostic criteria, symptoms, or characterizing of transsexualism. Transsexuals do not experience such, it's never been a part of the criteria, etc.
instead, "Gender Dysphoria" is a phrase that came about to describe symptoms of transvestism conditions such as Gender Identity Disorder and Dual Role Transvestism.
If you need some sort of "proof" that this is the case, simply go and look at transgender communities. You will see that it's made up of people with transvestism conditions, and those people have gender dysphoria.
transsexualism has been scrubbed from modern diagnostic manuals and has had conflation over the years, so there's no really a good one to point to. Rather, I'm speaking of the usage of the word from the early 1900s all the way up to the 80s and 90s before the conflation with transvestism occurred.
Transsexualism is characterized by sexual inversion, which includes oppositely sexed behaviors, psyche, sexed roles/norms, etc. Modern studies (and common sense) have also shown partial feminization of physiology.
Today, most transsexuals get diagnosed with f64.0 in the icd-10 which is ultimately just a catch-all dx at this point unfortunately.
ultimately though this topic is twofold:
understanding the particular symptoms, issues, and biologies of a particular demographic. you don't need a "source" for this other than someone who suffers from such a situation. because it's an actual biological real thing.
the words and labels used. unfortunately it's the case that many related words are conflated, confused, and have different authorities claiming different things, and this is largely due to political efforts by the transgender/transvestite community. I'm open to whatever word choices you'd like provided it's clear and unambiguous.
I'm not a fan of just blindly believing an authority group, because if we are to do that, they deny I exist. Should I accept that I don't exist? or rightfully point out that their views and/or labels are flawed?
transsexualism has been scrubbed from modern diagnostic manuals and has had conflation over the years, so there's no really a good one to point to.
Can you point to any sources on this? If it was such a standard definition surely it's written down somewhere?
I think that you exist, that you're putting multiple things into one category and splitting categories along very nonstandard lines, and that generally the view you've expressed fail to cleave reality at the joints.
Also:
Modern studies (and common sense) have also shown partial feminization of physiology.
So there are studies you could point to?
Also common sense is not a good basis on which to judge reality. Many find it common sense that the earth is flat, because, "Look, you can't see a curve!"
Can you point to any sources on this? If it was such a standard definition surely it's written down somewhere?
Sure just look at even just comparing ICD-10 to ICD-11 as an example. If you're hoping for a diagnostic manual that properly describes transsexualism you won't find one, because even the earliest manuals were struggling with conflation (earlier DSMs had "transsexual typology" to try and fix this). Most of this is just found in medical literature though like studies and books by clinicians.
I think that you exist, that you're putting multiple things into one category and splitting categories along very nonstandard lines, and that generally the view you've expressed fail to cleave reality at the joints.
I'm doing the opposite of "putting multiple things into one category". That's what I'm opposed to.
So there are studies you could point to?
Depends on what you're after. yes, there's studies done on transsexuals over the years. no, they aren't going to give you a nice neat orderly description of transsexualism.
I find this really interesting, if I may ask (in good faith), what makes you a conservative yet LGBTQ+ person? Are you in the U.S.? If not that may explain why you're conservative in the first place. I'm really curious.
I don't identify with lgbtq, and view it as antagonistic towards transsexuals. I'm transsexual (medically/biologically) so I fall under lgbt by default lol.
As for conservatism, I've slowly been moving towards conservative views due to various arguments, observations, etc. that I found convincing. For instance I am pro-life, pro-gun, etc.
I am indeed in the US, here in California (a red/conservative part of it though). Having the conservative views I do I end up a bit frustrated, since a lot of the republican party just pushes capitalist/corporate policies, and doesn't really focus on the conservative things I find important.
Apologies, I would have the Idea it's not being straight since gender and sex don't match (most the time, there are operations and what not) so i'd thought that'd fall under the LGBTQ category, so please don't take offense
You're 100% right with that 3rd paragraph, conservatives do tend to push stupid laws and shit, especially those that target LGBTQ, but also shit like Hunter Biden and Hillary a while ago. While I agree those are issues, they're in attempt to cover up other issues bigger issues to get away with it (Ex. Trump)
I don't mean for this to get off track, just another thing I find interesting, you said you were pro-life, do you think that should mean throughout their whole life? How do you feel conservatives are handling pro-life beliefs? Because a lot of the GOP are preventing or taking way things like free school lunches, healthcare, or safe living environment for the child.
