Regardless of our politics, there are some things that are worth fighting for, and adults making the free choice to be their authentic selves is one. This goes out to my gay conservative and liberal brothers and sisters. Plus, its a very funny video :D
Trans people want trans people to be able to be trans. Those conservative factions want nobody to be trans.
Trans people want people who would benefit from gender-affirming care to receive it under the supervision of medical professionals. Those conservative factions want a blanket ban on all gender-affirming care, and seek to prevent it even for the people it would help.
Conservatives like to pretend that these are two equally extreme positions. But they aren't. The trans position is completely middle-of-the-road. The conservative position is extremist.
Yes, she's a quisling, and widely loathed in trans communities. But what's your point in bringing her up?
I’m conservative and I don’t give two shits someone is trans.
Fantastic. But you also are okay with us being harmed by the policies of the conservative politicians who definitely do care about trans people.
If you mom the fight is about children. Otherwise nobody really cares.
Utter. Bullcrap.
There are conservative politicians calling for total bans on gender-affirming care. There are laws proposed to make being visibly trans in public, at any age, a sex crime. Politicians and many regular everyday conservatives alike talk about being trans as displaying a fetish in public.
It's not about sports. It's not about bathrooms. It's not about children. It's about forcing trans people out of visible society.
Good faith people interpret names of groups to not mean "literally every single member of the group thinks this". You can take your pedantry and shove it.
Proposes vs enacted. Two very different things.
A distinction without a difference. Conservative politicians are pushing these laws, and if they get the support and power to do so, will enact them.
Sports Is an issue. Biological men shouldn’t be competing with biological women.
Transgender women on HRT are, biologically speaking, significantly different to cisgender men. I am sorry that you lack the capacity to understand the nuances there.
Go ahead and be that way and see how far you get in life.
Better things are possible. We create our world, there is no reason it has to be as uncaring as it is. And the only way to make a change for the better is to abandon your way of thinking.
The idea that your create your world with unfettered freedom and no restrictions is a false notion.
Good thing I didn't say that then.
But I'm saying you also have to be realistic and face the fact that no one is going to pay you to sit on your bum and play video games all day (in all likelihood).
Who said anything about that?
The world you want to live in is bounded by the stark facts of economic necessities and social pressures.
Except economics is not "facts", it's a way of organising that we have the power to change. Specifically referring to economics, the world is the way that it is because some people want it to be this way, it is not a fact of nature.
Neither party seems to have any interest in reforming the voting system to something more representative. So in that way I guess you could say they are colluding, but more reasonably they simply share a common incentive.
But it really is the system itself that makes third party candidates basically impossible. It incentivises people to vote strategically, not for the party they want but rather against the party they don't want. That system is eventually sure to collapse into a two-party system.
The system doesn't actually require any collaboration to eventually become a two-party race. It's pretty much statistically assured if voters behave rationally, but with limited information.
I mean I get that it's a meme, and exaggerated for comic effect... But yeah that's what the world looks like if one semi-willfully misinterprets other people's views into weird caricatures of what they actually believe. And it's sadly a really common thing to do.
The top European Union court ruled on Tuesday that public authorities in member states can prohibit employees from wearing signs of religious belief, such as an Islamic head scarf, in the latest decision on an issue that has divided Europe for years....
If there isn't a specific reason that something cannot be worn, such as a safety concern or an obstruction to others, then it should be allowed by default. A headscarf doesn't affect anyone. Same way a kippah doesn't affect anyone.
That is completely non-comparable to denying someone service on the basis of religion. And the idea that the only two options are allow religious people to discriminate on the basis of their religion, or ban all clothing that indicates religion, is a false dichotomy.
Now there is a rule that employees aren't allowed to wear head coverings at work (for whatever reason)
And maybe that rule is the stupid one.
So if one religion is allowed to claim special status for their head covering (Head scarf), can an orthodox jew wear their hat? Can someone believing in druidism wear antlers to work?
Except it isn't necessarily claiming a special status.
The argument can simply be that the headwear ban should be removed, unless there is good reason for it. So yes, anyone can wear any headwear, so long as it doesn't interfere with the task at hand or other people. The antlers would probably fall afoul of those requirements.
