Fucking FINALLY.
Yes, women should be armed. Gay people should be armed. Trans people should be armed. Religious minorities should be armed. People that are on the political left never should have ceded the right to keep and bear arms to the political right.
I’m planning on getting certified as a firearms instructor through the NRA (because no matter how shitty the NRA-ILA is, the training programs are solid) this coming year so that I can start working with The Pink Pistols and Operation Blazing Spear.
I would strongly suggest that people try reading This Nonviolence Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible.
If you’re one of the people that is considering getting a gun, please listen to the “It Could Happen Here” podcast episode titled, Safe Gun Ownership.
I have a conundrum, maybe people in this thread can weigh in.
I’m a woman living in an area with a small but loud MAGA faction and useless police who are probably also Trump supporters. I’m also not white.
Hunting is common here, and although I’ve never been I do know how to shoot and have access to classes if I want to improve. We also have friends and family with firearms and a couple of them live nearby.
I feel like I should get a gun. I know how to use one and I want to be able to protect myself if necessary. But I’m scared of firearms. Something about them disturbs me. Maybe it’s the likelihood of someone dying once a gun comes out. Maybe it’s just a fear, however unfounded, that I can’t or shouldn’t handle such a powerful tool. But the reason behind the feeling doesn’t matter so much as my ability to overcome it, and I’m not sure I can. If I had money to burn I’d buy one just to see how I feel, but I don’t so I can’t.
In short, I’m torn. I want to be able to just get a gun for peace of mind and call it a day, but I fear that as soon as the gun is in my house I will become a nervous wreck and that will defeat the whole purpose.
I’d love to hear from anyone who feels the same or has overcome this fear.
Training and familiarization helped me a lot with that exact feeling. I had the same feeling about circular/table saws. My dad was a carpenter, and those things freaked me the hell out - one tiny mistake could have devastating consequences, and that was all I could think about when I was around them. But with careful instruction and exposure, learing to use and be more comfortable with them, that feeling was gradually replaced by calm and confidence, and they changed in my mind from these objects of terror into valuable tools. There was still fear, but it was a healthy, respectful fear.
I went through the exact same process with guns as well. Some classes with a good instructor, giving you a chance to get more comfortable and familiar before you bring a gun into your home, could help a lot.
I don’t own a gun and feel the same as you. I am leaning toward getting a gun safe and keeping the gun and ammo locked up and hidden. If it gathers dust that’s great, but having it there if I need it would be a comfort I think.
Take a reputable course and learn about guns. They are dangerous in the hands of irresponsible untrained yokels but if you are smart and informed they can empower you and safeguard your well being.
Guns have traditionally been a pacifier for anxious right-wing weirdos who are afraid of Nancy Pelosi, but they are also a good hedge against those right-wing weirdos and will be a pacifier for your anxiety about them
'Cause nothing solves a gun problem like more guns**
** I am a gun owner for the exact reasons cited in the article.
ah i see Aleksandr Dugin’s book is coming along as he planned.
Own a corporation that owns all of your property. Have many guns. It’s the American way.
The whole Russian project was to have our “polite society” collapse as we, as Americans, lost all faith in our institutions and turned against one another and in the process, also lost any kind of collective identity, which makes us a weaker target externally. That happened.
It’s crazy to me, looking back, how much this was openly discussed along the way, as it successfully happened in slow motion over the last 10-15 years - wasn’t there also a book released that just laid their strategy bare? If there are historians in the future, will be amazing to read the perspective on all of this with time and analysis from those not trapped within the cycle of death and hopelessness.
Yes it is called the foundations of geopolitics, written by Aleksandr Dugin. Its free to read on the internet archive.
It works because those of us who read and learn about things like this are a minority of the population. Not one large enough to counteract the effect either.
I think our society in reality is fine mostly; gun sales to conservatives under the Obama administration surged due to their fears at the time; now it happens again just in reverse.
The key problem is that the internet is separating people and allowing foreign actors and cynical domestic interests to create filters of what people hear and see.
you count yourself among a learned few then you should go out and create local events and spread local news as much as possible. People need to interact outside of their bubbles more and they would come to see mostly that they are both reasonable. It is only the facts that are current in question between the two isles, not necessarily the principles.
Checking 2 boxes out of 4 from the Libertarian dream
Lol, this thread is a train wreck and is the perfect example of why Republicans keep winning elections despite being on the wrong side of history and having policies that hurt the American population at large.
The left will never win as long as we form circular firing squads and argue over petty bullshit.
why do you think the guns are pointed in a circle
Triangles are too pointy
firing squads
You need guns for that.
lol
So very much this.
I like how your comment is the perfect example of the behavior that you claim to oppose. You’re cutting into the left while identifying yourself as left, and everything you wrote was destructive. Congratulations?
