Skip Navigation

Posts
5
Comments
240
Joined
4 yr. ago

Admin of lemmy.blahaj.zone

I can also be found on the microblog fediverse at @ada@blahaj.zone or on matrix at @ada:chat.blahaj.zone

  • Changes in legal or morphological sex is not relevant. This is not what we are discussing.

    Of course they're relevant. Sex being immutable, easy to define and binary is at the core of the tactics that transphobes use to exclude and legislate against trans folk.

    So the fact that it's not easy to define, has multiple definitions in different contexts, and has no single definition that works in all instances is very relevant.

    You talked about "genetic bio-chemical reproduction" earlier. There are women who have literally given birth, who have XY chromosomes. Similarly, there are XX men with SRY genes. Using your "genetic sex is the truth" approach, they are both folks with a different genetic sex to their physical and legal sex. A transphobe would catch those people and throw them under the bus too whilst they target trans people.

    The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework

    Yep. I'll agree with that. But the framework it is built on is not the end result. There is no meaning or intent behind the framework. There is nothing about it that is more "real".

    The real part isn't the genetic plan that was used to create someone. The real part is the body they're actually walking around in.

    To you, this is all an interesting argument. You're arguing about things in black and white, because none of it actually matters to you. So you can argue for how you think things should work.

    The very same arguments you are using are being weaponised and turned against gender diverse folk and intersex folk. Your re-use of them, arguing about some sort of ideal that exists only in your head isn't harmless. The fact that sex is nuanced, that gender is nuanced, that they both have multiple, contradicting definitions, and neither have a single definition that is more true than the others is incredibly important, because the only reason to ignore that is either to hurt people, or because you're so far removed from the reality of what's happening, that you place a higher priority on things being neat and tidy than on the people that false belief hurts.

  • I admitted there are edge cases.

    Then it's not binary.

    When you flip a coin, there is a chance that it will land on the side, yet we still use a coin flip for a 50:50 probability scenario because it is close enough.

    Absolutely. For day to day life, "there are two outcomes" is safe way to describe coin flips. But given that a coin landing on its side can happen, it's not a binary system. It only becomes binary when we ignore the edge cases. Just like sex...

    And that's before we get to the point that there isn't even a single definition of sex that accounts for all scenarios. People can change their legal sex, people can change their morphological sex, "genetic sex" isn't foolproof, as it doesn't always correlate with morphological sexual characteristics, or even gamete production.

    Calling sex binary is either a generalisation, or something you want to be true. At no point is it reality of the situation though...

  • It is a binary with some edge cases

    So in other words, not a binary? What you're describing is more accurately described as a bimodal distribution.

  • TikTok basically invented shorts. Maybe Snapchat.

    That would be Vine

  • If it actually worked, it would be really useful for a lot of people (it's me. I'm a lot of people)

  • And smart clients/UIs like tesseract realise that the link is to a remote lemmy instance, and then give you the option of viewing it remotely or from your own instances perspective

  • On the horizon? They crossed that horizon a long time ago. It's just going to accelerate now

  • Any place with anonymous/ephermal account and posts as the default is going to attract the worst people in the world....

  • Reports federate, in a limited way. They federate to the instance the community is hosted on, the instance the reported user is hosted on, the instance the reporting user is hosted on (well technically, it doesn't federate to the last one, as that is where it started). I don't believe that a report will federate to a remote instance that doesn't meet one of those criteria, even if it hosts a moderator for the community, but I'm not certain about this one.

    Either way, report resolutions don't directly federate, so resolving a report doesn't resolve it on the other instances. It looks like they federate, because post removal from a mod federates, and removing a post auto closes the report. However, a report that was spurious or a troll or whatever that isn't going to be actioned, has to be manually closed down on each instance it federates to.

  • Phones are already too small. I use a fold because it's the only way I can get a decent sized phone now!

  • As soon as Jellyfin allows downloads for offline viewing

    Time to jump ship then...

  • Jellyfin has had sync play for a long time

  • Yeah, it does

  • Downvotes aren’t how you address racists and bigots. Banning them is.

    Downvoting is a tool that racists and bigots use when they’re trying to avoid getting banned though. On top of that, most targetted groups are minorities, which by definition, have small numbers. All off which means that the impact of downvotes hits vulnerable minorities harder than it hits bigots.

    To you, this is some sort of hypothetical ideal that you’d like to see. In your mind, if things “worked the way they should”, downvoting would be a useful tool. But things don’t work the way the should. They work they way they are used, and in this case, that means they often hurt vulnerable groups more than they help them, despite how it ‘should be”

  • In your analogy, downvotes aren't the tool. Social media is the tool. And turning off downvotes is how we use that tool to match our needs.

  • Same with b.zone

  • It’s also really easy to weaponise against minorities

  • I'm sorry it played out that way for you, but even so, what you're advocating for hurts people too. Even if that's not your intention, it still does, and I think that's something that should be part of your consideration when approaching this topic.

    I'm sorry it hurt you, but I'm not going to ignore stuff that hurts my community

  • The first half of your post is you talking about trauma you’ve received from other people, telling you that you’re wrong/evil/broken/perverted etc.

    The second half of your post is explaining how you think it’s ok for you to do the same thing to others, because you do it “for the right reasons”

    When you confront a bigot with transphobia pushed to the extreme, what you do is add to the trauma that every trans person already has to deal with daily. You don’t magically convert someone from bigotry. Bigots aren’t bigots because they reasons their way in to bigotry, and so you can’t stop them from being bigots by reasoning them out of it.