Markass
Not the worst
User ID: 3843
Markass
Not the worst
9hr ago
He was verging on the border of giving free legal counsel to the plaintiffs and didn't even thank the jury when they reached a verdict that he clearly was not expecting or wanting.
Markass
Not the worst
1d ago
isn't it safe to assume that the guy who made "because I got high" was probably in posession of narcotics?
To assume that he smokes weed? Of course, though it's legal in Ohio. To assume that he smuggled drugs? That requires more evidence. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much of an investigation into why the Adams County Sheriff's Office so erroneously believed that he smuggled drugs or kidnapped people. The warrant even said he has a basement dungeon (the house doesn't have a basement at all).
Markass
Not the worst
1d ago
Not that it makes it any better, but it seems like his house was raided during daylight hours. And other countries still do house raids.
I think the problem here was a judge rubber-stamping the warrant and not scrutinizing the evidence closely. (Some news sources have said it was an informant. Who was this informant, exactly, and how did they find out that Afroman allegedly trafficked narcotics and kidnapping victims?) However, to my knowledge, other countries don't have rules for investigating when the justice system harms the people in a case like this, and e.g. cleaning house on judges who rubber-stamp warrants.
Markass
Not the worst
1d ago
The intersection between a fruitless and perhaps poorly considered search and alleged lesbianism and tendency towards cunnulingus is not apparent to me.
Afroman is not seriously alleging that "Licc'em Low Lisa" does, in fact, licc 'em low. He is making a joke. This is the same guy who sings comedic songs about smoking weed.
Markass
Not the worst
1d ago
The best way to win as a black man against white cops:
Don't make it about race.
Also, being in the legal and moral right certainly helps.
This is the story of Afroman, a rapper most known for the hit single "Because I Got High". Then his house was raided by the sheriff's office of Adams County, Ohio, based off of... almost nothing, as far as I can tell.
They damaged his door, gate, and security cameras. They were looking for narcotics smuggling and kidnapping victims, but instead found a few blunts and unused pipes, and filed no charges. The repairs cost $20k, not a single cent of which was paid by the officers, who also kept $400 of his cash.
So Afroman did what anyone would do if the cops came and unjustifiably kicked down his door and paid nothing for it: He made songs making fun of the raid, complete with his own security camera footage of the cops. This led to the production of such classics like "Will You Help Me Repair My Door", "Why You Disconnecting My Video Camera", and "Lemon Pound Cake" (about the officer who was eyeing a rather delectable slice of lemon pound cake sitting on his countertop). And in a sane world, this would have been the end of it, and the raid and associated songs would have faded into obscurity.
So of course, the Adams County Sheriff's Department decided to do the dumbest thing possible: Sue Afroman.
Somehow, the case went to trial, with the deputies unironically arguing -- with a straight face -- that Afroman's videos seriously defamed their character and reputation, enough to cause $4 million in damages. This led to a hilarious examination where a female officer cries on the stand as "Licc'em Low Lisa" plays. Afroman played his defense straight, pointing out that the entire situation was caused by the cops fucking up and raiding his house for basically no reason, and that he has a First Amendment right to criticize and make fun of the police. Also, he was wearing a badass suit covered entirely in the American flag.
A couple culture war takeaways here. First, I think the biggest factor in his success was not playing the race card at all, even though he easily could have. Instead, he stood behind the freedoms that every American has, and demonstrated that this could have happened to anyone, black or white. Every American has the right to not have their privacy invaded or property damaged, and when that right is violated, they have the right to speak freely and mock those who violated their rights. The race card would have only served as a distraction at best and polarized the jury at worst.
Second, this verdict could have only happened in America, where there is a strong legal tradition of freedom of speech. If it had taken place in a European country like Germany, where calling the government "parasites" gets your house raided, he would have lost. Having a jury trial was also very important in this case, because the judge was almost blatantly biased in favor of the plaintiffs. If this case had taken place in a country like the United Kingdom, which is seriously considering scrapping most jury trials, he also would have lost. Turns out, jury trials are there to protect the people from corrupt judges.
The point is that though Americans may be stereotyped as being irrationally fearful of a tyrannical government, this fear is entirely justified, and this case is a good example of it. Or at least a good example of how small town cops abuse their power, which seems to happen an awful lot in small towns across America.