There are several reasonable positions that a person could take on this issue. You could point out the entertainment in increased calls for gun regulation. You could point out the consistency with saying that you’re going to arm yourself as long as guns are legal, but also be in favor of increased gun regulation. You could point out that there are different factions within the Democratic party and on the left in general, and how people all have their own varying agendas. You could encourage a general strategy for Democrats and Democrat supporters to get along. But you did none of that, because you didn’t care. And I don’t mind if you care, but I want other people to see it, just in case they do.
Or you could understand that “gun ownership” and “gun regulation” are not incompatible concepts, despite NRA/Russian propaganda to the contrary.
The dude is trying to give some necessary criticism, but apparently everyone is immune to that.
Criticism is not destruction, unless you are okay with the current status quo
deleted by creator
Keep forming that circular firing squad.
I’m going to slip out and duck down over here to eat some popcorn.
Nah man, people in here are not open to criticism unless it’s “the way they like it” which is none criticism at all.
Just blame the Latino voters and move on
Jessie McGrath, 63, a lifelong Republican who is trans, grew up around guns on farms in Colorado and Nebraska. She decided to vote for Harris when Republicans started attacking gender-affirming care and “wanting to basically outlaw my ability to exist”. She ended up being a delegate at the Democratic national convention.
“Government getting involved in making healthcare decisions is something that I never thought I would see the Republican party doing,” she said.
What the actual…how are people this ignorant.
You know how some cis people are fucking morons? We won’t better than y’all.
She was 100% on board with them regulating reproductive care because it has never personally affected her as a biological male.
She only has an issue now that her favorite team turned on her after telling her for the last 30 years that she’s next.
Assigned male at birth is the term you want to use. “Biological male” is a term used by transphobes to spread misinformation.
Biology is very complex and not your elementary school version of biology. What makes someone “biologically” male? Is it having a penis, having testis, having more testosterone than estrogen, having XY chromosomes? These can all be intermixed with other characteristics.
The “basic biology” definition doesn’t work in the real world, and the people using it are actively trying to harm trans people or ignorant. Now you’re more informed so ignorance isn’t an excuse anymore.
Removed by mod
Small matter of clarification. Liberal and far left are as far apart as liberal and far right.
I know you’re a Marxist, and disagree with the typical definitions of leftist politics, i was just trying to refer to those at the tail end of liberalism.
deleted by creator
Its because sexual differentiation is many process that starts with an SRY gene and ends with hormone receptors all over the body. Evolution also acts on all of it at each step of the process. A good example is like chest hair patterns on men which are all over the place.
You can have a penis if the correct receptors are triggered while still not having testes or an SRY gene.
Evolution also has examples of creatures that evolved so that both sexes (hyenas) or none (many birds) have a penis in different creatures and where sexuality is environmentally determined (turtles). These evolutionary pressures that created all these animals may be acting on humans also.
Which all comes down to the idea that the way we treat people is socially constructed. Like we don’t want murder so we lock up murderers.
People who want to legislate biological binaries are saying there’s an inherent danger to society in allowing the edge cases to exist. I and many others would argue this is a kind of short-sighted eugenics program that disallows human diversity for purely aesthetic reasons.
The results are like intersex babies getting gruesome gender assignment surgeries to fit better into the binary so when scientists later poll people they get results created by the binary. We’re sort of basking in our own farts when we talk about biological sex.
Edit: it appears the person we’re replying to is uninterested in factual discussion and is just here to reinforce his own hateful worldview.
Is an intersex person biologically male and female then?
Is a person with xy chromosomes and a vagina but no penis female?
That’s the issue. Male and female sex assignments are a binary based in language, social relations, and the opinion of the Dr making the assignment based on the information they have. And a binary doesn’t allow for all of the variations we’re aware of, let alone the ones we’re not.
Hence, assigned sex. Not biological sex.
You are claiming that biological male and female has no use because of the edge cases where its not so clear, but its still useful most the time.
Besides, assigned at birth is pretty clear too. Doesnt say assigned at birth and can never change or assigned at birth and we are super sure.
You can’t just say people can’t use a bunch of words because transphobes have used it as an insult. The words are still meaningful, and hateful people will say literally anything. Why give them any power in the first place?
If someone says some awful transphobic shit, then fuck their opinion and fuck them and move on with your day. They aren’t suddenly some messiah giving you gospel. Dont let them live rent free in your head.
I feel like I didn’t explain the position very well earlier and I think that the initial poster whi called out the word wasn’t as gentle about it as they could have been, which set the tone for the conversation.
It is used in common speech a lot, and because of that I think people should get a lot of grace around it. I mean shit it’s on the planned Parenthood website.
However it’s really not a very precise word. And due to that lack of precision, it is being weaponized by fascism to enact discriminatory legislation.
I pulled this quote off of Reddit and they do a much better job of breaking it down than I did.
Everyone has the biological and genetic capability for both androgenic and estrogenic secondary sex characteristics.