I understand why some are pro-life and that everyone should live a great life, but i don't think they stick to it's true purpose if they take the "great" part away. I am personally pro choice, because there is scientific evidence babies don't even have a conscious till a certain amount of weeks, and it's as if a pregnancy never was going to happen in the first place.
Not only that but some people aren't ready for a child, aren't prepared to give it love they need, adoption centers (from what I have seen) rarley have children that are adopted and are packed. Not only that but many health complications can occur during pregnancy, and sometimes it resorts to abortion. Schools aren't even safe for children.
We're not pro-abortion trying to kill off babies for the thrill, rather we feel families should have a choice in what's best for them or even their child. What's the point of having the child if you can't give it the love and care they need? It may sound sick to say but sometimes it's more humane if it didn't have to live in this world.
Apologies, I would have the Idea it's not being straight since gender and sex don't match (most the time, there are operations and what not) so i'd thought that'd fall under the LGBTQ category, so please don't take offense
My issue wasn't so much the implication of it being "not straight" but of the LGBTQ label as opposed to LGBT. and no worries, no offense taken at all :) sorry if my comment came across as harsh. Whether transsexuals count as our own sexuality/orientation or as "straight" I suppose is just a linguistic debate lol.
You're 100% right with that 3rd paragraph, conservatives do tend to push stupid laws and shit, especially those that target LGBTQ, but also shit like Hunter Biden and Hillary a while ago. While I agree those are issues, they're in attempt to cover up other issues bigger issues to get away with it (Ex. Trump)
Agreed. I can't say I'm fond at all of the republican party, even though I have conservative views.
just another thing I find interesting, you said you were pro-life, do you think that should mean throughout their whole life? How do you feel conservatives are handling pro-life beliefs? Because a lot of the GOP are preventing or taking way things like free school lunches, healthcare, or safe living environment for the child.
So this is an instance I was referring to about how I feel the GOP isn't exactly pushing conservative values. I'm pro-life in every sense of the word. I support providing healthcare and that sort of thing. The "Jesus" approach so to speak. Help the needy, heal the sick, feed the hungry. It also means that I'm anti-war, against the death penalty, etc. I also support veganism. Not exactly a typical R/GOP type lol, but my family are closer to the "old left/liberal" type and I still have a lot of my way of thinking in that regard. I saw a comic once that suggested the "old left" ends up looking a lot like conservatives nowadays lol. I think it's fitting.
I am personally pro choice, because there is scientific evidence babies don't even have a conscious till a certain amount of weeks, and it's as if a pregnancy never was going to happen in the first place.
I won't start a debate here, but I will say I do understand the pro-choice viewpoint (as I was previously pro-choice). I think a lot of the concerns come down to niche cases (which I'm okay granting) and the issue of financial stability and support, which I feel are resolved through left-wing economics.
So I end up with some weird/uncommon views like the idea that we should pay women to leave the workforce and be mothers, and should give financial aid to families. Democrats dislike it because it pushes old gender roles, Republicans dislike it because it's a form of welfare or wealth redistribution.
Out of curiosity is your view that women should be paid to leave the workforce and be raise kids, or that a parent should be paid to leave the workforce to raise kids?
Because if the view is just that there should be a UBI for a stay at home parent then I don't disagree.
Not digging into stuff, my other two comments were for that. I just wanted to say that I find it kind of hilarious how diametrically opposed we are on 'queer'. I'm on the reclamation side, generally think of myself as "queer AF", and generally think it's more convenient to say "queer" than "ell-gee-bee-tee", nevermind whichever other letters you think belong in that acronym.
Idk how to put this kindly, but every time I hear the Q slur I cringe and flinch because I'm just reminded of how people were back when I was younger. It's like just throwing out the F slur.
And, from what I see, a lot of people who openly and often use the Q slur aren't even a part of the lgbt community. It's one thing to identify yourself with it, it's another to have people regularly using it towards lgbt people.