Markass
Not the worst
1d ago
There are too many lolcows in the world to have a thread for every one of them on the Kiwi Farms, and the standards for a thread have dramatically risen since the heyday of Christian Weston Chandler back in 2013. Most threads nowadays are only successful if there's plenty of content to laugh at, along with sufficient interest from other users posting in the thread. When a thread clearly falls below standards, users often deride it as NYPA (Not Your Personal Army) and mock the OP instead, oftentimes because OP brings a misconception that they can sic harassment on a lolcow by creating a thread on them.
Markass
Not the worst
1d ago
Perhaps because it's an explicitly 18+ site (while NSFW content is allowed, all of it must be spoilered). I always browse with a VPN so I never have any issues with my WiFi network blocking the site.
Markass
Not the worst
2d ago
To me, it's suspicious that all this stuff about Chavez is coming out now. I suspect that his actual sin was being heavily against illegal immigration (since they depressed wages), and the cancelers are only being opportunistic in exposing him for rape.
Markass
Not the worst
3d ago
It looks like there actually is a rule mandating two pilots in the cockpit at all times, at least in US and Europe. Unfortunately, airlines are lobbying to overturn this rule, arguing that automation is safe enough.
Markass
Not the worst
3d ago
That is a fair point, but I feel like the existing claims of uncommanded discharge are well-documented and backed up by evidence (a dishonorable mention of a case that DIDN'T goes to the debacle at Warren Air Force Base last year). Short of straight up making shit up, I don't see how anti-gun activists could abuse the mechanism if we continued to uphold those standards of proof.
Markass
Not the worst
4d ago
the locked door kept the passengers out until it was too late.
It feels like the locked door has caused unintended consequences that policymakers didn't think of. Is there any way to keep the locked door and prevent suicidal pilots, or is that just another policy we have to accept because politicians didn't think it could backfire in probably the most predictable way possible?
Markass
Not the worst
4d ago
If only we had a system that held firearms manufacturers accountable for manufacturing defects, but we don't. To my knowledge Sig has faced very few significant consequences.
Markass
Not the worst
17d ago
Firstly, I have to point out an important disanalogy in that making a wig look natural is much easier than making a man look like a woman.
Imagine this in a world where politicians in some places even made laws saying that wig wearers had to disclose their wigs or else it was rape
Secondly, I have to stop and ask if this actually happened. With a quick search, I could not find any laws mandating that trans people must disclose their transness to avoid rape charges.
But continuing on, you seem to have tortured the analogy and stretched it beyond its limits to fit trans people. These arguments would be silly about wigs, if we were talking about wigs in our world, but then you introduced to this hypothetical world a social stigma against wearing wigs. And if there was a social stigma against wearing wigs, in the same way that trans people (claim to) face social stigma, I would expect the same social dynamics to apply. People would want wig-wearers to feel protected, so they would enact social norms where wig-snatching is prohibited, even when it's really obvious that someone is wearing a wig. So that is why...
One where some people with wigs who are actually obvious report being stared at or insulted in public, while others with wigs that look like more like natural hair report being treated like natural hair.
...assuming these reports are accurate, they are perfectly explainable by the above social norm. If obvious wig-wearers are stared at or insulted in public, that's because they're in a space where that norm is lacking. If they get treated like they have natural hair, that's just the norm being upheld.
my only defense is actually everyone is just super polite and nice about this specific thing despite society being made up of tons of assholes who do stare at some trans folk/visibly disabled folk/etc other rare oddities. Wig wearing is the one thing and this one thing only where no one is a jerk (except for the times they are).
People are not a monolith. Different social norms apply in different places. Just because a trans person would be immediately outed if they walked into an evil alt-right Nazi bar doesn't mean that they would be outed if the same exact trans person walked into a gay bar in San Francisco.
Markass
Not the worst
18d ago
Then what use does it have? Outing would have absolutely no value if it doesn't change anything.
