all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 31 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I genuinely don’t understand how the right wing have managed to pull this off. What a horrible outcome.

It hasn’t come up yet, but if I see anyone telling someone not to use a particular bathroom for any reason I will be standing up to them.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 24 points 5 months ago

    They’ve inflated the issue with constant media attention, and the government jumps on it as it’s better than tackling the actual issues people are facing of which the government supports.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    The only alternative is to form trans-unions as a collective so you are not so alone. That is how the workers are handling it since the government does not pass too many worker protection laws due to corporation lobbying. Good luck and all the best.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    But then who would the government have to use as the sacrificial lamb?

    And much like the lamb, entirely innocent, just wanting to live their life

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    I don't think this analogy is as effective as you think. Portraying trans people as "sacrificial lambs" both reasserts the notion that they are powerless and that their oppression is somehow a distraction from the imperialist project and not integral to it.

    Transphobia is a necessary element of white supremacy and colonialism because the very existence of trans people proves that naturalised gender and sexuality (and the accompanying oppression of women as men's property and baby makers) is arbitrary and not compatible with our material reality. It's systemic.

    Because it is systemic, we know that this oppression is also something that has to be constantly maintained in increasingly resource consuming and convoluted ways to enable transphobia in a liberal system that seeks legitimacy through moralized human "rights." That means that resistance is not only possible, but inevitably effective unless appropriated by those moralized values (which was largely how liberals tried to disarm queerness in the twenty-first century leading up to this more overt wave of trans genocide).

    Trans people are not helpless, and they aren't "sacrificial" any more than women, racialized people, indigenous people, disabled people, and any other queer people are. All of this oppression is inextricably linked, the narrative that they target one group to distract from oppression of the others is only effective with people who don't intuitively understand that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 2 points 5 months ago (24 children)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    They don't want women's toilets to be safe, they just want trans people to die. Trans men going to women's toilets and making people uncomfortable as they are legally required to will inevitably be spun into trans people being dangerous and unavoidably incompatible with the rest of society.

    This will allow them to argue for the necessity of queer ghettoes, as people in general use public toilets can not realistically give informed consent about having scary trans people in their spaces.

    There may be an intermediate/parallel step where they'll require trans people to give people the opportunity for informed consent. Legally require them announce themselves at the door, to wait for people who don't consent to leave, and to hang up a sign notifying people that a trans person is using this toilet right now. Trans people that want their privacy back are free to move to a ghetto and use the unisex toilets there.

    I give it until 2028 before trans people have to identify themselves in public spaces, until 2030 before children are forcefully removed from trans parents, and 2032 before life expectancy in trans concentration camps drops to under 10 years. Unless people left of labor take power electorally or otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe we should all go around with stickers saying “gender neutral toilet” and put them over every M/F sign we see

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    To be fair it says gents/ladies rather than male/female. Or its a picture showing its for people in trousers or dresses. I suspect there is a strong argument for instructions unclear.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (19 children)

    I don't like that the r slur has wormed itself back into common parlance, we nearly completely killed it off then suddenly it came back from nowhere

    Edit: spelling

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (18 children)

    How old are you? Pretty sure people have used it for decades, at least since I was in school.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    That doesn't make it not a slur?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    When I call a someone a cunt it's not exactly supposed to be a compliment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Do you also call someone an N word?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    @Korhaka@sopuli.xyz

    This is a much more relevant question.

    Cunt and R slur are not even comparable. But n word and r slur are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    I wouldn't order them like that tbh for lest to most offensive. I would put cunt in the middle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

    It's that it's very directly targeted at a group of people, would you call someone that's not gay a

    Faggot
    ?

    It's the implications of "this group of people are inherently bad, and therefore my comparison of you to them is an insult"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    Faggot is a weird American one so probably not personally but I can easily see context where I wouldn't be too bothered by it's usage

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (4 children)

    The point ain't the word, it's this:

    It's the implications of "this group of people are inherently bad, and therefore my comparison of you to them is an insult"

    Also no, it's not American, it's British, they imported it later

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    It's more that faggot isn't really a word I would use not because it's too offensive to use, but it just seems too American/irrelevant.

    With the right context I might use gay as a mild insult.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    Ah, so it's just that you're a prick and a homophobic one too, fair

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    35, and they did, then it went away, then it came back

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    I don't remember it going away. Is that a regional thing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    I know I noticed it seem like almost overnight a few years ago that a bunch of American places online were suddenly angry about it. But no one in the real world cared. If it's regional in the UK then I would guess London follows the US more than the rest of us?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments