Really? Because if you listen to the press young people "unanimously hate this and want Albanese's head over it".
They're honest about their partisan leanings.
News is dead anyway. Basically the only credible news source is political party newsletters, because at least they're honest.
My concern isn't with transgender people, it's with transgenderism as a religion. The kind that sees anyone who does not share the same beliefs as them to be the devil incarnate, and will go on holy crusades to impose that view on others.
And often the most dogmatic aren't even trans themselves. They take a radical position, dunk on anyone who disagrees with them, and think that makes them a hero.
I support the right of trans women to exist in society. I also support the right for them to be treated as women, but I don't support that view being imposed on others especially by force of law. I don't think it even qualifies transphobia to not see trans women as women, that's just a social faux pass.
What's the alternative? The basically unusable Mojeek? Rawdogging Bing? SearXNG?
At the very least, I'd be far more approving if they didn't make me pay for a separate 300 AI searches I'd never use. If it was just "600 searches, of any type" or even just "300 searches, of any type" that would be far more acceptable.
What about the title?
Scrapping 86,000 new car parking spaces could save $5.2bn and drive down rents, housing report finds
If developing property becomes more profitable, there will be more competition in the market.
That aside, underground parking spaces are ridiculously expensive to build and requiring every apartment resident to pay for parking spaces regardless of how many they use just drives up car ownership, which is what really drives down the quality of a city.
It's not so much being invisible as it is avoiding highly publicized debates between "women's groups" and trans people. There are other, safer, spaces to be visible.
We've seen as a result of this court ruling in favour of trans rights that Minns is calling for changes around prisons and sports. Then again in the UK we're seeing a court ruling against trans rights do the same (although UK Labour, and especially health secretary Wes Streeting, are particularly vile human beings so that might not be a factor).
Based on these two data points, we see trans rights regress when there is a highly publicized court ruling. Keeping matters of trans rights out of the domain of the courts seems like the best way to prevent this from happening.
Enshrining the most important trans rights into law (bathrooms, healthcare, prisons, and general anti-discrimination protections) while leaving issues like gender segregated social activities up to the organizer's discretion is the best way to protect trans rights.
My tone was probably a bit harsh because I was getting frustrated with how dogmatic the "trans women are women" crowd is. Yes we should individually treat them as such, the law should also treat them as such, but drawing a legal line that they should be treated as such is a step too far.
The needs to trans people should be accommodated. But the preferences of the more dogmatic trans people should not be respected at any cost, there has to be room for another's comfort.
It's not bigotry for women to be uncomfortable around men in women only space. While I try my best to treat trans women as women, it's not right to demand that women feel as comfortable around trans women as they do around cis women.
There is a middle ground between "treat trans people exactly like cis women at all times and in all circumstances, steamrolling the concerns of any women who are uncomfortable" and erasure.
The racial analogue doesn't fit. The existence of women-only spaces isn't meant to discriminate against men because men are provided comparable alternatives, and they're only discriminatory against trans women because they're not provided an alternative.
Trans women are women, but forcing women to emotionally react to trans women as if they were cis women is not a decision we can or should make for them. Feelings don't care about your facts.
I'll try to come up with some conflicts of interest of the top of my head:
- Women generally prefer restrooms to be gender segregated as a matter of privacy. Trans women who don't have the same eldritch horrors of bodies likely don't fall under the same privacy grouping. Some places have taken the step of making all restrooms unisex but women often don't like it when that happens.
- Lesbian romantic events exist for women to meet other women, and while generally we should treat trans women as women, in no universe can or should we impose that onto people's sexuality.
- Someone who's had a traumatic experience with men and goes to a women-only space, only to discover that someone they've been talking to has been AMAB all along. It could be a healing or re-traumatizing experience, but it shouldn't be imposed upon them as a matter of trans inclusion.
- While trans women aren't necessarily better at sports than cis women, when they are it's reasonable to think their birth sex might play a part (whether right or wrong). That thought alone discourages participation in women's sports.
The article is a bit hyperbolic, Realistically there is a middle ground which everyone can live with. Still it's Chris Minns so all bets are off.
The court ruling sounds reasonable. Cis women might not be comfortable around trans women in female only spaces and saying "just get over it" isn't really progressive. Denial that there is a genuine conflict of interest here is also counterproductive.
We also need to recognize that the median voter is supportive of trans rights in general but tends not to be on specific issues. Trying to brute force it with government policy will likely have the opposite effect.
The concern is if this ends up extending the ability to exclude trans women from women-only spaces to places which are "generally" gender segregated like bathrooms or team sports. If we end up without measures that protect the right of trans women to participate in society then that would be unacceptable.
I just installed Bitwarden because 979 2FA started refusing to show my codes unless I set up a password and fingerprint (and fails when I try anyway). Now to find something else I guess.
Scientology has qualities that make it, specifically, a target. They're secretive, cultish, and litigious.
Generally the type doesn't matter. The age of exposure does, but the type doesn't.
As for weed, whataboutism isn't helpful.
I can second this. It seems to me pretty clearly that these policies are being passed based on genuine concern for the children. They're poorly designed but they come from a good place.
view more:
next ›