So there's two perspectives here: One from the trans person themself, who thinks they pass. One from everyone else, who sees that they don't pass. If someone "outs" them, it doesn't change anything to other people, but the trans person now knows that they don't pass -- i.e. the trans person now knows that everyone else knows that they are trans -- and if they didn't want to be outed then they might fear being attacked by transphobes. So because people recognize this, and because people don't want to cause trans people to fear for their lives, there is a social norm that we don't talk about someone's transness and potentially "out" them unless we know for sure they are comfortable with it. That's where "outing" comes from, and being able to "out" a trans person doesn't mean that they pass. That's what I mean when I say that trans people (especially trans-identified males) stick out like a sore thumb, but people are too polite to talk about it. If I'm being uncharitable, "outing" has value to people who want to bully others and make them fear for their lives, and this can still happen even when a trans person doesn't pass.
Engaging in sexual acts with a trans person could only be done with explicit consent, and any argument that they were "tricked" would be laughed out.
Has any "I was tricked" argument actually ever been used in a successful case? The closest I'm aware of is the so-called "trans panic defense", but every single murderer who has used it has still been prosecuted and sentenced for murder.
I'm having a tough time imagining a successful argument that someone was "tricked" based on this. Let's say you're both adults, you're both around the same age, there are no weird power dynamics going on, you're both mentally and physically abled, etc. and you're both sober and not under the influence of any substances. You're only attracted to natal women and you don't want to fuck men or anyone with a penis. You see what you think is a woman and she wants it too so you take her home. Your room is well lit. You both get naked and then see that actually, "she" is a man with a penis.
At that point, what reasonable person wouldn't just say "no" and stop the sexual contact entirely? If you still continue with sexual contact at that point, I'd argue that it's entirely your fault. If you come back later and bring suit or a police report alleging rape based on being tricked, I'd expect you to be laughed out of the room every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Why does it matter what you personally use? You aren't making a claim that you alone have this power, you're saying that it's obvious to "everyone". If there's a whole bunch of people who can't do it accurately, then that is enough to debunk.
I consider myself a representative sample of reasonable everyday average people. Just because there are some lizardman's constant amount of people who are so stupid/motivated to ignore contradictory evidence doesn't mean that it's not obvious to everyone. Am I not allowed to even say "It's obvious to everyone the sky is blue" when there exists a mentally ill man high on fentanyl who thinks the sky is purple? Should I qualify it with "it's obvious to most people"?
Do you disagree with the toupee fallacy being a fallacy then? Or are you just saying "nuh uh" because you have no response to it?
Well duh, since when do people change their mind on the internet? They'd rather just go "nuh uh" even to known and documented logical fallacies.
I think the toupee fallacy is a fallacy. I don't think that you citing the fallacy means you have a slam-dunk argument. I think that you citing the fallacy is just you making an argument that supports your position. I still disagree with your argument and I have provided counter-arguments to your counter-arguments. I am not just going "nuh uh" and refusing to elaborate, I am providing specific details and arguments that match the shape of your arguments.
Interestingly enough, in this comment, you haven't addressed my responses to the toupee fallacy in specific detail beyond reiterating that it's a documented logical fallacy, which I didn't ever disagree with.
Interesting.
How so?
Markass
Not the worst
20d ago
That would be how one would back up the assertion
I don't think it's productive to go through each case unless you also do your own research to find non-trans-related reasons for the murders. The burden of proof is on the ones who assert that trans people are being targeted for murder, not on others to disprove those claims. If there's a specific case that you think is particularly merited, sure, we can discuss it. But I'm not going to sit here and repeat almost the same thing every time. I'm comfortable saying that most of those deaths were unrelated to being trans and only gain media attention just because the victim happens to be trans.
No, they try to shame and bully him into not playing with dolls.
Ok. Surely that's less damaging than declaring him a girl.
Yes.
News to me. I would like some evidence or sources for this phenomenon.
People aren't born with the desire to victimise gay people, just as they aren't born with the desire to victimise any of the other categories of people their families teach them to hate.
I agree that people aren't born with hateful desires, but this doesn't make sense to me. I don't think families teach their kids to hate gay people. I think it's more complicated than that. People form their opinions usually through observation and interaction with the specific groups, and learned information from sources like the Internet. Sometimes they will have negative opinions, and that's not because they just irrationally hate them, but because they've taken everything they've looked at and come to their own conclusion. In particular, I think a lot of opinions about gay people can be traced back to the actions of gay people.
Extending it to "A person hypothetically causing negative externalities does not give you unlimited licence to persecute them, even if not doing so means that the externalities will continue."