If I’m “biologically male” why am I able to grow tits just like any other woman? I may have once been some sense of biologically male, but my genotype is capable of producing female phenotypes just like anyone else with the necessary exposure to corresponding sex steroids.
DNA has no sex. We all have the genes to be either. The only real difference is whether a single little gene called SRY is on or off. And even then, that can be fuzzy too.
It’s just a bad descriptor of a very complex thing. Sex isn’t immutable, gender is whatever, and the only reason to bring someone’s “biology” into it is if you either misunderstand it or are being intentionally harmful.
Yeah the use of the word is in relation to the edge cases, where it is not useful.
These discussions are around the edge cases. Use the accepted terms that experts use to refer to these people.
It’s not about it being an insult. It’s about being skeptical of the existence of trans people and using language to affect our very real material conditions, like access to healthcare or using bathrooms we feel safe in.
Assigned sex at birth is both more accurate, and more inclusive.
Hey look the firing squad is starting to bend in towards itself.
We gotta make sure we use the right words before we can even begin to have a productive conversation, if those words change every 6 months that’s just too bad, use the current one or you’re a bigot.
You didn’t even debate my point. I was only referring to amab and afabs. I don’t care about the edge cases because they’re not part of the point I’m making. It’s been well known that individuals with XY chromosomes and a penis are biologically male a.k.a amab, so what’s the difference?
I’m asking my own questions to critique your position. I didn’t ignore it. This is a debate technique that goes back at least to Socrates.
Is an xy person born with a vagina biologically male? Biologically female? Biologically neither? Or biologically both?
Edit: Oh I see, the mistake I made was thinking that your initial question was in good faith and now that I see that it’s not I will just put you on block.
What about people with testis but no penis? What about people with XY chromosomes but a vagina? What about people with a penis and vagina?
“Basic biology” is the problem. You think a high school course was enough for you to have a complete understanding of biology. Biology is complex and messy, which your class didn’t discuss. It taught rigid definitions, which don’t exist in nature. Hormones define biological development. Every individual has different levels of different hormones, and also things just happen strangely sometimes too.
There’s also an issue with intersex people where some are born with both male and female genitals and the doctor (without consulting anyone else) may remove components the baby was born with to make them fit the rigid definition of male or female that they decided.
Nature is complex. Not understanding the complexity is fine, as long as you don’t pretend to. If you insist that your understanding is complete though then you’re arrogant and ignorant. It’s best not to be that way because it prevents learning and improving yourself.
I haven’t even had bottom surgery yet, but thanks to HRT my metabolism is much more in line with that of a typical woman than that of a man. Meaning that it is much more accurate to refer to me as a biological woman than as a biological man. So saying I’m the later isn’t just insulting, it is even scientifically incorrect. A trans woman who has received bottom surgery is in fact for pretty much all intents and purposes the same as a cis woman who has received a radical hysterectomy. Unless you call that kind of cis woman a biological man, doing the same to the trans woman is just as nonsensical.
And yes, this really affects pretty much everything: The treatment of things like brain tumors depends on biological sex and if you treat a trans woman like a man you are going to see the same bad outcomes that treating a cis woman like a man would have. Because again: Trans woman are (from a certain point in their transition onwards) biological women. Yes, it changes, get over it.
The reason to talk about amab/afab is specifically because they are the only terms that are reasonably consistent in all edge cases, except clerical errors.
Amab and afab are equivalent to biological male or female, just less explicit I suppose.
Would you still argue that you are more biologically female than male if you considered that your DNA in every bit of your body still has the male set of chromosome?
I’m not arguing against you, more so arguing that the distinction doesnt much matter and could be argued either way. I’d rather just take someone’s word for it when they say who they are. Thats the whole point isnt it, acceptance?
Amab and afab are equivalent to biological male or female, just less explicit I suppose.
That’s the point: They are not! Any sensible interpretation of a biological sex has to look at the whole system and we have comprehensively proven that biological sex can be changed. It’s a spectrum to begin with. Refusing that is like refusing that irrational numbers exist and claiming that every number can be written as a fraction: Understandable if you subject-matter education ends in 7th grade, but not if you actually looked into somewhat deeper at all.
Would you still argue that you are more biologically female than male if you considered that your DNA in every bit of your body still has the male set of chromosome?
For starters, define male set of chromosomes. If you say XY, then you will be interested to learn about De-la-Chapelle-Syndrom and Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome.
But even if we put that aside, the thing is: Chromosomes really don’t matter all that much. The relevant differences primarily lie with organs and hormone-levels. Now, there are things you can do with gene-therapy (there was for example that trans girl who used CRISPR on herself to get her testicles to produce E instead of T). So it’s not that they don’t play any role at all anymore when you are an adult, but what matters much more is the overall metabolism and HRT is absolutely capable of switching that around.
