The costs of trans visibility
Yesterday, Dylan Mulvaney broke her silence: https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/vi....
For context, this is a trans influencer who built a 10 million strong following on TikTok. She took a brand deal with budweiser to post an ad on an instagram, and the anti-trans right went absolutely ballistic, calling for a boycott, condemning the company, and to some perhaps unknowable degree it influenced that Budweiser sales dropped by a 1/4 and
. Dylan speaks more personally about the effect of the hatred on her.
What strikes me about this story is that it is just about visibility. This isn't inclusion in sports or gender-affirming care for minors, it was just that a trans person was visible. This wasn't even visibility in a TV commerical that a poor right-winger is forced to see, it was an ad on her own instagram page. We're all in our own social media algorithm influenced bubbles, but from my vantage point it really has seemed that in the last year or so things have just gotten worse for trans people and the backlash to even minor visibility is growing.
We need to do better.
What the **** does this even mean? The Constitution is simply man made law. That law could allow for govt to spend money on healthcare. Regardless, it has mechanisms to be changed whether you want govt sponsored healthcare or don’t. It you don’t want govt sponsored healthcare you can even pass such laws with out invoking any constitutional changes.
Your arguments about the constitutionality of healthcare, medical licenses and parental r
I understand you can't read, but try again.
"my preferred society would have a constitution that bans government intervention in healthcare and doesn't allow state licensing of jobs". While the state should mantain power to protect minors from abuse, including parental abuse (ie parental rights wouldn't be absolute, in my preference, in the constitution).
We were discussing how i would like things to be, what is the libertarian model of minarchism and so on. Is that too hard to understand?
100% made up, maybe not by you, but by someone, years ago, and debunked thoroughly.
Exhausting
You are either totally misinformed, or in complete bad faith.
From the official FRA ("fundamental rights agency) EU site (updated in 2017, so UK was in)
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/201...
Exhausting to deal with people that constantly deny actual objective reality, all the times. Exhausting.
I understand you can't read, but try again.
"my preferred society would have a constitution that bans government intervention in healthcare and doesn't allow state licensing of jobs". While the state should mantain power to protect minors from abuse, including parental abuse (ie parental rights wouldn't be absolute, in my preference, in the constitution).
We were discussing how i would like things to be, what is the libertarian model of minar
Right. It all in your head how it should be in your fantasy world. You never preference your comments with "in my preferred society.". Maybe another radically skew left language issue?
Meanwhile, when we are talking about the actual reality of USA healthcare and comparing it to Finland, Denmark and Sweden, it all sounds like lunatic rantings.
You are the one who can't keep your fantasy world out of the your criticisms of real world problems that don't require a new constitutional framework, not us.
Right. It all in your head how it should be in your fantasy world.
Meanwhile, when we are talking about the actual reality of USA healthcare and comparing it to Finland, Denmark and Sweden, it all sounds like lunatic rantings.
You are the one who can't keep your fantasy world out of real world problems, not us
Lol jfc other people addressed me claiming what should be the libertarian approach and I answered to that.
Meanwhile we are talking minors can be mutilated against parental consent in some countries, which you denied.
the ****? like 10 countries allow blockers and hormones and surgery without parent approval over 14-15.
are you at the " no wait it isn't actually happening" stage of delusion? your political allies allowed for that. your friends. the people you defend in this thread
Your own research sinks your own claims. Not one country lets a 14-15 year old have genital reconstructive surgery without parental consent. You are the Caitlyn Jenner of the thread, contradicting your own claims.
The summary of key points from the study in your post #6185:
In thirteen out of twenty-eight Member States, general surgery rules apply as regards the age at which children can request a sex reassignment surgery. In this context, the age requirement for access to medical treatment without the consent of the parents or of a public authority is 18 years in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, France, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, and 15 years in Slovenia. In the United Kingdom the age requirement ranges from 16 in Scotland to 17 in England and 18 in Wales. In Belgium, Estonia, Germany and Luxembourg the child’s maturity is assessed.
In Austria, Czechia, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden the minimum age requirement to request sex reassignment surgery is explicitly set at the age of 18.
Overall, twenty Member States (and Wales) only allow sex reassignment surgeries in individuals over the age of 18. Out of these, twelve Member States also set 18 as the age requirement for transgender hormone therapy, while in the case of sex reassignment surgery, eight countries (Czechia, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Latvia, Poland, Spain and Sweden) ask for a higher age than for transgender hormone therapy.
In Ireland and Malta, the age requirement for sex reassignment surgery is 16 years.
Croatia allows children to have sex reassignment surgery before the age of 18 if they have parental consent, without laying down any specific minimum age requirement.
You are literally quoting a part where it says Slovenia at 15 allows it, and 4, other countries can allow it on a case by case basis.
But no surprise, you simply can't read.
You are literally quoting a part where it says Slovenia at 15 allows it, and 4, other countries can allow it on a case by case basis.
But no surprise, you simply can't read.
Well you have 5 countries that you can research and find one case of it occurring. Seems to me you should be able to produce multiple examples for us.
It's not possible that the countries that allow it on a "case by case basis" rejected every single request, right?
Saw a stupid ****ing post on twitter that stated Switzerland required its citizens to own guns
All just blatantly made up Right Wing propaganda.