I agree with this in the abstract but I suspect that you and I might operationalize this differently. So let me ask, what policy do you think is giving unlimited license to persecute someone for a hypothetical negative externality?
The hypothetical at which I was aiming was one in which you, with your current mind, had been born with female parts. Would you, in that case, feel that the 'F' marker was viscerally wrong?
No. I don't know on what basis I could say the marker was wrong.
But 'what do you have in your pants' isn't very useful outside a very narrow set of circumstances; 'what did you have between your legs when you were born' isn't useful even then!
A gender marker is extremely useful. You're talking about, at a glance, being able to distinguish between 50% of the population. Gender is often the first thing that people notice about others. Cops will call out "suspect is a male" (among other attributes) and so when they are searching, they effectively have 50% of their search space reduced just by ignoring females. Names have to be asked for, weight and height are estimable but fallible at a distance. Race is also helpful, but given that there are more than two races in the world, the reduction in search space is less than 50%.
Markass
Not the worst
20d ago
Kiwi Farms has its own implementation called Tartarus and it works quite well.
Why exactly would outing by another person suddenly make it go from not OK to fine for discussion?
Um, it wouldn't?
If it's obvious in the way you say then it's already common knowledge to everyone. They would know, and they would also know everyone is aware because it's obvious.
No, not everyone knows that everyone is aware. The trans person himself does not know that everyone is aware. In particular he doesn't know that everyone else won't take issue with him being trans. So he doesn't want the subject brought up. Polite people know this and so uphold a social norm of not outing a trans person unless it's been made clear that he is ok with it. If he knew that everyone was aware, and observed that everyone is friendly and respectful to him, there would be little reason not to discuss the subject. One of the very useful things about common knowledge is the ability to freely discuss matters like this without potentially crossing someone's boundaries.
How often is "enter into a dark room already drunk and banging a stranger" a thing that happens?
I figure that if one is deviating from sexual norms like that, they might be deviant in a way that makes them more likely to encounter transgender people. Regardless, people discuss disclosure because of the potential legal liability, not necessarily because it's so likely and frequent that a trans person passes to the point they have to think about disclosure. It's the same legal mindset that promotes always labeling "this package may contain walnuts" even if it's very unlikely to happen, simply because it reduces the 0.001% chance it does happen and results in a lawsuit for failure to disclose.
And even this caveat doesn't explain situations like this where someone only finds out from social media that the girl he was crushing on is trans
Bad example. The comments aren't even sure if the girl OP is referring to is even trans.
or this where some guy is dating and didn't know
Hard to find an explanation for a random Reddit post when not much detail about the situation is given. Any arguments made would inevitably be smuggling in assumptions. Should I assume OP is an adult? How much dating experience has he had, especially with real women? When I was young (around 13) and didn't know much about the world, I incorrectly identified a girl as a boy, but now having seen more women I don't think I could make that mistake again.
Yes, if the signs aren't reliable and wrongly identify women as trans when they aren't, they aren't flawless signs.
Those signs aren't being used whenever I correctly identify someone's gender.
If you're the average person, you've never met a transitioned trans person to begin with in your daily life, yet alone one who is close enough to tell you.
I admit I'm not the average person. I wouldn't be saying trans people don't pass if I've never actually seen a trans person in real life. But I have, many times, likely due to life circumstances I won't divulge here. I've met them and talked with them and know a lot about them. They are easy to clock.
If your whole argument depends on a known logical fallacy and the "I don't know a licensed submarine operator" fallacy I made there combined, it's not very strong.
My argument does not depend on any logical fallacies.
Meanwhile I have presented lots of positive evidence that passing can occur.
I still disagree.
Better way to think of this, depoliticize it in your mind and instead think of it as just the toupee fallacy. Would your arguments and logic work for "toupees never look natural to anyone, every toupee I've ever seen is awful"? If not, then make a better argument.
I suspect that if I counted the number of noticeable toupees I've seen and divided it by the number of people in my daily life, it would not be proportional to the percentage of the population that wear toupees. Though it's probably hard to empirically test this when I've noticed zero toupees. Either way, I wouldn't argue that toupees look awful.
Markass
Not the worst
21d ago
That is the question at hand! The Red Tribe says it is; the Blue Tribe says it isn't.