Like: Name the difference between a post-op transwoman and a cis woman who received a radical hysterectomy. Their metabolisms are functionally identical and both will have to substitute the same amount of Estradiol, because both lack ovaries. Chromosomes really don’t affect anything here, so insisting that they create a biological distinction, when they clearly don’t have any effect anymore is completely arbitrary.
I’m not arguing against you, more so arguing that the distinction doesnt much matter and could be argued either way. I’d rather just take someone’s word for it when they say who they are. Thats the whole point isnt it, acceptance?
The thing is: That is about accepting someone’s gender, which is usually indeed the more important thing.
But biological sex of course also exists and the important thing for many of us is that it can in fact be changed and the claim that it can’t is deeply problematic and harmful.
Thats the whole point isnt it, acceptance?
Right, and ‘biological sex’ is used as an exclusionary weapon that affects material policies.
Would you still argue that you are more biologically female than male if you considered that your DNA in every bit of your body still has the male set of chromosome?
There’s people assigned female at birth with those chromosomes. Are they ‘biologically male or female’? That’s a rhetorical question. The point is sex assigned at birth is a more accurate term for what is put on people’s birth certificates. Because sex assignment, and by proxy gender assignment, is based in sociology, not biology. And transphobes love using the argument from nature to justify real world policies and discrimination based on this sociological phenomenon.
If you’re an ally, please listen to the folks living this and think critically about your own positions regarding these two terms. There’s a lot of excellent literature on the topic and right now more than ever we need solidarity, not more skepticism.
There’s a lot of trans-medicalism in your post comrade.
A trans woman is a woman, full stop.
HRT and bottom surgery doesn’t define a person’s gender. Only affirm it.
That said, I do like pointing out to transphobes that I have less testosterone and more estrogen than my afab girlfriend thanks to gender affirming care.
… They are talking about their lived experience, boiling it down to an -ism is daft.
Her and I already worked it out.
Transmedicalism is an issue in the trans community. You can read her response, she didn’t call me daft. She just gently explained her position.
And I responded with the hangups transmedicalism has personally caused me in my own transition. So that she would have a better understanding of where the comment you replied to was coming from.
There’s a lot of trans-medicalism in your post comrade.
Not really, no. I’m talking about biological sex, not gender.
A trans woman is a woman, full stop.
For non-medical and non-biological cases: Yes, and no one say disputes that.
The thing is that there are some people who don’t believe that for the other cases. I’m pointing out that while it is indeed a bit more complicated and takes some work to fully get there, trans women can even medically/biologically be women.
HRT and bottom surgery doesn’t define a person’s gender. Only affirm it.
Indeed. They change the biological sex, which helps affirming gender.
That said, I do like pointing out to transphobes that I have less testosterone and more estrogen than my afab girlfriend thanks to gender affirming care.
Which makes you biologically a woman. I really think we should hammer that point home and not let people get away with it by limiting our criticism to the choice of words, when we are scientifically in the right.
That’s fair.
I just know in my own journey I have asked myself am I woman enough if I keep the dick.
Am I trans enough if I keep the dick. And the conclusion I came to is that if I have a cock or not I’m still a woman.
But yes there are biological differences between myself who is on HRT and myself before hand.
Biological sex is not as cut and dry as you might think.
Assigned male at birth is overall a better more descriptive term, as through medical transition trans people acquire different sexual characteristics.
I’m not an expert in the field but this is how I’ve seen people more educated than me in biology describe it.
Yeah. Biologically, my sex is distinctly transfeminine as someone post transition, before transition, I like many trans people was some variety of intersex, but assigned male at birth puts me into the big bin that means what they were trying to say.
Though also blaming trans women’s assigned sex at birth for willingness to vote Republican is weird considering how much more likely cis women are than trans women to vote that way.
Not just More likely, but historically more likely.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-11-07/white-women-vote-donald-trump-kamala-harris
You are correct, horse_battery_staple. (Sorry). But yeah, a white trans woman who’s a republican is notable, but a white cis woman who’s a republican is a significant portion of my coworkers. Hell, I’d be shocked if we weren’t more pro choice than cis women statistically, not out of superiority or anything but because we’re more likely to have been driven away from politics and religion that tend to promote anti choice beliefs and because we won’t have the miscarriage trauma that I’ve seen drives some women towards anti choice beliefs.
I’m pretty sure you’re often confused.
Who assigned them male at birth? What if they were raised like a cisgender female typically would be in our society?
What makes someone “assigned at birth”? Is it dressing in masculine clothes, is it having a name like Michael and Billy, is it having a circumcision? These can all be comingled with other variations of child rearing.
Just because a parent assigns a “gender” at birth doesn’t make it someone’s actual identifying “gender”. As a young child they have no say in the matter and it’s quite frankly wrong to whitewash their childhood history and personal trauma like that.
Now that you’re more informed, I hope moving forward you stop trying to erase people’s adolescent psychological adversity.
