Ada

You are the only moderator of both communities you moderate, so it sounds like a display bug

The right being lost isn’t the right to play sports. It’s the right to equality.

And it’s great that your for something that isn’t going to happen in our lifetimes. But in the mean time, trans people have to navigate the situation we do have.

at what point did i suggest rolling back rights for anyone?

When you said we should accept our removal from sports, and that we should be open to exclusion from the ability to use bathrooms in public.

As I said though, this conversation is an example of why you don’t see the behaviour you’re asking for. It’s because the responses always look like yours.

not everyone is able to follow the same news sources and some people who only get infomation on social media are subject to waves of propaganda news articles.

I very much understand that. However, this conversation is a classic example of the fact that even being told those statistics and having the context made clear, doesn’t actually change anything.

You may not have a desire to engage with those people and thats totally understandable, but there should be some people who are allies, who are able to engage in those types of conversations

There are. Lots of them! It’s why I am defensive with you, because despite the existence of folk like that, you don’t see them, and instead categorise trans people as largely being “all or nothing”. You are part of the group you were just talking about. The group that isn’t exposed to the right content, and instead, only knows what they see in an actively transphobic media and social media environment.

And as I said earlier, you won’t shift your opinion, you won’t ease off and stop fighting me, to become one of those people that helps trans folk. Instead, you’ll fight me, for daring to take issue with your framing of the situation, whilst blaming me for it at the same time.

Right now we are literally having everyone’s rights rolled back because thats how fascists like Trump act when you stand up to them

That’s our common ground right there. Yet instead of talking about that, you’re suggesting that actually, giving in and being ok with some of those rollbacks might be ok, as long as its trans people!

If you want allyship against facism, focus on the facism, rather than demanding that your allies capitulate to it

there is no suggestion being made here

Yes there is. I asked you what you think compromise looks like in real world terms

You replied with this

So a specific compromise would be when someone says that they accept transwomen as people deserving of respect and dignity, but i dont think they should be allowed to compete in professional sports as women, you dont call them a bigot or refuse to engage with them. Its saying "could you think of a way to esure womens safety that doesnt assume all trans people are sexual predators? " when they say women should be able to feel safe in locker rooms.

That is quite explicitly a suggestion. Or rather, two suggestions.

In this suggestion, you use the word “women” as if it doesn’t apply to trans women. ie, you say “women’s safety” when you clearly means cis women’s safety. Dangerous, because it normalises the attack on trans women that they aren’t women. And dangerous because it implies that trans women are a risk to cis women, when in fact, trans women are more at risk of sexual assault and violence than cis women are! There is danger here, but it’s not coming from the trans women, and framing it as if it is, and as if that is something that should be compromised on is dangerous to trans people.

There is no compromise, when that compromise involves having our safety ignored, and our rights rolled back. That’s not compromise.

Your statement seems to imply you think i disagree with you

You do. You are suggesting that trans people should offer to exclude themselves and give up our rights, because demanding equality is too much.

I am expressing concern about how other peoples actions will cause more negative pushback

Giving up some of our rights, rights that everyone else has, to appease the folk who enjoy those rights, when we are the ones more at risk of violence, and exclusion is not a viable middle ground like you seem to be implying it is.

Your framing of that as “all or nothing” means I very much disagree with you. You may think trans folk deserve rights and dignity, but you don’t believe trans people deserve the same rights as cis people

I’m Australian. I say something closer to “buh”, but I introduce vibrato to the sound down near my vocal cords, rather than by trilling the R in my mouth

“I think people should have respect” isn’t something you can say when the thing that follows is a list of arguments to exclude those very same people.

Even your framing highlights why trans folk are so frustrated. You talk about women’s safety, as if trans women aren’t part of that discussion, and on top of that, you completely brush over the fact that trans women are even more likely to be victims of violence and sexual assault than cis women.

And your response is that trans folk should just be OK with that, they should just compromise by accepting that their needs are viewed as less important than the needs of cis folk, and just silently accept exclusion.

The truth is, rights are won through social push back and confrontation. They are fought for, because they don’t just get handed over otherwise. Especially when there is political capital in exclusion.

I’m also going to highlight that despite engaging with you in good faith, you almost certainly haven’t become more accepting, and in fact have most likely become more entrenched in your position as you consider comebacks to my points.

That’s why

Literally no one thinks cis women and trans women are the same, so your compromise doesn’t mean anything in and of itself.

I’m asking you what your position means in real world terms. What are the consequences of these differences? Because that’s what really matters.

Feigned outrage because I asked you for specifics seems counter to your stated goals of reaching compromise and makes me question your motives.

That didn’t answer the question you replied to, and didn’t actually say anything. What does that all look like in real world terms in your mind? How does this “compromise” manifest? I’m guessing that it involves putting trans folk in harms way…

However, this is c/lemmybewholesome

You make a good point. I’ve deleted my comment. I was out of line bringing it to this community. My bad.

deleted by creator

Empathy being a sign of privilege isn’t the truth I needed to read today :/

Is it federated/does it have social elements?

Instances that don’t have email approval, captcha or manual approval, tend to get defederated pretty quickly, because they attract spam bots

CachyOS, because I wanted something arch based due to the archi wiki and rolling releases.

My media boxes run Ubuntu, but that will change when they get rebuilt/replaced at some point, most likely to Debian

There will not be any corrective steps anytime soon, because the UK government, who would need to implement those steps, is actively disinclined to make them, because even though it’s less transphobic than the previous government, it is still doing transphobia for political reasons.

This is a setback for immediate protections, but my view is that this isn’t necessarily bad in the long term, so long as corrective steps are taken to address the root issue.

There will be no corrective steps.

it should spur on actually solving the issues

It won’t, because it was brought about to achieve the exact opposite

Why would I care what your uninformed opinion on my response to oppression is?

Judges hear the case that’s brought, not the agenda of the groups that bring things.

Uh huh.

If that were true, this wouldn’t be an overturning of a previous ruling on appeal. If this were not influenced by political bias, you wouldn’t get different results in different courts. Judges wouldn’t be “conservative” or “progressive”. Judges wouldn’t nearly all be straight, elderly and white.

They are though, because the appointment process is shaped by political perspectives, because the acceptable rulings are shaped by political perspectives and the cases that get seen and funded are shaped by political perspectives.

The fact that no trans people were called during the trial is shaped by politics.

The judges chose to read and rule that sex is “biological” and binary, despite the legislation making no mention of it being biological, and despite the biological understanding of sex being that is very much not binary… All of that, you guessed it, shaped by politics…

That’s really all I have to say about that part.

Good for you. Trans people don’t have that choice.