Why doesn't the Blue Tribe contest this for height, date of birth, or race?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender#2020s
Should I go through the list and address every one of them? None of these people were killed solely for being trans. I'll do just one to start.
2022 – Ariyanna Mitchell, a 17-year-old African American transgender girl from Virginia, was shot and killed by 19-year-old Jimmy LeShawn Williams with an assault rifle, after he asked her if she was transgender, and she replied, "yes".
Talk about being economical with the truth! In reality, Ariyanna and his friend (another trans-identifying boy) got in a fight with Jimmy's girlfriend, who then suggested he shoot the party up. He showed up with an assault rifle and asked who was fighting, to which Ariyanna admitted to. He then asked "Are you a boy or a girl?" and Ariyanna said he was a boy, and that's when he fired.
So a guy killed another guy for beating on his girlfriend. Now, could he have had some hateful bigotry in his heart that led him to use the beating as a pretext? It's not impossible, but I doubt it when there's no evidence of such. It makes far more sense to kill someone for a perceived slight to honor (e.g. because you beat my girlfriend) than because you're just a transgender who exists. Taking this death and extrapolating it to be a part of some trend of anti-trans murders is, frankly, irresponsible when it's just as likely a normal person would have died in these circumstances as a trans person would.
It makes far more sense to go with the angle of black-on-black crime, or male/youth violence, or even "this is why we need gun control". But going with an anti-trans angle is confusing at best and malicious framing at worst.
The rest of the list proceeds similarly. Don't even get me started on Brianna Ghey.
That 'what you were born as' is anyone else's business.
That's not really a gender standard so much as a privacy standard. If people aren't allowed to find out what gender someone was born as, do women's spaces and women's locker rooms and women's bathrooms just not exist anymore, when enforcing them requires that knowledge?
Many people are still attempting to maintain them.
Who? I'm sure some conservatives still expect boys to play with trucks and girls with dolls, but I would be hard-pressed to find conservative parents who maintain gender standards so much that, should their son play with dolls, they declare him a girl. Meanwhile, a blue triber is more likely to do exactly that.
There's a difference between 'groom children into living an alternative sexual lifestyle' and 'make it harder for parents to groom children into being homophobic bigots'.
Is there some sort of epidemic of parents grooming their children into being homophobic bigots that I'm unaware of?
The standard where someone existing as gay or trans gets equated to 'grooming'.
To my knowledge, this largely doesn't happen. Kiwi Farms, a site that documents trans and gay grooming, doesn't accuse just anyone trans/gay of grooming merely for being trans/gay. They do it with specific, documented evidence of specific grooming actions.
Making society less friendly to people who don't fulfill 100.00% of a certain narrow concept of 'normality'.
I'm having a hard time finding a policy, blue or red, that wouldn't be indicted by this standard. 100.00% or even 99.99% is an extremely high bar to clear. Every policy that could actually exist in the real world must disadvantage someone somehow, even slightly. The nature of policies is that we have to choose the best tradeoffs.
Yes! We are in agreement on this! I am merely extending that maxim to make a general rule!
I'm confused on what you mean by extending the maxim, since I thought that it was already a general rule that bad argument gets counterargument, does not get bullet.
I'm asking how you would feel if you had been assigned female at birth, and they put an 'F' marker on your documents, as that is closer to what a trans-woman goes through when her documents carry an 'M' marker.
But I wasn't assigned female at birth.
Ok, I know, "I did have breakfast". But I think this is an absurd hypothetical and to my knowledge a male has never been assigned female at birth, barring rare cases of malpractice or intersex babies. If I was somehow assigned female at birth despite clearly being male, I would suspect that the nurse who did it had a screw loose in her brain. It could even get as bad as filing a malpractice lawsuit due to potential knock-on effects from having the wrong marker.
I don't think this is related to the trans experience unless trans people think there is a conspiracy out to get them and deny them their real gender.
Hence the photograph.
A photograph is not a foolproof method of identification alone and should not be used alone. People's appearances change and they can quickly be outdated, or they can look like someone else. Hence we use other markers, which should be kept accurate if they are to be useful.
Markass
Not the worst
21d ago
So forcing the German Jews to adopt the name Israel or Sara on legal documents was not a violation of their rights?
It was. The state was compelling others to refer to them with a specific designation and suppressing all other ones.