Man, just reread what was shared with you and take the learning experience. You tried to be cute by making a mad-lib out of it and you sound way worse now than you did two comments up.
Edit hours later after checking to see if my advice was heeded:
Oh no, I didn’t heed my trans wisdoms lords advice and they’ve decided to deride someone for a singular word choice to make themselves feel morally superior!
This will definitely advance the trans acceptance of the common person! Or maybe stay with me here for a moment, not everyone on the internet is as accepting as you are and when they see someone getting slammed for “wrong speak” it reinforces their shitty beliefs.
“If someone who loves and supports trans people is getting shit on for saying a double plus ungood word by other trans allies, then why would I ever want to be a part of that.”
I’ve heard these conversations verbatim from people I work with who hold actual hatred for trans people and trans acceptance. Once again though you’re all living for up votes and that brief instance you get to feel morally superior on the internet and share these snippets in your discord groups. This is clearly such a flippant topic for you that all you could muster up is a meme.
Assigned at birth is referring to what the doctor writes on your birth certificate. It’s not complicated. It has nothing to do with gender.
If you ever find yourself wondering why there’s people out there that don’t speak up about trans hate, just go reread your original reply to me. My comment was nothing close to hateful or bigoted, but you’re not gonna tolerate wrong speak on lemmy.
You clearly could see where I was coming from and where my support is directed. Instead of total indifference to my comment, which would have been the bare minimum amount of attention you could give to it. You decided to take umbrage with me saying “biological” instead of what makes you happy and throw out intersex groups that make up a fraction of a percent of the entire population like an uno reverse card.
Then to cap it off you made sure to declare that I’ve been “properly educated”, so sayeth you. So from here on out, I need to use the right language or… else?
I’m not quite sure what your final edict was supposed to imply. That if I don’t use the right language my trans friends won’t talk to me anymore? I’ll get kicked out of the gay club?
Instead of leaving it, you had to make it a point to punch down on someone who isn’t as “informed” as you and put me on blast like I just said the N word equivalent for trans persons.
Seriously, it’s great you want to help spread awareness, but damn you took a super hostile and adversarial tone right off the bat.
Just calling my shot here. I wrote all this out on my phone and it will not be well received despite the fact that there’s members of trans alliance and advocacy groups who disagree with your position and disagree with the use of “ASAB”. There’s people within the community who dislike using the term trans as a catch all.
Where do you personally draw the line? Are you going to stop saying ASAB now that you know some people don’t like it? Are you going to keep saying “trans” even though some people feel like it marginalizes the community and feels too informal to discuss complex gender identities?
For whatever reason people online are more interested in being outraged.
I didn’t take umbrage with your original comment. I just pointed out that it’s wrong and you should stop. I was annoyed when you seemed to double down.
Intersex people are just clear that “basic biology” is a non-functioning understanding of what biology is. Intersex people couldn’t exist if what you learned in high school bio was the end. It’s a clear indication that sex is not just some binary thing. It’s a very complex thing. Even non-intersex people have different developments in the growth due to different hormone levels and other things, and we can even control hormone levels artificially. It’s very complex, and the only useful term is AFAB/AMAB, and then more detailed medical records.
Then to cap it off you made sure to declare that I’ve been “properly educated”, so sayeth you. So from here on out, I need to use the right language or… else?
Yeah, use the more accurate language, or else we know you’re choosing not to. Nothings going to happen. Everyone gets to make choices in life. I can’t make you do anything, but from one cis-gendered person to another, it’s not difficult to be better. It’s just a choice.
You’re getting really offended by someone just informing you the language you used was wrong. It wasn’t even a particularly insulting comment.
Where do you personally draw the line? Are you going to stop saying ASAB now that you know some people don’t like it? Are you going to keep saying “trans” even though some people feel like it marginalizes the community and feels too informal to discuss complex gender identities?
I rarely have a use for either term, so I draw the line where it’s useful for others. If you’re a doctor, that’s where it matters, and after gender confirmation, your “sex” is a lot more complicated. After a while or hormone therapy, you’re more akin to your chosen sex than your birth sex. That’s why the “biologically male/female” term isn’t useful. It’s assuming their birth sex is their current sex for medical purposes, but it’s more complex than that. Sex assigned at birth is useful because it limits it to that period specifically, and your medical records tell the whole story.
The AEI article you posted seems to ignore this fact. It seems to say your birth sex is the important factor. It’s just one of many. For future development, the one your hormones correspond with is likely more important.
The CLR article mirrors what I’ve said earlier:
“By referring instead to sex assigned at birth, transgender rights advocates convey that “biological sex” is not simple, static, or binary and that gender identity also has biological aspects.”
For whatever reason people online are more interested in being outraged
I agree. People should be more calm, even when corrected. Being outraged doesn’t help. It only acts to cement our mind in preconceived ideas. Changing our minds when provided more information that counters our previous beliefs is something that should be commended, not fled from.