Yeah, F-slur has always bugged me more. Might be because it's the one I got more of in the "wonderful" days of my youth (best days of our lives amirite (huge eyeroll here)).
I wonder how much of this is a measure of community; I generally tend to avoid being around people who are down on significant parts of me, and cluster with people who favor significant parts of me, so... Huh, I honestly can't remember the last time I caught a slur. Worst I've had in a long time is accidental misgendering. That I can filter for this, and that more of the world seems to be that way at least from a short contact, reflects well on the world.
Yeah nowadays it's much more rare to hear a slur (except the Q slur that people constantly use). Though I do spend time around far right people who are quite antagonistic. I tend to hear racial slurs more than slurs against lgbt.
I'd like to ask a question in good faith here, if that's alright.
If you are trans, why are you supporting American conservatives that platform policies against your health and existence?
I'm not asking as a 'gotcha,' because that lacks a compassionate curiosity. But I'm puzzled because these stances and identities seem incompatible and I'd like to understand better why, to you, they are.
You're under no obligation to answer, but I'm trying something new and pumping the brakes before I shut down curiosity to make a judgment. Whether you'll afford me that or not, is up to you.
I am not assuming they're American. I'm assuming they support American Conservative policy in reference to the instance that is primarily about American Conservatism being discussed. Which is how I asked the question.
I haven't the foggiest clue where this person is from or where they currently live.
Well to start, being conservative doesn't mean I necessarily support the american republican party or the various republicans in it. I like some more than others, but I typically don't vote republican.
When it comes to "my health and existence", ironically enough republicans tend to push back against transgender legislation that tramples over transsexual rights and healthcare. See the pushback against the equality act for a good example.
My views on lgbt are kinda complicated, and don't fit neatly within either the democrat or republican party, but they're "conservative" in nature (ie not new, but rather a return to how things were before).
On other issues, I tend to be conservative. For instance I'm pro-life, pro-gun, pro-free speech, etc.
I also consider myself to have far left economic views, akin to stuff like socialist policies (ubi, medicare for all, etc). So in practice I end up feeling more like a far left person with some conservative cultural/social views. There's not really a good label for people in this situation lol. I usually say "far left conservative" but that just confuses people lol.
So on the equality act, it's a modification to existing legislation. the existing legislation protects sex-based rights (anti-discrimination), and the unstated assumption is that it includes lgbt. with the equality act it changes the definition of "sex" to refer to the vague pseudoscientific concept of "gender identity" which is predicated on the idea that transsexuals don't exist. The end result of reading the text being that sex isn't protected, and neither is transsexualism, but instead this gender identity concept.
A similar thing results in other laws/legal changes where transsexuals are just erased from the legislation. It's unclear what impacts that will have in the real world, but it's concerning nonetheless. The most recent efforts to change the icd have completely removed transsexualism, and if it's read literally, I'd lose access to healthcare.
As for my conservative views, I do not think they are intrinsic nor a part of my upbringing. I actually grew up with liberal views on social topics and have slowly become more conservative in my adult years. I used to be ambivalent and lean pro-choice on abortion, whereas as an adult I educated myself on the topic and came to the conclusion that pro-life is the proper way to go.
If we're to do a deep dive into psychology and political philosophy, I don't think my underlying values have changed (I still support freedom, life, etc). But rather my views on the best way to approach that have changed.
I don't agree in the slightest with anything you said. I didn't ask as a means of debate, however, so I will refrain from any sort of counter-argument.
But I think the last part of what you said elucidates a lot. I think underlining that your values stayed the same, but your interpretations of how to best uphold those values being the part that changed gives some insight into the compatibility of your ethos. That's a very helpful for understanding others.
Thank you for answering truthfully and in good faith.
Yup no worries. I don't mean to start a debate. You were just curious about my views so I shared them :).
I'm really hoping the fediverse can be a place where we can discuss, and politely disagree, without being at each other's throats. On other sites like reddit and twitter it feels like everything has to be super hostile or echochamber. I think it'd be nice if we could just chat and get some mutual understanding going on.
There's definitely room for debate communities/magazines but yeah here isn't the place I think.
When it comes to "my health and existence", ironically enough republicans tend to push back against transgender legislation that tramples over transsexual rights and healthcare. See the pushback against the equality act for a good example.
