> 1) It's a medical condition. Better activism doesn't lead to better patient outcomes. It just puts conflicting pressures on already overtaxed doctors that make it hard for them to treat patients properly. See what's happening to trans folks for an example.
What? Activism by trans people is directly responsible for the improvement of the lives of trans people (see informed consent for example).
"In the last five years, more anti-trans legislation has been proposed in the United States than in the previous 200 years combined." [0]
You have to look at the real world, not the world that (presumably) we both wish we lived in. In real life, activism just leads to counter-activism.
I'm not saying that trans folks aren't better off now than they were a decade ago, but I am saying that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you have a medical condition that needs treatment you probably don't need a line of dummies lining up to block you as you walk in because you've turned your condition into "Activism."
Some things are made worse by turning it into politics.
I am looking in the real world where trans activism was the cause for informed consent and younger transitions. Vastly improving the lives of trans people in the US.
Trans people are better off now specifically due to trans activism.
Every action having an "equal and opposite reaction" is a physics concept which doesn't apply here.
> Synonyms of bigot
> a narrow-minded person who obstinately adheres to their own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who strongly and unfairly dislikes or feels hatred toward others based on their group membership
I merely shared a behaviorial observation of something I find odd. At no time did I react with prejudice or hate towards any particular group.
"favourable book review of someone that has unproven and controversial but absolutely not fringe views" imagine saying this in 1930 and suddenly it doesn't sound as innocent.
WhatsApp is a fact of life in locales like Europe, India and Indonesia. There is literally no avoiding it if you want to have a job or function in society.
I don't use Meta products, and haven't for many years. But I still have a Facebook account, because a) deleting it would be a fairly rigorous process, and b) as long as I maintain the account, I have some control over the information about me that Meta maintains; if I deleted the account, they would maintain a "shadow profile" for me that I had no control over, and (for instance) any photos tagged as containing me, I would not be able to go in and untag.
> It’s even easier to delete your WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook accounts.
Unfortunately, it's not, at least for Whatsapp.
That's a part of the issue - as there is no open access federation requirement, there are messenger islands. Whatsapp for the non-tech folks, Telegram for those who either are wary of Meta, want gambling, or a service decidedly not affiliated with the American judicial sphere, Signal and Threema for the utter nerds/journalists/activists, iMessage for the Apple crowd, or the now-defunct rich bro network of Blackberry. SMS, MMS or its replacement RCS that the carriers are trying (and failing) to push, I don't even count these given how faded to irrelevance they all are. Oh, and then there are (particularly in the Asian market) all the country specific "everything in one"-apps that Musk tried and failed to convert X to.
And particularly among the non-tech folks, no way to get them to use anything but Whatsapp. Network effects are a thing, hence the EU's push to break up the walled gardens at least a tiny tiny bit, but it will take years until it's implemented.
Ok sure, delete Instagram and Facebook then. That seems easier to start, no?
But you're assuming these messaging apps are something we need and have to have and then solving backward from there.
While I certainly recognize that a society may have made the mistake of going all-in on a proprietary app in order to participate in society (whoops!), I can tell you for a fact that it's not required for any given society to function because I don't have any of these apps and just use SMS and e-mail and I am able to work, coordinate events with friends, make dinner reservations, and send funny videos. I can also vouch for the United States, specifically that such apps aren't required.
So we can clearly separate out that we don't need these apps to function as a society - we can go back to the question of morality. In the US if you are "against" Meta or Mark Zuckerberg or whatever, you can just delete the apps because you don't need them.
This poster is a well known transphobic troll that makes new accounts every week and implies that trans women are autistic males who "pretend" to be women because of sexism.
That being said, saying presenting instead of being is not ideal indeed.
I completely disagree, I find this claim to also be unsupported by the current evidence. Identity is only a part of being trans and often comes much later.
In the 2010s there was a sort of emancipation for trans people, and you could see them more and more often being openly involved with open source software. It is only natrual to want to turn open source communities to be explicitly accepting.
Not convinced trans (especially trans women) weren't already over-represented prior as open source allows low barriers to join and anonymity on top of predominantly male (and trans women) + young.
You may not be convinced but I am simply stating my experience. I would be open to proof of the opposite. This is also seen in other open source adjacent communities around the world (eg: hacker conventions)
> In the 2010s there was a sort of emancipation for trans people, and you could see them more and more often being openly involved with open source software
It was "your" claim about others and in general ("you could see"), i.e., not mine or your anecdotal awareness.
> I would be open to proof of the opposite.
It's on you to prove LGBT, especially T, weren't already over-represented (versus typical population) in open source prior to the 2010s.
I can't possibly be the victim of anything as long as you stick to the party line. After all, isn't doing its bidding new morality, and isn't its opposition nothing but evil ghouls? </sarcasm>
If I really hated people, perhaps I would suggest to troubled ones that hating their own body to the point of mutilating it is the solution to their problems
What? Activism by trans people is directly responsible for the improvement of the lives of trans people (see informed consent for example).
reply