Got it.
I apologize.
You’re a the most qualified person on the internet for cisgender, trans, and intersex word policing.
Now that I know and if I don’t change, you’ll make sure to report it to the cisgender police for trans activities special victims unit…
It’s interesting you chose the statement “it’s not difficult to be better, it’s just a choice”. You could have started this entire interaction with “hey dude, just a heads up that a lot of transphobes use phrases like ‘biological male’ to invalidate trans identities”, but instead you took the opportunity to speak down to me and made sure I was now “educated” and that I can stop using wrong speak.
Thank God you’re here as an ally to make people question why those of us on this side of the fence can’t even get along internally.
I’m not a trans person, but I’m pretty sure that “assigned X at birth” refers to whatever gender is assigned on one’s birth certificate.
Calling trans women biological males is transphobic hate speech. Not allowed here.
It’s entirely relevant to the conversation. She couldn’t get pregnant, so she didn’t give a shit that women’s reproductive rights were on the table until the leopard ate her face personally. I’m as left as they come, but the virtue signaling you just did is why so many people get so turned off by so much rhetoric of our political side.
The term is assigned sex, not biological sex.
There is a reason myself and other trans people prefer this term.
As kipo goes into.
It’s not virtue signaling. The language the other person used is what the republicans constantly say when they are describing trans women because they don’t believe trans women are women, and it’s used to take away the rights of trans people, and it’s working.
There are plenty of ways to say that she isn’t cis and doesn’t have a uterus while being respectful – like I just did.
I’m as left as they come, but the virtue signaling you just did is why so many people get so turned off by so much rhetoric of our political side.
I think you want the trans community and its allies to not confront you on dangerous rhetoric then, while they constantly have to fight people on the left and right to keep from having their rights stripped away.
Being an ally means being open to learning when we make mistakes, and the language the other person used wasn’t appropriate. I hope you and others here can understand why.
It was just plain virtue signaling. This comment you made isn’t quite as plain, but it still isn’t helpful.
The difference is, in the first comment you just left it as, “not allowed here”, which is just signaling your virtue, and more importantly, not correcting or helping in any way. I implore you to explain why someone’s verbiage is wrong, not just shut people down with no explanation. Even in this comment, you didn’t offer an alternative for “biological male”, so the person you originally addressed likely will write you off, and keep saying it.
Your approach is just ineffective.
Educate, don’t berate.
Cis male doesn’t work? Or trans woman to go back to your original point.
Seriously, who’s berating who here?
Even in this comment, you didn’t offer an alternative for “biological male”
I absolutely did: “trans woman”.
I was educating. It’s 2024 and trans people are dying and having their basic human rights taken away, due in part to the pervasive rhetoric I originally called out. I expect better of people, and transphobic comments on lemmy are not welcome and break the rule of civility in the lemmy.world news community.
Also, you’re telling me - a trans person - that they are virtue signaling about trans issues.
Is there some republican legislation that makes gender affirming care impossible for a 63 year old?
Yes
Can you be more specific?
The house just made it illegal for trans people to use the bathroom they want in the capital, and Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia have banned people from changing their gender on their ID.
Tennessee also requires an ID to vote, so if a transgender woman shows up with a big old “M” on her state-issued ID, some fake-news-stolen-election minded poll worker can keep her from voting.
Granted, these don’t outlaw hormone therapy or anything, but these are gender affirming actions outlawed by the government.
Impossible is a strong word. But in places where gender affirming care isn’t accessible, rather that’s because insurance won’t pay for it, or because states have passed legislation against it, or legislation to deny hospitals that they fund resources if they offer it, then the option becomes the black market.
What we call DIY HRT.
Im a liberal guess who now has a gun safe with multiple guns?
I guess we are making America great again by arming the liberals too?
Also by helping the struggling gun industry
there’s an easy solution: only buy foreign made guns.
It’s not that easy. The vast majority of imports are banned and the remaining sporting imports are subject to significant restrictions. The overwhelming majority of guns sold in the US are produced in the US, even ones from foreign manufacturers. It’s not that dissimilar to cars.
I wouldn’t say that it’s the ‘vast majority’ of imports that are banned. The Gun Control Act of '68 mostly ends up applying to very small, often cheap, pistols (“Saturday night specials”), and guns that don’t have a “legitimate sporting purpose”. The ATF has said that practical shooting competitions (e.g., two gun, three gun, etc.) doesn’t count as “legitimate sporting purpose”, but the IWI Tavor is sold in the US, and is manufactured in Israel. source for that claim
Right now Turkish guns are having a moment. The Turks are making cheap firearms–sometimes very good, sometimes just cheap-- and sometimes making outright clones of more popular popular firearms. True, you’d be supporting Erdogan, but hey, you can’t always win.