And what is with people who happen to have no religion they believe in. Why are they granted less rights by the state than the religious people?
They wouldn't be. The removal of a ban doesn't somehow mean that atheists have fewer rights. They'd be allowed to wear their desired headwear too.
So: Which other possibilities does a state have to resolve this besides
Still a false dichotomy here.
To be clear here: the second option is not "ban religious symbols alltogether", it's "we have our rules, there is no way for you to get an exception with the reason 'religion'"
The option is not to allow "religion" to be used as an exception, but rather set rules that are permissive to everyone, including religious people, within the limits of the task at hand and inconvenience to other people.
A headwear ban is pretty clearly discriminatory towards Muslim people, and probably also to certain Jewish people though I'm not 100% sure of that. The goal should not be to give them exceptions, but rather rethink the headwear rule.
If the rule by itself is dumb or not is another matter.
No. It's not another matter. It's the entire matter. That's my point.
I know what I described is your second option. But I'm deliberately putting the focus on the original rule, because that is where the problem lies.
The rule disproportionately affects people who wear headwear. The rule basically makes that job inaccessible to those whose religion requires headwear. The rule is discriminatory in its effect, even if not in its wording or intention. So the appropriate action is to rethink the rule. If there is no strong reason why the rule exists, and it has these discriminatory effects, then the rule should change.
So they didn't rule if the "no hats" rule should go, they were asked if such a rule - if it exists - is applicable to religious hats or if the right to religious freedom protects such symbols. So they rule on half-theoretical questions that are often narrower than the case itself.
And I find that very structure harmful. Because by formulating the question asked of the court in a specific way, then limiting the answers it can give to only that question, you can force these kinds of discriminatory judgements while pretending that that wasn't the point.
The court should be able to say, as part of the ruling, that while exemptions should not be given on religious grounds, justification for rules that are considered to infringe on religious freedoms may be asked for.
We can easily give a reason why discrimination should not be allowed while serving the public, and similarly why antlers cannot be worn in a workshop.
The "no hats" rule in this case wasn't a "no hats" rule, but a "no religious symbols are allowed to be worn by anybody" rule. The court saw such a rule as justified because it did not discriminate against specific religions or symbols.
Which is ridiculous because a hypothetical religion could use pants as a symbol of their faith and suddenly pants are banned.
Yeah honestly living there for a while, I came around a bit on doing things by paper.
It's slower, certainly. But the Japanese are scary efficient at it, and there is a lot of infrastructure to support it.
And in the case where things go wrong or are confusing, at least you can take the forms and actually go and talk to someone, rather than staring at a computer screen that offers nothing.
Just to be clear, you're not representing the queer community, regardless of what you might think.
And you definitely don't represent us, regardless of what you might think you self-righteous prick.
I'll gladly continue to advocate for and defend the LGBTQ community
Do you think queer Palestinians don't exist? Do you think they appreciate you "defending" them by justifying why they can be killed because they live under a terrorist regime?
Ironically, I seem to be aligning more with the majority view among the LGBTQ community than you are.
Weird. I haven't seen that at all. In fact I've seen mostly the opposite, with basically every queer person I know and every queer community I'm a part of giving statements of support for the civilians, of both Israel and Palestine, and vehemently rejecting the conflation of civilians and the warmongering governing bodies intent on continuing the slaughter.
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot. You know better than me about my own experiences and community. I'm just a silly little queer.
They do exist, and they are systematically tortured and executed by their fellow citizens and government. I'm not too sure what your logic is here.
So you still conflate them with Hamas and justify why they can be killed.
Jews existed in Nazi Germany, which by your logic means we could not condemn German civilians for supporting the Holocaust. Smart move there guy.
Buddy. Put your helmet on before going outside next time. That line of logic does not follow at all.
I gathered that based on how you continue downvoting my comments in this insanely deep comment thread. I must've really gotten under your skin, lol. In any event, don't care and I'll still go overseas to defend your rights.
Yeah. Because I cannot adequately express the hatred and loathing I feel towards cishet people who do not give a damn about queer people, but think they get to trot us out to performatively "support" us in ways that you paternalistically have decided are best for us without our input.
