There's a connection between the genocide that happened here in America of indigenous people and the genocide that is currently happening in Palestine.
If you look through the photos that are in the article, you can get a better idea of what the protest was about then the headline.
And Thanksgiving is an imperialist holiday, so that's the connection. But yeah visibility is good too.
Looks more like an antigenocide protest to me. Which is quite appropriate on Thanksgiving.
Postal workers maybe?
Smart is a judgment.
A lot of people don't have good access to education. Because the right-wing wants an uneducated electorate so they gut education. Because of systemic racism and oppression. Because of colonialism and genocide.
She needed to use language more skillfully. If she would have gone on Joe Rogan and talked about the steps the Biden administration had been taking towards legalizing marijuana, I bet she would have won.
It's my judgment that they didn't run a very smart campaign.
Yeah, I think the person that called it hate speech in the beginning was stretching and that it wasn't helpful.
It's far to commonly used, and much of society still thinks about gender and sex in the binary. But our society is also structured off these binaries and it causes issues for people who don't neatly fit in the boxes.
But what's the this group shit? I'm part of that group and I have been assuming good faith and acting in good faith. Please don't stereotype. And try to understand trans people are trying not to lose their healthcare and to have basic rights. Some of us are going to be more prickly than others.
I was trying to explain how it's being weaponized. As I went into in my follow up post, it's a very commonly used term, and I don't assume ill intent when it is used. People were asking what is wrong with it, and I was trying to explain.
But I don't think the original person who called the word out is right that it's hate speech. It has become a right wing dog whistle for exclusion. But it's a common usage, even on websites like planned parenthood it shows up. Calling it hate speech is an unfair stretch. Intention matters here.
Personally, I don't feel it's a very helpful concept. I don't fit neatly into any of the boxes aside from maybe intersex. I have sexual characteristics of both so my biological sex would be both.
But the debate about my rights are framed as male or female. Sarah McBride is being attacked for her bathroom choice based on 'biological sex'. And her sex isn't anyone's business but her Drs and people she shares it with to begin with. Plus what they mean is cis women's only bathrooms, because I'm sure they don't want trans masc people there either, and it's obvious segregation.
How long until the US gets its own propaganda firewall?
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.
Their criticism was against the struggle session happening at all. Because some trans posters critiqued the use of the term biological sex, and there is a reason we critique it.
Because your question wasn't in good faith, and your follow-ups to the replies you got prove that.
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.
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.
Well happy cake day anyway.
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.
I didn't call anyone a bigot. In fact I took that comment as a good faith question and answered in good faith.
Who's turning the firing squad around? The trans people trying to educate? Or the 'allies' who would prefer not to listen?
Cis male doesn't work? Or trans woman to go back to your original point.
Seriously, who's berating who here?
For real. Kamala was arguing like she was in a courtroom. Not helpful to be honest.
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.
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.