Personally, I’m waiting for someone to start importing KMR pistols. The KMR L-02 Orca OR looks like an improved CZ Shadow II Orange, but I suspect the $3200 price tag is lot steep for most people. :(
Sweden: for when you need a gun but don’t want to fund domestic fascism, and also need some cheap furniture while arming yourself …and maybe could I get one of those fighter jets on the side?
The Czech Republic thanks you.
I get that but im surrounded by people with guns who could take everything from me if they chose to.
Are you sure you have enough guns?
I have enough to stop a bear or nazi
At this rate America’s 4B movement is gonna stand for “bang bang bang bang”…
I thought the whole point was not to bang?
Stop banging and start banging!
So anyway, I started blasting…
May I offer you an egg in this trying times?
Start blastin
i support this line of thinking. Why fuck people when you can just shoot them instead, wait…
The left needs to get on board with this. Govt isn’t going to protect you from far right militias when the shit hits the fan.
Not advocating anything, but there’s a “it could happen here” podcast episode for leftists out there, with some really good info.
AR-15 is a very good gun to get unless you’re in a state like CA. Shotgun sare good too, Mossberg is fairly affordable(btw, you still need to aim with shotguns). Glock 19 for a pistol, just know pistols are harder to use and you will need to train with it more.
Cops aren’t required to protect you from anything. Learn how to protect you and yours. And learn how to read situations, always.
They’re going to pardon the militias like Wheels McGee did to that protester murderer in Texas.
Don’t be ableist. There is plenty enough that is actually wrong with him that you could target instead of the fact that he’s disabled.
Nah, dude’s even used his disablement for more scumfuckery. The tree should’ve done a better job, and I hope he can’t fuck anymore.
I can agree that the tree really failed us all.
American ‘solutions’ for American problems
What would you do in this situation?
Use knives and poison
Stuff that doesn’t take 10 levels into rogue to work
Removed by mod
It’s a shame they’re inherently dangerous, hence why they aren’t used anymore. They have a high risk of spreading infection when blood/fluid ricochets back into the device while administering a dose. Thus contaminating the next one to be administered. Basically, the risk isn’t worth the convenience.
I still think they’re pretty cool. They’re the real life inspiration for Star Trek’s hypospray. Many people would love a device like this since fear of needles is quite common.
One colleague of mine has a huge fear of needles. She basically had to be held down by four people while getting her covid shot. It was necessary, she consented to the manhandling… but a device like this would’ve made it a lot less stressful for her to get the shot.
Yep. Still have my dimesized scar
Removed by mod
I do not blame any woman or queer person arming themselves in the U.S. right now. But I think that you should think of it as personal protection rather than preparation for something larger.
Be aware of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews
The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country’s population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson’s suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on.
Obviously, women and queer people are a lot more than 1% of the population, but you can’t count on every queer person being on the right side and you certainly can’t count on every woman to be on the right side.
It’s not about mounting an organized resistance. It’s about making the black bag squads scared of coming to your house specifically.
When the chips are down, nobody’s got your back like you do.
That’s literally what I said:
I think that you should think of it as personal protection rather than preparation for something larger.
That’s actually the sentence that was cryptic enough for me to misread it, but the rest of your comment is pretty clear.
I think we agree that it is important to consider parallels in history, but the US is not 1930s Germany.
The U.S. is almost exactly like 1930s Germany in 1932. It’s not 1933 yet.
Germany is roughly 138,000 square miles in size, while the USA is approximately 4,000,000 square miles.
The population of Germany in the 1930’s was roughly 60,000,000, the population of the US today, closer to 400,000,000.
The US does not share an international border with 10 different countries.
That’s just for starters. So while I agree there are parallels, there are a lot more differences that you’re not accounting for.
I don’t think you’re stupid and I think you’re able to read context, so why you’re pretending I wasn’t talking about the political atmosphere and playing this “well actually” game, I don’t know.
I really don’t want to argue, and my original comment was a direct response to your assertion that armed resistance in the US (if warranted) is essentially futile.
Again, yes there are parallels, which I continue to acknowledge, but the US is not Germany in a ton of relevant ways. Subsequently, a direct comparison between 1930’s Germany and 2025 US is inherently flawed, in regard to armed resistance - the main topic of your own original comment.
Is it possible that while you were busy erroneously ad homineming me with an accusation of '‘well actually(ing)’ you, that it was you who missed context? Or are you pretending I wasn’t talking about the topic of the comment I replied to and playing a ‘well actually’ game?
My reply to you was not hostile, why default to treating me adversarially? Why instead of discussing the topic that you brought up would you force me into this exhausting position? I believe you can do better than reddit tier.
The second amendment was not made for personal protection
It was also opposed by George Washington on the argument that “A bunch of farmers with guns will never defeat a trained army.” He basically did exactly that, but it took the support of one of the world’s largest super powers at the time in order to do it - France.