If some racist jerk wants to call everyone he considers Black 'Nigger $lastname' instead of 'Mr. $lastname', or if a state mandates this, that is all just fine?
A state shouldn't compel anyone's speech, so no to the latter. To the former, it's not practical to stop someone from saying nigger and a state should not even try. I advise people against saying nigger in polite company due to the obvious social consequences, but people do have the right to say it.
Making driving a car an inalienable right would have large negative externalities.
It wouldn't be as inalienable as you think. It would just be like guns, which supposedly are a right but in practice function more like a privilege than driving is. I can imagine a world where you don't need a license but you still need to be old enough, follow safety laws, etc. and can be prohibited from operating a vehicle if necessary, just like how states have regulations on riding a bicycle but don't mandate licensing, registration, or insurance.
I can spend weeks without thinking about the existence of dickgirls at all, something which MAGA seems completely unable to achieve.
Should MAGA avoid reading sources like AP News, which routinely promotes the plights of trans people, so they don't have to think about them? I'm confused by this tendency to argue that trans people don't matter to your life and why are you even thinking about them in the first place, you're just obsessed -- and then in the next breath crow on about how trans people are oppressed and their suffering is so important that they are to be prioritized above the price of eggs. You can't have it both ways. If it's worth your time to make trans people the centerpiece of discussion, then it's worth my time to give my opinion on them.
Most people are not trans, nor do they frequently suffer from their tinder dates having unexpected genitals or losing to bearded people in athletic competitions.
A lot of people have children and are concerned (rightly or wrongly) about trans people grooming their kids. MAGA has issues but I don't think being anti-trans is one of them.
If you were correct about them never passing, there would be no need to "make it common knowledge that they are trans"
I disagree. I can think of a scenario where a trans person doesn't pass but people don't know that it's okay to talk about their transness, so they don't. Just because people don't bring up the subject doesn't mean that they pass. It's entirely possible for the trans person to think they pass when they don't, if they interpret silence as evidence of passing. If it's not common knowledge that someone is trans, someone can still commit a social faux pas by bringing up someone's transness in conversation unwanted, even if they don't pass. Common knowledge is when everyone knows that everyone knows; everyone may know that someone doesn't pass, but it does not necessarily follow that everyone knows that everyone knows that someone doesn't pass.
The argument about if a person should disclose if they're trans. Completely unnecessary if we assume that they never pass and everyone is aware. You could never possibly have sex with a trans woman without giving explicit consent towards that under your theory.
I concede that if one is particularly unintelligent, or otherwise their judgment is impaired by lust, alcohol, drugs, dark lighting, etc. in a one-on-one situation with another trans person, then a trans person might be able to pass to them. That's a far cry from the definition of passing I would imagine most trans people want.
I can't imagine how you wouldn't be able to tell you're about to have sex with a penised man once he is naked (unless your judgment is impaired by the aforementioned).
Why would that have happened
Some trans-identifying men do carry tampons. I've heard it helps them feel more like a woman. It's entirely possible for the stranger to recognize him as a trans person and still ask him for tampons under that belief.
It does mean that it must be way harder to tell than you might think.
Just because some people are so stupid they ignore evidence in favor of a woman being a woman? No, it doesn't. Those people are also biased and motivated (for whatever reason) to go looking for trans people even if they aren't there. Their demand for trans people is higher than the supply. Again, reversed stupidity is not intelligence. In my daily life, I've never identified a person as a woman only to later find out he's a trans-identifying man, or a person as a (trans-identifying) man only to later find out she's a woman.
This isn't "my position", it's a known logical fallacy.
I know it's a logical fallacy. You can use logical fallacies to argue for a position, but it's still a position that you are holding and arguing for. It being a logical fallacy does not inherently lend more credence to your position.
It doesn't work to say "ah but disproving this fallacy could be happening is too difficult for me so I wish to ignore it".
I'm not saying to just ignore it. I'm saying that your position seems to be unfalsifiable if you are going to invoke that fallacy for every set of possible observations. I've already offered one way of falsification, do you disagree with it or have another way?
I've provided multiple affirmative arguments for trans people being able to pass
And I disagree with all of them.
Markass
Not the worst
21d ago
Kiiiind of begging the question here....