Surely you are joking. All of the bills introduced relating to restricting gender affirming care (HRT, surgeries, in some cases name / marker changes) have been proposed by republicans and vote yes on by republicans.
When they restricted NPs from prescribing HRT in Florida, they didn't make a carve-out for transsexual, however you are defining it. It hit everyone taking cross-sex hormones whose primary provider was an NP.
I really don't understand where this stance is coming from, and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you; I thought you were cool when I've seen you elsewhere and found these comments when I went to look at your profile and see if I found any neat jumping off points (threads, magazines, what have you) and I'd like to have a real conversation around your perspective because I find it baffling. I notice that I am confused, and seek to better align my map to reality.
Yes. neither party is ideal when it comes to the trans issue. democrats trample over transsexuals while pushing transgender stuff, and republicans just oppose it all.
I really don't understand where this stance is coming from, and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you; I thought you were cool when I've seen you elsewhere and found these comments when I went to look at your profile and see if I found any neat jumping off points (threads, magazines, what have you) and I'd like to have a real conversation around your perspective because I find it baffling. I notice that I am confused, and seek to better align my map to reality.
Hopefully my "weird views" don't scare you off :). I have a lot of "odd" beliefs and positions on things, many of which I haven't shared here on the fediverse yet. I do agree with your point that, if republicans had their way, that it'd cause a lot of problems for transsexuals like myself. though in the same breath if the democrats had their way I'd also have problems. neither are really good. What would be good is if one of these people shouting 'trans rights' all the time would for once speak up about legalizing cyproterone acetate, which is a needed anti-androgen that is currently illegal here in the states. yet, despite all the bickering over "trans healthcare" not one person has spoken up on it? It really shows that neither side care about transsexuals lol.
Though all in all, perhaps i should flesh out my bio a bit more lol. I'm far left, I'm conservative, I have alternative beliefs, I'm anti-establishment, I'm a big fan of free speech and free love. I just care about the truth, trying to do what's right and proper, and ultimately perhaps try to uplift people and have some good chats. If that's offputting to people then idk what y'all want. I can only be myself, say what I think, try to be kind, and try to arrive at truthful accurate info and share that with others.
Hopefully that explains a bit of where I'm coming from. I'm registered as democrat, vote in the DNC primary, and usually vote green in the general election. I think republicans have a lot of potential if they weren't so stubborn about their incorrect viewpoints. I think democrats have a lot of potential if they actually heard others out instead of pushing their particular ideology.
idk why everyone is so afraid to simply talk to one another?
Cypro falls into the deep lore, I really really don't want pols trying to stick their filthy little fingerses that deeply into the details of any medical stuff, almost none of them know anything whatsoever about it. What I'd like to see is the FDA as a whole retuned; I think there's definitely a place in our society for an agency that ensures that:
Whatever someone claims about their product has scientific backing
What's in the product is what the label says
There is a way for people to check what the product has been demonstrated to do, contraindications, etc.
Personally I think that people are, you know, adults in many cases, and own themselves, and so should be able to put what they want into their bodies provided it wont do something like make them explode on the subway, covering everyone in bits of them.
You definitely aren't going to scare me; I like being able to talk to people with different viewpoints. Challenging what we believe is how we come closer to having a map that accurately depicts the territory. I will say that I at least am nervous about talking to people because I've been shouted at by people on the internet quite a lot, and so I posted my commentary to you with some trepidation.
I will say that, while I'm sure you've heard it entirely too many times, a vote for the greens that could have gone to the democrats brings us that much closer to republican control, although I suppose it matters less in a state that will go blue. Yay electoral college, although hey at least people are putting any effort into fixing that via the popular vote compact. Since I expect the red team to move further and further into the mountains of madness, and do everything they can to establish themselves as forever-in-power, I really feel like it's an all hands on deck sort of situation with respect to strategic voting. The dems can and have in some places been talked into better voting systems than first past the post, so if we want any hope of breaking the two party stranglehold, the dems are it, like it or lump it. Sucks, but we don't get to choose the universe we occupy.
There actually is one politican who is pushing stuff that would help with the cyrpo thing. And you're not gonna fucking believe who it is: Ted Cruz. he's been pushing to pass legislation that would automatically legalize any prescription drugs that other first world countries (europe, canada, etc) have legalized.
You definitely aren't going to scare me; I like being able to talk to people with different viewpoints. Challenging what we believe is how we come closer to having a map that accurately depicts the territory.
Thanks. I'm yet again reminded that kbinauts are awesome :)
I will say that I at least am nervous about talking to people because I've been shouted at by people on the internet quite a lot, and so I posted my commentary to you with some trepidation.
I understand how it is. I definitely think the internet can get heated at times, especially when there's conflict or debate going on. People get pretty passionate. But kbin (and to some extent lemmy too) I feel are pretty good at keeping things mellow.
I will say that, while I'm sure you've heard it entirely too many times, a vote for the greens that could have gone to the democrats brings us that much closer to republican control, although I suppose it matters less in a state that will go blue.
Yes I've heard this many times, but at this point it's almost a blessing if republicans win instead of democrats. Democrats usually end up running progressive capitalists like biden, who are entirely the polar opposite of my views. whereas republicans tend to run conservative capitalists, who are marginally better in many cases. so the "oh no republicans will win" really doesn't scare me. I fear what damage biden can do, moreso than whatever trump's incompetence ends up resulting in.
Since I expect the red team to move further and further into the mountains of madness, and do everything they can to establish themselves as forever-in-power, I really feel like it's an all hands on deck sort of situation with respect to strategic voting.
Perhaps something that'd get a groan but.... I think it'd do the republican party a lot of good if they started embracing populists like Tucker Carlson, and leaned more into what Kennedy (D) is doing. Maybe closer to Yang.
I'd honestly vote democrat if the democrats didn't run such bad candidates. I'm open to voting for kennedy. I really like marianne williamson. I would've voted for bernie sanders. I really liked andrew yang. instead they run biden. the guy who pushed doma and don't ask don't tell. the guy who literally committed sexual assault. the guy who was vp to the president that dropped the most bombs in history. why can't they nominate someone like sanders or yang?
There actually is one politican who is pushing stuff that would help with the cyrpo thing. And you're not gonna fucking believe who it is: Ted Cruz. he's been pushing to pass legislation that would automatically legalize any prescription drugs that other first world countries (europe, canada, etc) have legalized.
Ted Cruz has managed to be accidentally correct more often than, say, Kevin Mccarthy, but he's so far in the negative that saying something vaguely LGBT+ supportive or having a correct opinion about drugs (and let's not give him too much credit, I don't think you can claim with a straight face that if you asked him about cypro he'd do anything but scratch his head and go, "Huh?".) He's smart and weaselly, not a great combination.
Yes I've heard this many times, but at this point it's almost a blessing if republicans win instead of democrats.
Pls no. If you look at the map of states with pending legislation to make the lives of trans people worse, they're basically all red. I seriously expect them to be talking about a final solution before too many more years have passed. They picked gender variant people for the new two minutes hate, and they're getting angrier and angrier.
Democrats usually end up running progressive capitalists like biden, who are entirely the polar opposite of my views. whereas republicans tend to run conservative capitalists, who are marginally better in many cases.
laughs hysterically in leftist
Biden is a conservative capitalist. Most of his positions aren't too far out of line with Reagan, although he's somewhat better on social issues. The problem is that the red team keeps saying, "Meet me in the middle," the blue team steps right, and then so does the red team. You really think a union-buster like Biden is progressive? Meanwhile the republicans are trying to make it so I can't use a public bathroom and take away my meds.
Perhaps something that'd get a groan but.... I think it'd do the republican party a lot of good if they started embracing populists like Tucker Carlson, and leaned more into what Kennedy (D) is doing.
Oh. Uh.
You believe things that are like, way way gone, from everything I know. Tucker Carlson is a propagandist, he's one of the major sources of the rabies on the red team, he is not a truth-teller. He tries very hard to walk people to a predetermined conclusion without outright saying it, by "Just asking questions" and shading things and... You know he won a lawsuit by claiming that his show was entertainment and no reasonable person would believe it, right?
Kennedy is a big conspiracy guy and antivaxxer, from everything i've heard he's maybe on par with a republican from like eight years ago. Maybe twelve? Different bad to W, but not better.