Just because you think it is support, doesn't actually mean it is support.
I'm actually pretty convinced that you can't read. Because while I've been quite hostile to you, you don't actually seem to be able to follow the basic logic of my comments.
Nope, I conflate them with Hamas because they explicitly support Hamas
This comment was in respect to queer Palestinians. Who you said were being tortured by Hamas before, but now you are saying that they support Hamas.
Please follow a consistent line of logic if you are capable of doing so.
Not sure where I said civilians should be killed
It's the bit where you state that they are complicit with Hamas, the terrorist organisation that you ostensibly want eradicated.
Let's go back to some of your comments. You've said that since a significant portion of Gaza couldn't vote in the prior election, we cannot condemn them for the actions of Hamas.
Except no, I didn't say that. I brought up the fact that they couldn't vote ONLY BECAUSE you brought up the election as evidence of their support of Hamas.
you went into an ad hominem tirade that you have yet to pull yourself out of.
You don't even know what an ad hominem is. I'm insulting you, not committing a logical fallacy where I dismiss your argument because it was you who made it.
Seems a lot like that was exactly your line of logic
You would not know my line of logic if it bit you. You have been entirely incapable of following a logical line, and have repeatedly claimed I said things that I haven't.
The majority of the LGBTQ community does not foster the same sheep-supporting-wolves views as you.
Don't you dare try and claim that. You don't know. You want to claim that an actual queer person doesn't know what the zeitgeist of their own community, then don't you dare claim to know it either.
"you're a 'chiset' so your opinion is invalid."
That's not at all what I said. And you even had the gall to stick it in quotation marks while you completely misrepresent what I said.
Glad we're back to the whole "Nazi Germany had Jews so we cannot condemn the German population" line of thinking.
Except once again, I said nothing of the sort, and think your "logic" is ridiculous.
But good job completely ignoring what I said. I'm noticing a pattern.
I'm sorry that you think being complicit with a regime means you should die. You're a lot more violent than I initially thought.
... That's not at all what I said either.
And -- because they couldn't vote, I was incorrect to condemn them for supporting Hamas.
No no no. No "and". You do not get to just fill in whatever you want for me argument.
Geez, do you really have that much trouble following your own logic?
Because that's not my line of logic, sweetheart, it's yours that you are desperately trying to pretend that I said.
I've repeatedly quoted you
You'd also repeatedly made up stuff that I didn't say and stuck it in quotation marks.
and you've repeatedly offered no response other than ad hominem attacks.
And once again you don't actually know what an ad hominem is.
Judging by this comment chain, yes. I genuinely believe that you lack an understanding of the majority of the LGBTQ community. You seem to be an incredibly radicalized and deranged individual, and I'd be hard pressed to ever say that someone of your character is capable of representing the larger movement.
You've insulted me repeatedly this entire time. Your first response to me was that any queer person who disagrees with you on this issue is stupid and in need of "protection" from "sane Westerners".
So you can get down off of your high horse.
Ah, burning humans. You and Hamas seem to share quite a bit in common.
I love you all, and this goes out to both sides, Democrats were just as anti gay marriage back in the day. Can we all come together and say, there's nothing wrong with being gay? (www.youtube.com)
Regardless of our politics, there are some things that are worth fighting for, and adults making the free choice to be their authentic selves is one. This goes out to my gay conservative and liberal brothers and sisters. Plus, its a very funny video :D
YouTube just made it harder to avoid ads with a tiny skip button (www.androidpolice.com)
Cause it isn't (lemmy.ml)
George Takei's Based Voting Take [Rule} (files.catbox.moe)
Image Transcription:...
Anon searches for normal politics (sh.itjust.works)
EU court says public employees may be barred from wearing head scarf (www.reuters.com)
The top European Union court ruled on Tuesday that public authorities in member states can prohibit employees from wearing signs of religious belief, such as an Islamic head scarf, in the latest decision on an issue that has divided Europe for years....
Japan is living in the future that the 1990s dreamed of. (startrek.website)
Israeli forces carry out deadly raids in the West Bank amid Gaza truce (www.aljazeera.com)