Is it not correct to use that marker? My license says I'm 4'11". If I wanted it changed to 5'11", not because I am 5'11", but because I want to be, would that not be incorrect?
Only in the sense that would define most victims of anti-Black violence in the Jim Crow era as not 'simply on the basis of being Black and nothing else'.
No, obviously the blacks lynched in the Jim Crow era were killed for being black. I believe that because their killers made it clear they were acting with anti-black motives. Meanwhile, the deaths of trans people I've seen are usually no different from, say, a sex worker getting killed by an angry customer or pimp.
Anti-trans violence follows a similar pattern: some victims are targeted on the basis of 'being trans while thinking of oneself as an equally valid human being rather than a horrifying, disgusting freak'; some are targeted on the basis of 'not performing one's assigned gender to the satisfaction of the Community'.
If you're going to compare anti-trans violence to Jim Crow, please give me a specific case where something like this has happened.
Speech isn't violence per se, but some speech can carry the implication of impending violence, or can serve the function of coördinating violence; the targets of said speech can't always tell the difference.
A lot of people talk a big game but are unwilling or unable to put their money where their mouth is. For how much anti-trans sentiment there is in the First World, there are remarkably few instances of actual violence enacted based on it.
No, their first preference would be terrifying them into living by the standards of their assigned gender (which are younger than the New York Times crossword puzzle) no matter how miserable it makes them.
What standards? That you have to be honest about what you were born as? I thought we did away with gender standards entirely. A man can be emotional and wear a dress if he wants, but he's still a man. In olden times he would have been mocked and derided as a woman.
No, just individual bad apples and a barrelful of bystanders who would never personally do anything so vulgar as beat up a todger-bearer-at-birth for being insufficiently masculine, but who don't see it as being as bad as a 'normal' person suffering the same fate.
Has this ever actually happened?
...and just happen to have much stricter standards for 'externalities inflicted by trans people or other non-conformers' than they have for 'people they consider Normal'.
I don't think they do. For example, normal people are not allowed to groom children into living an alternative sexual lifestyle, so trans people should not be allowed to do that either. Which standards do you think are stricter than the ones normal people are held to?
We expect the people-of-hair-colour, if the only alternative is the murder of people for their political opinions, to absorb the externalities caused by conservative pundits;
First, what externalities do conservative pundits even cause? An externality is an effect that you don't suffer but others do. Most conservative pundits have to live under the effects of their own policies and often are happy to do so. For example, Charlie Kirk made the (often mocked) nuanced argument that a tyrannical government is so terrible that the Second Amendment is worth keeping around even if it leads to a few (statistically rare) mass shootings, or in other words, the optimal number of mass shootings is not zero. In contrast, gun control advocates often don't have to suffer the negative effects of their policies when they are wealthy enough to live in a nice neighborhood and/or afford private protection. In other words, they hold luxury beliefs.
Second, the alternative to murder is speech. If anyone had an issue with Charlie Kirk, they could just talk to him. That one chose instead to shoot him makes speech less likely to happen in the future and murder more likely.
What if you were trans in the other direction, identifying as male, but assigned female at birth?
I'm not sure what difference this makes.
I benefit from bad drivers not being allowed to operate multi-ton machinery on the same roads I use, whereas I do not benefit from requiring said licences to list what kind of gametes the operator of said machinery produces (very few motor vehicles are operated using the gonads), or for that matter, anything other than the licence-holder's name, date of birth, and photograph.
Police regularly use identification to catch criminals. If identification is not accurate, that makes their job harder. I benefit from police being able to quickly and accurately identify people. If we are to have licenses, they should at least be useful for this purpose.
Also, we can still prohibit people from driving even if we don't have a licensing regime.
Markass
Not the worst
22d ago
#1: Pictures and videos can easily be manipulated to make trans people look passing. I'm not talking about AI or anything like that, just techniques (that ironically enough, real women use too) like filters to hide blemishes/shadows and using angles that are most appealing. I'm talking about most appearances of trans people in my daily life. They do stick out like a sore thumb. The trans-identifying females less so, but I can tell the difference.