Not to say don’t arm yourself. I plan on doing exactly that myself. But don’t expect to be overthrowing the dictatorship to come. There are no resistance groups being armed by the EU here.
There are no resistance groups being armed by the EU here.
Not yet.
I’d like it if indigenous Amazonians had better tools than bows to defend against loggers, ranchers, miners and various land grabbers. And a few SAMs to take care of those chemical airborne attacks.
Same!
Washington was talking about the militias that were present in the early parts of the war that were under trained and undisciplined. The red coats took them easily and they fled often so the continental congress started the continental army lead by Washington, which was a trained and disciplined army in the style of European standing armies, which was able to take on and even defeat the British occasionally.
After the war the ruling elite still had this idealized vision of citizen militias protecting the liberty of white man and saw it as a less tyrannical, and cheaper model then the European professional standing army and made the second amendment to encourage it. Washington was saying that that system failed and will never work and that we should have a trained army ready to take on European powers if they come back.
Now we have the worst of both worlds, a massive army that gobbles up tax dollars and a bunch of untrained citizens with guns who barely understand what a militia is much less can protect the liberty of the nation.
Yeah, pretty much what I was getting at. We live in a country where everybody believes themselves to be the hero in their own Rambo style action movie.
“Just another American who saw too many movies as a child? Another orphan of a bankrupt culture who thinks he’s John Wayne? Rambo? Marshal Dillon?”
Edit: I can’t be the only person who’s seen Die Hard.
You mean the best Christmas movie?
I’m going to make myself harder to black bag.
Getting another superpower to arm Americans is like putting a hat on a hat
that was before tanks and instant communication. the army would have been less organized and maybe you could have a chance against the government, especially as a militia. today you don’t.
you do have a chance against a bunch of fuckwads who threaten you because the party they voted for won and the think they can rape freely now. just not the government.
The last three wars have been pretty recent, and haven’t not gone well against a foe no where near or equal. Not so much as a pyric victory, but an eventual unwillingness to keep wasting time and money and lives, and we just left. What do you call it when you just leave a war failing all your objectives and handing over territory to the enemy?
what are you talking about? control over your own land is nothing like invading a remote country halfway around the world.
Yes, like its two completely different things
How’d Afghanistan turn out?
in what way is the US even remotely comparable to Afghanistan?
We have psychos trying to implement a theocratic government and oppressing women and minorities like Afghanistan
lol… yeah but i meant in terms of using guns to oppose the government
That is historically true, unfortunately the conservative artificial supermajority Supreme Court doesn’t respect its own precedents and historical facts.
I mean the Supreme Court can say what they like. But their power is derived by the people. It can be taken back.
What a bunch of slave-owners thought about guns hundreds of years ago is not really relevant to today.
And if you’re going to attack someone for thinking people should be armed for the wrong reason, maybe you should find better targets.
Whoa, I’m not attacking you. I have a difference in opinion as to why people should be armed. Not saying that one does not have a right to self defense, just that i put stock in the need to collectively hold the government accountable and fight tyranny
i put stock in the need to collectively hold the government accountable and fight tyranny
It sounds good until the majority of gun owners in the country decide they like the tyranny.
Would you argue that the resistive elements in nazi Germany were wrong?
Not whatsoever, but we’re in the US, where although some leftists are armed, the dominant gun culture isn’t going to come out to defeat tyranny, they will come out to defend it. If Trump goes full dictator, these hypothetical armed antifascists resistance fighters will have to fight their way through legions of y’allqaeda before the US military (who I desperately hope will not recognize Trump’s authority in such a circumstance) ever has to worry about them.
In that case, that sounds like the left needs to get weapons and become organized, like i recommend. And not turn over and assume that the majority will let them live free… as a treat.
You are basically arguing to give up and die because it’s too hard.
When’re you gonna start?
And you can see why, from what I already wrote, that is not likely to work unless the majority is on your side. And the military.
The military has had a pretty lousy track record against gorilla warfare from much smaller, worse armed groups who, by the width of an ocean were unable to affect logistical lines, the means to project warfare, or the families of our soldiers. A Revolution within would be much worse.
How many innocent people died in those wars? It’s not very nice of you to be willing to put their lives on the line like that.
Oh? Now it’s a discussion about who should be sacrificed and for what. Freedom always has a cost. I never removed myself from the possibility. But right now, the royal “we”, seem to be sacrificing the minority, the different, the poor, the non christian and it gets worse every day. Freedoms are slipping, corporations get stronger, and standards of living and hope for the future fades. This will only accelerate. Arguing to arm oneself for personal protection but not collective action will doom all, but the chosen, to be picked off one by one.
Guns!, the cause and solution to most of America’s problems.
Nah, man, the ultimate cause is always anti-black racism.
Along with weaponized religion and stupidity of course
Removed by mod