Maybe closer to Yang.
Yang appears to be a grifter, or perhaps just a spoiler run by corporate interest. When asked about any policy position, he's "not left or right, but forward", and cannot be pinned down to exactly what the fuck that cashes out to no matter how hard the interviewer tries (although in fairness, the art of interviewing has gone to shit over the decades. Very few people holding a microphone on someone seem to be capable of asking the bloody question again when they get a non-answer, distraction, or tangent. "That's all very nice Senator, but what I asked was..." is a phrase that needs to see so much more use).
. the guy who pushed doma and don't ask don't tell.
I agree that those were shit positions. I also know that he was ahead of many others when it came to supporting gay marriage, later. While getting things right later doesn't mean the past didn't happen, it beats the bejeezus out of the people trying to ban no fault divorce now. Being able to change your position is a really good thing.
the guy who literally committed sexual assault.
This is Tara Reid (sp?), who couldn't back up her story, stopped hawking it, and has since moved to Russia? I don't think she's a credible accuser. Meanwhile Trump just lost a civil case to a well-supported sexual assault claim, and it sure looks, right now, like he's the red team candidate, so uh.....
why can't they nominate someone like sanders or yang?
I've said a bunch of words about Yang already. I was pro-Bernie back in the day, who's... way more progressive than the guy you called too progressive? Not sure how you square those positions. Anyhow, he wasn't who people voted for in the primary. Neither time, really. Both times the DNC acted shady against him, don't get me wrong, but it was more in the way of driving the final nail into the coffin of his campaign, not cutting down the tall poppy. America is absurdly tilted right, we're frankly not ready for an economic progressive no matter how much better he'd be.
and let's not give him too much credit, I don't think you can claim with a straight face that if you asked him about cypro he'd do anything but scratch his head and go, "Huh?".
Fair.
Pls no. If you look at the map of states with pending legislation to make the lives of trans people worse, they're basically all red.
And yet it's still superior to what democrats have been doing.
Biden is a conservative capitalist.
no. Biden isn't conservative in the slightest. He's very progressive.
Most of his positions aren't too far out of line with Reagan,
I wasn't alive during Reagan's presidency but I can't imagine Reagan was pushing nonbinary gender identities and self-declared pronouns in his introduction. I can't imagine Reagan pushed legislation to discriminate against white people.
The problem is that the red team keeps saying, "Meet me in the middle," the blue team steps right, and then so does the red team.
Democrats keep stepping right, and republicans keep stepping progressive. This is the polar opposite of what should be happening.
You really think a union-buster like Biden is progressive?
Yes. Progressives love Biden. I hear it pretty much nonstop from them. They were the ones assuring leftists "just vote for biden we can push him left later" and then the second he was elected leftists were tossed aside and ignored, and progressive policies were implemented. Progressives were the ones defending Biden when he cheaped out and didn't give the full $2k stimulus.
You believe things that are like, way way gone, from everything I know.
Lol. I imagine if we speak on economics we'll find a lot more in common. You seem to be very progressive in social policy whereas I am more conservative. But on economics we probably agree.
Tucker Carlson is a propagandist, he's one of the major sources of the rabies on the red team, he is not a truth-teller.
You say that and yet he was literally kicked off of Fox and they're trying to shut down his new show. Establishment republicans don't like the guy.
Kennedy is a big conspiracy guy and antivaxxer, from everything i've heard he's maybe on par with a republican from like eight years ago.
Kennedy is a pretty run of the mill democrat from about 15 years ago lol. Reminds me a lot of obama when obama was running.
Yang appears to be a grifter, or perhaps just a spoiler run by corporate interest. When asked about any policy position, he's "not left or right, but forward",
Yeah, yang has mostly turned to grifting these days which is unfortunate. He's a smart guy, and had some very good policy ideas, and clearly knew what he was talking about. After he lost both the races he was in he basically turned to grifting.
Meanwhile Trump just lost a civil case to a well-supported sexual assault claim, and it sure looks, right now, like he's the red team candidate, so uh.....
Yeah trump is pretty bad. Which is why I'm dreading a biden v trump race. If it's them again I'm gonna die and vote green.
I was pro-Bernie back in the day, who's... way more progressive than the guy you called too progressive?
Bernie is less progressive than biden in my eyes, but is further left. he ends up being a centrist overall imo (as compared to biden being a right-wing progressive).
Anyhow, he wasn't who people voted for in the primary.
Can you define "progressive" and "leftist" here? We are again using words very differently and I don't see how communication is possible when our language doesn't mean the same thing.
You say that and yet he was literally kicked off of Fox and they're trying to shut down his new show. Establishment republicans don't like the guy.
He was kicked off fox because he was one of the primary actors who cost them almost 800 million dollars? In a defamation case, for which "having told the truth" is an excellent defense, and who was getting more and more play until that time? I don't think it was that they don't like the guy, I think it's that he was very expensive to keep, and they don't want the competition.
Lol. I imagine if we speak on economics we'll find a lot more in common. You seem to be very progressive in social policy whereas I am more conservative. But on economics we probably agree.
There is no compelling reason for the existence of billionaires, and we should have a lower bound on how poor we permit people to be, plausibly with a UBI or negative income tax, and use of natural resources and government services like copyright and trademark protections should in fact come with additional costs that go into the UBI funds.
He literally is though?
There were a number of people who literally voted for him. On a state by state basis, that number was reliably lower than the number who voted for biden.
The rest of this we really need to have that conversation about definitions before I can meaningfully engage with.
Progressive: someone who supports, believes in, and pushes for "progressive" social policies and ideas. These include the transgender and lgbtqia movement, the "black lives matter" movement, affirmative action, "safe spaces", and in more extreme cases "abolishing whiteness" and other such ideas. Progressives are very concerned with people's word choices, have a "pronoun culture", and wish to censor those who they disagree with (combatting "hate speech" and "misinformation" as they declare it).
Leftist: someone who supports, believes in, and pushes for leftist/left-wing economic policies and ideas. These include "socialism", "communism", and "anarchism". They are centered on things like wealth redistribution, universal basic income, job guarantees, single payer healthcare, etc. Leftists also tend to push for economic-aligned social policies, such as walkable cities, public transit, etc.
Someone may be both progressive and leftist, just leftist, or just progressive. Typically, progressives are not leftist but often rightwing or centrist in economic policy. While leftists typically aren't progressives, but in some cases may be. Leftists usually adopt "classical liberalism" in social policy.
He was kicked off fox because he was one of the primary actors who cost them almost 800 million dollars?
Tucker has mentioned his conflict with Fox even before the defamation case that resulted in him being fired. Likewise, they're still trying to prevent him from doing his own show. If it was just a matter of expense, why try to shut down his new show?
There is no compelling reason for the existence of billionaires, and we should have a lower bound on how poor we permit people to be, plausibly with a UBI or negative income tax, and use of natural resources and government services like copyright and trademark protections should in fact come with additional costs that go into the UBI funds.
Fantastic. So it's as I suspected, we are both left-wing when it comes to economics. Though judging by your comments here, I might be further left than you are. I support fully abolishing copyright, and radical wealth redistribution.
If you look at the content feed of /c/conservative most of the recent posts seem to be fairly anti-conservative, or at least not very flattering. For example "Almost Twice as Many Republicans Died From COVID Before the Midterms Than Democrats" was just recently posted.
In other words they may be modding both subreddits because they're not actually conservative.
Having people that strongly agree OR disagree with the political beliefs of a communty be the mods of this community is suboptimal at best. If you align the beliefs of the mods with the communities, you get a “positive” feedback loop, making the place more radical as time passes. The opposite will happen if you oppose the beliefs of the mods and the communities. Good mods of political communities will not express their political beliefs. Modding politics is not about liking or disliking opinions and beliefs but more about enforcing agreed upon and sensible rules that don’t have to be related to the political topics at times.
To make the example easier to understand, I will use a radical example.
If you let Neo-Nazis that actively take part in the community be mods of a political community, you will ineviteably see a positive trend towards national socialism. Posts that don’t align with their beliefs at all get removed, this will increase over time and wheir boundaries will also get stronger with time.
It doesn’t even really matter if the community was auth or lib or left or right to begin with.
Add comment