"Outing" is unrelated to transgenderism. You can threaten to "out" someone's anonymous identity, for example StoneToss being outed as Hans Christian Graeber. When trans people are "outed", it's usually the reveal of their birth name, or even just making it common knowledge that they are trans and it's acceptable to speak of them as such. The central example that comes to my mind is a trans-identifying man being unwillingly outed to his parents, perhaps because they don't approve of his identity. Were he not outed, he would just be their son to them, meaning he doesn't pass. I'm not sure how passing is relevant here.
#2: Even if I believe this, I think it's negligible evidence and there are other explanations that are more probable. Many forms have standard questions about pregnancy risks even for guys. And doctors may have just adopted a universal set of questions regardless of gender identity because it reduces the risk of a malpractice lawsuit for failing to ask a critical question, but no one's gonna sue them if they ask a man if he's pregnant.
#3: Even if this is true and they pass there, it does not follow that a man on the street in everyday life could pass. People do not usually cosplay as anime girls in real life.
#4: "Transvestigators" are conspiracy theorists by another name and I don't use or endorse any of their methodology. There are obviously many similarities between male and female bodies, but that doesn't mean it's likely that a man can pass as a woman. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence.
Your position on noticing non-passing trans people seems unfalsifiable. If I don't notice a person is trans, that's them successfully passing. If I do notice them being trans and they are poorly passing, then I'm just cherry-picking because I'm not counting all the successful people. Then is there even a set of observations that could refute the assertion that trans people typically pass, if all can be explained the same way? What if we agree to compare the rates of non-passing trans people with the percentage of the population that trans people are? I notice that in my daily life, the number of obviously trans people I can count divided by the number of people I notice or interact with, is roughly proportional to the percentage of trans people that make up the population. It's entirely possible that I missed one or two trans people who pass extremely well, but I'm fine concluding from my observations that most trans people don't pass.
Well discomfort for birth sex but I think generally so.
I will have to admit that I don't know what exactly I would do if I had discomfort for my birth sex, but I would probably seek treatment and not transition due to the surgeries basically being medieval torture. I would continue to weigh the costs and benefits of each option and see if they are worth it, as I have done here.
Markass
Not the worst
22d ago
There are not roaming death squads hunting down and killing conservatives either.
There aren't, but I would imagine that if I was a notable conservative figure, I would be much more worried about a lone assassin tracking me down and hunting me, in the wake of Charlie Kirk's death. That seems to be kind of the point of such political violence.
Now this is just blatantly not true, I've seen plenty of passing trans people.
How do you know they were trans if they were passing? I'm not trying to do a gotcha, I'm genuinely curious.
I see this similarly to someone who is carrying a concealed weapon. Isn't the entire point of carrying concealed that you don't know if someone is carrying concealed? If they, for example, tell others that they are carrying concealed, that defeats the utility of concealment. In the same way, a real woman isn't telling everyone that she is a woman, because other people see her and automatically recognize her as one. Ideally, a trans person wouldn't have to tell others their preferred gender, it would just be obvious to everyone. They wouldn't even have to say "my pronouns are she/her".
I still feel like most trans people don't pass because I've never thought of someone as non-trans only to find out that they were trans later.
How the heck do you know what you do there? If you were trans, how do you know you wouldn't be able understand their problems? Certainly in this hypothetical you would have those same feelings of discomfort about being identified as male.
Is discomfort about being identified as male a prerequisite for being trans? If I'm a trans person but I have no such discomfort, am I not a real trans person? These are questions even trans activists have disagreements on.
Either way, I don't think that it's sustainable to make all efforts to remove any way I could possibly be identified or categorized as male, so I think it would be reasonable to draw the line somewhere.
Markass
Not the worst
22d ago
I suppose I would feel stung from having invested so much into a title that is now less useful, but it's not as if me removing "Dr." from everywhere means that I no longer have a PhD. I might protest, but only to the extent of making my voice heard. I don't think it would be a big deal in the grand scheme of things, and I would probably have bigger things in my life to worry about.
The big difference is that I can't see there being a good reason for the change in PhD accreditation, especially retroactively. Meanwhile, changing back the definition of gender to be the one that billions of people have understood for thousands of generations, and which is rooted in biological reality, makes sense to me.
I take that as seriously as I take his song about "Licc'em Low Lisa". That is to say, it reads like a joke to me. When I was young, I used to think inserting three K's randomly into words was the height of comedy. That doesn't mean I was seriously pushing a race-based narrative.
More options
Context Copy link