The Swiss Army is a citizen militia, with a core of regulars but mainly part-time reservists based on male conscription from age 19 to 34 (excluding the one-third found unfit for service), and the men are required to keep their personal weapons (usually SIG SG 550 assault rifles) at home, though since 2007 they have not been allowed to keep ammunition.
You are either totally misinformed, or in complete bad faith.
From the official FRA ("fundamental rights agency) EU site (updated in 2017, so UK was in)
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/201...
Exhausting to deal with people that constantly deny actual objective reality, all the times. Exhausting.
Has literally never happened by a licensed professional. You are incensed about your imagination.
Also, lol at 1 country being "like 10 countries"
Its exhausting
The Swiss Army is a citizen militia, with a core of regulars but mainly part-time reservists based on male conscription from age 19 to 34 (excluding the one-third found unfit for service), and the men are required to keep their personal weapons (usually SIG SG 550 assault rifles) at home, though since 2007 they have not been allowed to keep ammunition.
Not sure what this has to do with the claim that Switzerland "requires all its citizens to own guns" being used as a talking point for why American needs 400 million guns
Why are people discussing anything with an age cutoff of 14-15? In the US, young people are considered minors and not allowed to decide very much until the age of 18. If we're discussing what minors are having done in the US, it should include those who are 16 or 17.
Because the conversation broadened to the ROW and Luciom's make-believe land of Liberaltarium when comparing national healthcare policy differences.
Marxism has an oppressor vs oppressed narrative/explanation based on class
Cultural Marxism is a term used to explain a massive portion of the current left. It's an oppressor vs oppressed narrative but now it's not based on class but identity. Sex, race, sexuality, etc
The reason we have biological males making a mockery of female sports is because trans rank higher than females in oppression.
You're correct that this is how the term is used by like, right wing redditors. At least, as far as I can tell, this is what they mean.
OP is correct that it's a very foolish over simplification.
Critical theory and some stuff that we call post modernism do explicitly try to apply Marxian thinking to other areas, which obviously Marx himself would reject.
Those writers are only taken seriously by some people. Chances are, they are totally ignored in your local philosophy department.
They probably are taken very seriously in your local post colonial communications department.
Some people do accept some version of these ideas without really knowing much about them or where they come from.
It's very possible to be neither a Marxist, nor a pomoist and to believe that this or that group is mistreated and deserves better and/or to be leftist. Out of the 99 trillion examples: abolitionists, Bernie Sanders, suffragettes, lw anarchists, most gay rights advocates, Peter Singer (animal rights), Malcom X....
Why are people discussing anything with an age cutoff of 14-15? In the US, young people are considered minors and not allowed to decide very much until the age of 18. If we're discussing what minors are having done in the US, it should include those who are 16 or 17.
Because that's the threshold some countries decided are proper to allow minors to be mutilated, against parental consent, if a radical leftist mutilator physician agrees.
Not sure what this has to do with the claim that Switzerland "requires all its citizens to own guns" being used as a talking point for why American needs 400 million guns
Idea being a lot of swiss households own guns, but gun deaths are very low.
A needed example of why it isn't guns that kill people, it's people that kill people.
Has literally never happened by a licensed professional. You are incensed about your imagination.
Also, lol at 1 country being "like 10 countries"
Its exhausting
Except all the countries that decide case by case, including some 14y old, if they are "mature enough" (and the communist judge decides)
luciom, please buy an english language dictionary and lookup words like radical and communist
All the countries that decide case by case qualift unless there is a strict age limit (which they don't have).
If the law allows even a single minor to self mutilate at 15 without parental consent, that qualifies as one of the 10 countries.
And you know that
I know you have not been able to post any examples of your imaginary fears yet.
A great tune to listen to while looking for that surgery:
Crazy
Toys in the attic, I am crazy
Truly gone fishing
They must have taken my marbles away
Crazy, toys in the attic he is crazy
Idea being a lot of swiss households own guns, but gun deaths are very low.
A needed example of why it isn't guns that kill people, it's people that kill people.
Right, both of you have made reasonable arguments based on facts. Facts that support your position.
So why did the twitter post need to straight up lie? Its just lying for lying's sake, and its exhausting.
Honduras isn't even the highest homicide rate in the world and Switzerland isn't the lowest.
I wouldn't be surprised if the populations were wrong too. (they are) Maybe the info graphic is 15 years old
Why are people discussing anything with an age cutoff of 14-15? In the US, young people are considered minors and not allowed to decide very much until the age of 18. If we're discussing what minors are having done in the US, it should include those who are 16 or 17.
But where are the libertarians? Isn't regulating the transition of children behind their parents back contradictory? lol who cares. It's disgusting
You're correct that this is how the term is used by like, right wing redditors. At least, as far as I can tell, this is what they mean.
I'll take your word for it. As far as I can tell the term came from within academia from those that had the courage to speak out
That's a weird statement. Is a bottle opener a foolish oversimplification? The term accurately and concisely describes an ideology. It would only be foolish if it falsely misled people to not give cultural marxism its due respect. Since it's not due any respect, that's a weird statement.
Critical theory and some stuff that we call post modernism do explicitly try to apply Marxian thinking to other areas, which obviously Marx himself would reject.
Those writers are only taken seriously by some people. Chances are, they are totally ignored in your local philosophy department.
They probably are taken very seriously in your local post colonial communications department.
Some people do accept some version of these ideas without r
The ideas are taken seriously by the vice president, much of the biden admin, medical institutions, admin at most universities, corporations with a DEI office etc
I think this also belongs itt
